Member Info for Love_You

Yes but some people profited handsomely from manipulating this price down to 23p - the sun may be out - and hopefully the people who traded it down to an irrational price can reflect on their own greed and whether they can look back with self-respect and pride on their trading behaviour at the time?

Hi all,

If VOG were not being paid for delivering gas to a significant end user - and they did a placing without putting this information in the public domain for potential investors in the placing - then that would indeed contravene Rule 11 of AIM !

Were are the regulators to look into this and to uphold the AIM rules?

Chevron produces about 2,000,000 barrels of liquids daily (oil and condensate). They sold to Genel 30% of an undeveloped field which when developed may add at most 30,000 of liquids to Chevron's daily production.

You could say the scale of the asset was not significant to Chevron - and they are getting a good deal financially anyway as Genel well be paying 50% of the development costs in return for 30% of the produced oil.

However it's very tough for small oil companies to grow and has been for the past decade as the financial system has been funnelling most of the spare capital to the largest companies. Hence in a strange way it's also rather a good deal for Genel as they have a manageable growth project - and even receiving 30% of the revenues/produced oil will still be quite financially rewarding in comparison to Genel's current market capitalisation.

Tatt,

Rationally Tlw would only see large increases in sp if the price of oil rise by 25-50%.

I don't think Tullow have the projects alone to triple the share price over the next few years just on the basis of positive operational updates - unless Guyana comes on stream well before the dates being talked about of 2024.

But you can't feed people with tweets - tweets don't provide people with houses, cars, fuel, clothes, and fun activities.

I find it deeply disturbing that anyone can think fundamentals are no longer important - thorough analysis of economic fundamentals are the things which have enabled the human species to be as successful as it has been up to this point - I see no evidence that making money out of tweets is going to be a good thing for most citizens - oh well bring on the civil wars within Western economies which is what government economic lunacy probably deserves - those in charge don't even seem to have the intelligence to develop natural resources based on prioritising those projects which have the greatest economies of scale - there is a lot for citizens to be justifiably angry about and yet it wouldn't take a genius to fix a lot of the economic ills if only the right person were Chancellor. .

Yes, but why the low at 20p? Why did the FTSE drop 1,000 points for no reason and then rebound by 800 points within 48 hours?

And we let these people/algorithms run the prices within the economy - the prices they come up with are less stable than most people which society categorises as rather on the unstable side.

I'm just saying it can't be good for the financial system for assets to be worth 30p one day and 60p next week. Surely a bit more stability within financial markets would be good for the general economy as a whole? Look at the market capitalisation of Apple - it is almost $1 Trillion - how many years will it be before Apple returns even half a Trillion in cash to shareholders? Does the current market capitalisation make much sense when the world is crying out for cheaper oil and Apple is just hoarding cash instead of spending it on ew technologies to aid the oil industry in reducing costs, improving productivity, and discovering new fields?

It's completely unfair that Tesco's was allowed to buy Booker which was all about putting up the prices in corner shops and reducing the competition to Tescos.

On the other hand the Sainsbury's and Asda proposed merger was all about the benefits to consumers which could be gained from economies of scale within the merged business - and due to these economies of scale prices could have been lowered by at least 10% - which would have been great for consumers as it would have made Tescos also think about lowering their prices in order to be competitive!

CMA should of at least rejected the Booker-Tescos merger if they then went and rejected the Sainsburys-Asda proposed tie-up.

I hope the people at the CMA or any consultants involved in the decision don't hold any Tescos shares - or haven't lent any money to the suppliers of Sainsbury's or ASDA - if so that would be very naughty as it would put their own personal interests in diametric opposition to those of the UK consumers at large.

Or the banks could just recall the loans and put this company into administration - and then do a new IPO of the exact same assets and employees to raise further capital

I'm afraid after observing the behaviour of bankers I have about zero faith left in any rational behaviour or outcomes. If bankers were rational this project would have progressed during the period of high oil prices from 2010-2014 when oil averaged about $110 per barrel. Instead crappy little projects of an uneconomic scale such as Solan were financed and Barryoe was left without access to development finance - turned out Solan will struggle to even recoup the project development and subsequent operating costs (in fact it is very unlikely to do so) and PMO's shareholders will have to use any profits from the Catcher development to cover the losses from Solan.

Meanwhile PMO could have bought Barryoe and developed it for less than Solan cost in total - and yet Barryoe contains between 6 and 12 times as much recoverable oil as Solan. Who the heck makes these decisions which go against the basics of rational economics?

Or the banks could just recall the loans and put this company into administration - and then do a new IPO of the exact same asses and employees to raise further capital.

I'm afraid after observing the behaviour of bankers I have about zero faith left in any rational behaviour or outcomes.

How can this share price have gone down to 20p in 2011?

It went down from 50p to 20p over a few months and then subsequently went up to nearly 80p per share.

Anyone who bought near to 20p could have made over a 300% return over just a few years.

How can the market allow this to happen .... if the risks to equity value were so high in 2011 then how on Earth did everything turn out so well that the share price nearly quadrupled by 2015?

Who analyses these risks and trades the share price up or down? Who do they need to justify their decisions to given that it affects the whole UK economy? And if they get their decisions wrong who are they held account by - for example when the share price fell to 20p in 2011 it did a great deal of reputational damage to the financial markets, to the city of London, and caused a lot of financial worry to Lloyds employees and shareholders - yet this price, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, was clearly not reflective of the true risk-reward facing Lloyds during that period in 2011 - so which traders were resposnible for the low price of 20p and who are they accountable to?

Home food delivery is already being done by loads of companies in the UK.

With an average M&S basket size of £16, (which is amongst the lowest of any UK supermarket), it seems likely that M&S would severely struggle to be price competitive in this already over-crowded sector of the economy.

Exactly - home food delivery is done by loads of companies already in the UK. with an average basket size of £16, which is amongst the lowest of any UK supermarket, I think M&S would severely struggle to be price competitive in the UK's home-delivery food market.

Yes, but in previous times that money raise but at a higher price than any previous shareholders had bought in at - hence not disadvantaging any previous investors.

Now the market is giving all the money to companies like Uber, Lyft and even US arms manufacturers ….. if BT or Vodafone tried to raise $10 Billion from the market what do you think the market would say? I suspect they would say we would want to buy the new shares at a large discount to the current market prices - which is ridiculous really as these companies have already been massively discounted by the market over the past couple of years - but is that a sign they are part of a declining trend and won't be part of the future in terms of the way that the global economy evolves over the next 10-20 years?

Personally I sold out at 216p per share past year. For me I didn't like the way they were treating their employees and forcing them to agree to changes in their pension plans which some workers would have been working towards/counting on for decades - it's hardly fair to employ someone at 22 years old and then when they're 52 to tell them well forget about all the benefits and the pension you were promised - if you want to keep your job you will have to agree to a far lower future pensions (and for many it will now be based on contributions rather than a defined benefit scheme - but if you were promised a defined benefit scheme under your original employment contract then it isn't fair that BT changed the rules - which nobody previously believed would have been a legal thing to do - just as many workers were approaching within a decade of their retirement age).

Yes, but in previous times that money
ADVERTISEMENT

that went to Uber was available to be used for buying new BT equity at higher prices - i.e., BT could do a capital raise but at a higher price than any previous shareholders had bought in at - hence not disadvantaging any previous investors.

Now the market is giving all the money to companies like Uber, Lyft and even US arms manufacturers ….. if BT or Vodafone tried to raise $10 Billion from the market what do you think the market would say? I suspect they would say we would want to buy the new shares at a large discount to the current market prices - which is ridiculous really as these companies have already been massively discounted by the market over the past couple of years - but is that a sign they are part of a declining trend and won't be part of the future in terms of the way that the global economy evolves over the next 10-20 years?

Personally I sold out at 216p per share past year. For me I didn't like the way they were treating their employees and forcing them to agree to changes in their pension plans which some workers would have been working towards/counting on for decades - it's hardly fair to employ someone at 22 years old and then when they're 52 to tell them well forget about all the benefits and the pension you were promised - if you want to keep your job you will have to agree to a far lower future pensions (and for many it will now be based on contributions rather than a defined benefit scheme - but if you were promised a defined benefit scheme under your original employment contract then it isn't fair that BT changed the rules - which nobody previously believed would have been a legal thing to do - just as many workers were approaching within a decade of their retirement age).

Yes, but in previous times that money that went to Uber was available to be used for buying new BT equity at higher prices - i.e., BT could do a capital raise but at a higher price than any previous shareholders had bought in at - hence not disadvantaging any previous investors.

Now the market is giving all the money to companies like Uber, Lyft and even US arms manufacturers ….. if BT or Vodafone tried to raise $10 Billion from the market what do you think the market would say? I suspect they would say we would want to buy the new shares at a large discount to the current market prices - which is ridiculous really as these companies have already been massively discounted by the market over the past couple of years - but is that a sign they are part of a declining trend and won't be part of the future in terms of the way that the global economy evolves over the next 10-20 years?

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

The problem is greedy Shareholders and CEO's intentionally forcing these companies into administration whilst paying themselves massive bonuses! How it works is you buy a company cheap say £10 million, then secure loans against it for £15 million, pay yourself a bonus of £15 million, then the company goes into administration and it's totally legal, as was proven by what happened to Phones 4 U, Debenhams and many others. The people at the top always walk away with loads of money in their pockets and it os the Taxpayer who are left to pick up the tab. This has now become standard business practice, but if you look at who it is behind this, it's all foreign investors or people like Mr.Green!

Companies are being put into administration - with shareholders losing everything - so that the banks can then re-lend against a lower valuation, or can re-issue equity at a lower valuation - and in doing so bolster their capital ratios. Yet the bankers forget that although this may bolster their capital ratios it is actually sucking all of the original equity value (what the shareholders believed the shares to be worth when they bought them) out of the UK economy - which is going to lower the amount of money flowing around the UK economy in future - which is possibly going to inflict further losses on the people who bought the re-issued new equity or the people who took on the new loans against the re-valued/re-structured business.

It all sounds a bit like a negative, self-perpetuating, downwards spiral in terms of the economy. Individual decisions are always good for the individuals involved - but on the whole the economy seems to be slowing and the public are getting more annoyed about being told things will get better for the last 10 years - when for most people things have got worse (national insurance rises, enforced pension contributions, zero-hours contracts, reduced premiums for working Sundays, axing of defined -benefit pensions, explosion of pension fraud and incorrect information regarding pensions transfers to less-beneficial annuity schemes, foreign-owned utiilities increasing prices and then moving capital abroad without re-investing in UK, etc.)

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

The problem is greedy Shareholders and CEO's intentionally forcing these companies into administration whilst paying themselves massive bonuses! How it works is you buy a company cheap say £10 million, then secure loans against it for £15 million, pay yourself a bonus of £15 million, then the company goes into administration and it's totally legal, as was proven by what happened to Phones 4 U, Debenhams and many others. The people at the top always walk away with loads of money
ADVERTISEMENT

in their pockets and it os the Taxpayer who are left to pick up the tab. This has now become standard business practice, but if you look at who it is behind this, it's all foreign investors or people like Mr.Green!

Companies are being put into administration - with shareholders losing everything - so that the banks can then re-lend against a lower valuation, or can re-issue equity at a lower valuation - and in doing so bolster their capital ratios. Yet the bankers forget that although this may bolster their capital ratios it is actually sucking all of the original equity value (what the shareholders believed the shares to be worth when they bought them) out of the UK economy - which is going to lower the amount of money flowing around the UK economy in future - which is possibly going to inflict further losses on the people who bought the re-issued new equity or the people who took on the new loans against the re-valued/re-structured business.

It all sounds a bit like a negative, self-perpetuating, downwards spiral in terms of the economy. Individual decisions are always good for the individuals involved - but on the whole the economy seems to be slowing and the public are getting more annoyed about being told things will get better for the last 10 years - when for most people things have got worse (national insurance rises, enforced pension contributions, zero-hours contracts, reduced premiums for working Sundays, axing of defined -benefit pensions, explosion of pension fraud and incorrect information regarding pensions transfers to less-beneficial annuity schemes, foreign-owned utiilities increasing prices and then moving capital abroad without re-investing in UK, etc.)

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

The problem is greedy Shareholders and CEO's intentionally forcing these companies into administration whilst paying themselves massive bonuses! How it works is you buy a company cheap say £10 million, then secure loans against it for £15 million, pay yourself a bonus of £15 million, then the company goes into administration and it's totally legal, as was proven by what happened to Phones 4 U, Debenhams and many others. The people at the top always walk away with loads of money in their pockets and it os the Taxpayer who are left to pick up the tab. This has now become standard business practice, but if you look at who it is behind this, it's all foreign investors or people like Mr.Green!

Companies are being put into administration - with shareholders losing everything - so that the banks can then re-lend against a lower valuation, or can re-issue equity at a lower valuation - and in doing so bolster their capital ratios. Yet the bankers forget that although this may bolster their capital ratios it is actually sucking all of the original equity value (what the shareholders believed the shares to be worth when they bought them) out of the UK economy - which is going to lower the amount of money flowing around the UK economy in future - which is possibly going to inflict further losses on the people who bought the re-issued new equity or the people who took on the new loans against the re-valued/re-structured business.

It all sounds a bit like a negative, self-perpetuating, downwards spiral in terms of the economy. Individual decisions are always good for the individuals involved - but on the whole the economy seems to be slowing and the public are getting more annoyed about being told things will get better for the last 10 years - when for most people things have got worse (national insurance rises, enforced pension contributions, zero-hours contracts, reduced premiums for working Sundays, axing of defined -benefit pensions, explosion of pension fraud and incorrect information regarding pensions transfers to less-beneficial annuity schemes, foreign-owned utiilities increasing prices and then moving capital abroad without re-investing in UK, etc.)

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/end-greece-apos-banking-nightmare-070023055.html

The Greek banking system is saddled with a very large number of non-performing loans, a legacy of protracted recession. Nearly half of all loans have gone sour, according to Bank of Greece data, and that’s only marginally less bad than the nadir of a year and a half ago. Last spring, the European Central Bank cleared Greece’s four largest banks in a tailored stress test.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/eurob.at/

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

I'm not really sure that any economic reality on the ground can explain how the Greek stock market went from 1,700 in 1998 to 6,000 by the year 2,000, only to fall to 1,800 in 2004, only to recover to 5,000 by the year 2007, only to fall to less than 1,000 by 2012 and to remain less than 1,000 ever since (and it's now 2019!).

Seems that share prices are largely the result of algorithms in the financial markets - as I'm not sure the actual Greek economy could have triped from 1998 to 2,000 and then shrunk to a third of that size by 2,004 - only to triple again by 2007 - and then to shrink to less than 20% of that size by 2012 and to remain at that size or below ever since.

Hence stock markets are clearly not a reflection of economic fundamentals - anyone know what they actually reflect - who do the traders who get rich consider themselves smart? What is it that stock markets are reflecting because before you can try and predict something you need to know what it is you are trying to predict (and clearly it's not economic size or the amount of money in circulation which stock prices reflect).

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

Hi,

And some people probably thought it was impossible for the Greek stock market to rise from 1,700 in 1998 to 6,000 by the year 2,000 - only to drop to 1,800 in 2003, to rise by the year 2007 to 5,000, only to fall to less than 1,000 by 2012 and to remain less than 1,000 ever since (and it's now 2019).

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

Or look at this chart for Eurobank Ergasias S.A.

https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/stock-market

Also people probably thought Carillion wasn't going to go bankrupt - nor that Capita Group Plc would go from over £10 per share to almost a £1 in less than a period of 2 years!

So yes - it would be nice if Enquest started paying a dividend asap - promises of jam tomorrow were okay back in 2012 - but now investors need to see some cash back unless the last seven years have all been for nothing - except the oil has been produced to the benefit of others, yet it was the investors here who took the risk and need to see some cash returns (unless the capitalist system is completely broken and no longer works).