London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Janelle Woodward, head of fixed income at BMO Global Asset Management, has an eye on the next potential target for tariffs: European automakers. The Trump administration was expected to make a decision on the findings of a probe into the national security risks of European auto imports by May 18.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-12/markets-watch-for-china-blowback-as-trump-turns-up-heat-on-trade?srnd=premium-Europe

Maybe the US government would like to raise a bit more revenue from Ferrari's and Fiat's. Be interesting to see how everything plays out over the next few months. However, I can't see tariffs on autos being helpful to either the German or Italian economies. Therefore there must be a risk that Deutsche Bank goes bankrupt given that it's share price has fallen by about 90% over the past 12 years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-12/markets-watch-for-china-blowback-as-trump-turns-up-heat-on-trade?srnd=premium-Europe

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/DB?p=DB&.tsrc=fin-srch

Wids you are slow to this side of the debate - I've been saying publicly since 2013 that the BBC needs to focus far more on what is good for the economy.

Just because the Greens have one MP in the HOCs doesn't mean their opinions are any good for improving the standard of living of 62 million UK citizens. The BBC would be far less embarrassing if they did a programme saying here is why oil has been a great thing for human progress for over a thousand years - what is needed is a fourth economic revolution involving the redistribution of wealth - and the next 20/30 years is going to be financed by a boom in oil-and-gas production from supergiant fields in the Arctic (northern Russia, Alaska, northern Canada), offshore Guyana, Angola and Brazil, and new supergiant fields yet to be discovered in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran. This is then going to enable every UK citizen to engage in a meaningful life - meaning they can afford a house, two cars per household, several foreign holidays per year, and will no longer consider making coffee (which only involves putting some beans in a machine and pressing a handle to pass water slowly through) as something which you actually need an employee to do - for goodness sake it's such a simple task - what people need are sacks of coffee in the garage, not to go into some shop which charges £4.20 per cupful! However, it would take the UK to really engage in a new global vision for the global economy to enable most of the UK's 62 million citizens to live the sort of lifestyle which technology and finance has made possible - but the UK could certainly be a global champion for the 21st century - we just need to be realistic - the cheapest source of energy is still oil and gas - and there are still areas of the world which have supergiant fields that are currently undeveloped - if we create the global political connections to extract this oil-and-gas and use it to finance people's global ambitions (such as China's one-belt and one-road initiative, to allow Russia to have a third post-cold-war economic boom, and to allow the USA to become the utopia is deserves to be based on its low-population density and high amount of natural resources per hectare which nature bestowed it) then the UK can also be part of a world which is busy, connected, loving, interesting, turned-on and economically thriving.

Thanks for the update Manyana, I appreciate it.

To be honest I am focussed but there is so much to take into consideration - for example the sorts of products (and the volumes of such products and quality) that the Chinese are offering in return for 50% of the oil. Also whether we could get a better deal with another country such as India, Brazil, UK, USA or Canada?

Also needing to be considered are the bankers and shareholders. The shareholders have seen enormous decreases in the value of their invested capital and that is not a healthy thing for the financial system. However, it is not easy raising money from the banking sector either because they would prefer to lend money to Saudi Arabia, Russia or Iraq where there are still potential oil fields of 10-20 billion barrels in size to be developed.

And I don't even need to go into all the rest ….. it would be ideal if the oil industry could squeeze the greens financially because it is pure hypocrisy to be using our money which the oil industry creates to try and destroy the oil industry. However, the bankers were successful in 2008 at paying people they liked the opinions of a whole heap of money way beyond what was affordable and then getting bailed out by both the UK, US, and most Western, governments. Hence it's almost impossible that the bankers are going to do much about the cess-pit of contradictions they have created - because what worked last time was a giant bailout of those they chose to bail out - so I suppose they might just try it again. I mean one could inform the bankers that their capital lent/invested in PVR is more at risk the more money the green-leaning people have access to. However, if the central part of the bank has other agendas then those risks will go ignored - the green-leaning people will continue to receive huge sums of money and ordinary tax-payers will be taken for fools again and see yet more tax increases and other ways in which their standard of living was sneakily reduced (such as moving bin collections to twice weekly and utility-bill inflation, and house-price inflation at 25% per year but removed from the "official" inflation figures).

There are a thousand other things which need to be considered as well - PVR is only a miniscule piece in a massive jigsaw. So I do thank you Manyana for that information as I have my hands extremely full with everything else that needs to also be considered!

FOGL found 50 Tcf offshore the Flaklands in 2013 and it turned out to be worthless because nobody who lives on the Falkland Isles seems to have any desire to develop the oil and gas and become rich (even SeaLion with a billion barrels of easily recoverable oil has been stalled for 20 years). Just no ambition in some people it seems - but hopefully the companies who need energy in Morocco are both ambitious and have access to dollars.

For anything to be worth anything in the oil-and-gas industry it seems you need 3 things:
(1) To have clients are need oil and gas more than they are prepared to downsize/shrink their energy usage.
(2) For these clients to have access to dollars, or to currently be trading with the USA (you always need to demonstrate that your project is going to support the US economy in some way - even if only with cheaper energy for foreign-made goods).
(3) For the potential clients to have some ambition - so they are prepared to actually pay dollars for a longer-term cost saving and bigger profits over time from their business - if they aren't ambitious they will never see the benefits of signing contracts which will lower their energy costs in 3-4 years time (nothing ever happens quicker than 2-4 years in the oil-and-gas industry, it seems to move at snail's pace and there's more jaw-boning about anything other than actual time spent planning developments and working to extract the oil-and-gas - it's an industry which repeatedly shoots themselves in the foot by never delivering the promised returns to investors because the oil companies never cease production when the oil price drops too low, nor do they ever cease production to protect shareholders when the government increases the taxation on their businesses - it's time the oil industry told governments to increase taxation on Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google etc - the oil industry has been bled dry and badly needs lower taxation (more taxation would kill it even quicker than it is already dying - hence is governments need more tax I only hope they realise that it now has to come from Google, Amazon, Tesla and other companies who have been getting away with paying extremely low tax, or even receiving subsidies, for the past decade).

But there is one advantage that Kosmos has - it produces partly offshore Ghana where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world for oil companies at 30%, and I bet the health and safety compliance costs are far less than the North Sea also.

However, the markets are insane - but then look at AIG - went from $100 per share to less than $0.10 in less than a year during the past financial crisis in 2008.

What a correctly functioning equity market should be achieving in my view is to financially reward the people who are the best at understanding which companies have the most attractive projects to be granted bank finance with which to proceed - otherwise what is the use of people betting on the value of equity if the plan of policymakers is just to run the value of most equity down to zero, leave most of the oil and gas in the ground, and generally say screw the citizens as long as the richest 5% are okay that's all we care about as policymakers these days.

But yes, there should be some sensible comparatives applied to equity value, as well as being a marker of which projects represent the best value in an economic sense to proceed with at the current time via new bank lending.

So for example I find it ridiculous that EOG resources has a market cap of $55 Billion and gross production of about 520,000 boepd. If Enquest were put on a comparative financial metric for its comparative production (oil being more valuable than natural gas by a large amount) then the people who hold EOG shares (if they were rational) should be willing to swap them for Enquest shares at an enterprise value for Enquest of $10 Billion. This would give Eqnuest a market capitalisation of approximately £6 Billion. And this would represent a thirty-fold increase in the Enquest share price. Hence Enquest's equity could logically/rationally trade at £6 per share - but I guess it suits a few people in the financial markets to keep it pegged at 19.5p per share instead?

The one thing the stock market has taught me is that you can't actually understand how irrationally humans are until you observe their trading behaviour. The fact people who were long AIG in 2006 weren't willing to sell at anything from $50-$100 per share - when the true value turned out in 2008 to be $0.10 per share - indicates that humans sometimes turn down $1,000 for something when nobody else would offer them more than $1 for it - I guess it's all about ego and people not really getting out into the market and being willing to talk about realistic prices for deals with other people. It's the same with house prices, everyone seems to think they should just keep going up and up? Why would you think this? It is not hard to build a house and bricks are only baked clay - the only thing of value is the land and there is masses of this available if you are happy to live more than 10 miles from a city centre rather than wanting to live in some cramped apartment right in the city itself.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Love_You

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)