Member Info for Love_You

I'm still surprised that there's been so few protests/demonstrations over the great equity destroyers that the UK stock market has become - don't people realise that it's become impossible to raise finance through equity placings except at ludicrously low valuations which only undermine confidence further and make it even harder the next year for anyone to raise capital in London?

Also raising equity used to be a good way for people to finance new business ideas - was the financial crisis in 2008 really the end of equity as an investable instrument, and if so why so? Also was this really the intention of policymakers and the BoE, or merely an unintended side-effect of their extreme policies, first raising rates in 2007 on the eve of a recession, and then from late 2008 reducing rates until they were at 0.5%?

But it was the banks fault/government's fault that they lost a fortune ... so why should they have had the "stuffing knocked out of them?"

I'm still surprised that there's been so few protests/demonstrations over the great equity destroyers that the UK stock market has become - don't people realise that it's not become impossible to raise finance through equity placings except at ludicrously low valuations which only undermine confidence further and make it even harder the next year for anyone to raise capital in London?

Also raising equity used to be a good way for people to finance new business ideas - was the financial crisis in 2008 really the end of equity as an investable instrument, and if so why so? Also was this really the intention of policymakers and the BoE, or merely an unintended side-effect of their extreme policies, first raising rates in 2007 on the eve of a recession, and then from late 2008 reducing rates until they were at 0.5%?

I mean nobody analyses whether 0.5% rates are actually helpful or not - perhaps the real economy would get a boost from higher interest rates, for example 4%? It just seems the BoE won't even countenance raising rates when perhaps it would be a good thing for the economy - sure a few over-indebted businesses may be foreclosed a bit sooner - but at least 4% rates would rewards savers and bondholders a bit more, who then might be tempted to raise their actual spending in the "real" economy. I'm just surprised at the lack of analysis/debate about whether leaving interest rates at 0.5% for so long is actually doing any economic good - it's been super-low/emergency rates for 10 years now - how do people know it isn't undermining confidence and having the opposite of the intended effects?

Used to inspire confidence?

Who are you having a laugh with?

Just because the share price was increasing doesn't mean anyone looking at their finances/strategy thought they were on the right path, nor that the market was suggesting a sensible valuation - anything over £6 per share here always looked way overpriced - but a few longs were greedy I guess because they probably could have sold the company to CNOOC in 2011 for £7.50 per share - which would have been a very good deal for shareholders - those wanting double must have been living in some kind of parallel universe where fundamental value doesn't matter. Hope they learned a lesson that the market is full of algorithms and you can't trust the market to set sensible prices for actual real commercial deals, in the real world, with real economic impacts, to be transacted at.

Anyway, leaving the past valuations aside this company never inspired confidence once the share price went over £6. All you were getting for that valuation was a pie in the sky project in Uganda which didn't even have the Ugandan government on board (they actually forced us to pay tax then purposefully delayed the project/production), and a decent project in Ghana but only 80,000 bopd net and the tax in Ghana is very low (risk of it increasing in future as not sure how government can justify such a low tax rate to their population), and a successful well, followed by a failed JV-well with Shell, offshore Guyana. And that's all that company had when the stock market was jacking up the price by billions every few months - no wonder the Chinese never ended up buying it - maybe they would of done for £7.50 which would still have been paying an extremely high price - but they were never going to pay £15 per share which was nuts.

If shorts recently closed their positions then they would of needed to buy shares/CFDs from the market or market makers.

Hence longs would have seen the change in general positioning/money flows show up in their data - you don't invest serious money without having systems to keep yourself aware of general money flows within the markets.

Hence, if there was a rush of shorters to close, then the longs would haveof kept increasing the selling price for their shares until the demand from shorters reduced, (if one assumes people are rationally self-interested - if not then how does one construct a rational model of society to live within?)

Personally, I don't think the size of share price recovery recently reflects that a substantial amount of shorters closed out. If so one would have expected Enquest to have touched at least 67% of the 2014 highs = a share price of 130px0.67 = 98.3p per share.

But we have been nowhere near 98.3p per share - stuck at 20p which gives us a crazy low valuation - one which suggests the market believe there is a good chance the bondholders here will never be repaid, and certainly no dividends/returns to equity holders in the future.

If shorts recently closed their positions then they would of needed to buy shares/CFDs from the market or market makers.

Hence longs would have seen the change in general positioning/money flows show up in their data - you don't invest serious money without having systems to keep yourself aware of general money flows within the markets.

Hence if there was a rush of shorters to close the longs, if you assume people are rationally self-interested, would have kept increasing the prices until the demand from shorters reduced.

I don't think the size of share price recovery recently reflects that a substantial amount of shorters closed out. If so one would have expected Enquest to have touched at least 67% of the 2014 highs = a share price of 130px0.67 = 98.3p per share.

But we have been nowhere near 98.3p per share - stuck at 20p which gives us a crazy low valuation - one which suggests the market believe there is a good chance the bondholders here will never be repaid, and certainly no dividends/returns to equity holders in the future.

Meanwhile the high street empties, shops close, and all you have are charity shops, betting shops, and takeaways. The green tax/subsidies on your energy bill is about £150 per annum and it seems the government was offering cheap solar panel schemes which had a disproportionate uptake by the wealthy landowners and upper middle classes whilst leaving the people who created the economy (pensioners and the like) living in poverty despite having worked for 30-50 years to develop the UK's economy.

It's a mess and it needs sorting! And one of the easiest ways to sort it is to provide finance to develop Barryoe/SeaLion/West of Shetland - and to use the taxes from the oil revenues to actually roll out something which can provide cheap energy/transport to the masses for the next 40-60 years - that being tidal power and hydrogen-fuel cell cars and home-heating systems.

The advantages of generating electricity from tidal power is not only is it sustainable and carbon free, but unlike solar and wind, the tides work everyday and harness enormous amounts of gravitational energy provided by the moon and other objects within our solar system.

Also electrolysis plants could be built right next to plants generating electricity from tidal power. Hence once sea-water is split into hydrogen and oxygen these elements could be compressed/liquified and transported to consumers to power their fuel-cell cars (hydrogen is a zero carbon fuel, the only emissions being water), and hence hydrogen-fuelled home heating systems would also be zero carbon - emitting only small quantities of water).

It would simplify the economy so much to power our cars and heat homes in this way - giving citizens the free time to get on with the things they actually enjoy in life such as going to the beach, going to the hills, going fishing/cycling, and engaging in good quality food production whether at home or on an artisan/small-scale retail basis.

I quite agree - coal is a biofuel and it makes sense to exploit easily mineable coal resources rather than risk the dangers of nuclear and all that waste - read about the impact of Chernobyl/Windscale 1957 fire - lamb from Cumbria, Dumfries, Galloway, Central Scotland, and North Wales, all became lightly contaminated with Caesium 134/137.

Nuclear is not safe and there is a lack of realistic planning for dealing with the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of high-level nuclear waste which has been produced which will not be safe for humans to go near until at least the year 3,019.

Meanwhile the high street empties, shops close, and all you have are charity shops, betting shops, and takeaways. The green tax/subsidies on your energy bill is about £150 per annum and it seems the government was offering cheap solar panel schemes which had a disproportionate uptake by the wealthy landowners and upper middle classes whilst leaving the people who created the economy (pensioners and the like) living in poverty despite having worked for 30-50 years to develop the UK's economy.

It's a mess and it needs sorting! And one of the easiest ways to sort it is to provide finance to develop Barryoe/SeaLion/West of Shetland - and to use the taxes from the oil revenues to actually roll out something which can provide cheap energy/transport to the masses for the next 40-60 years - that being tidal power and hydrogen-fuel cell cars and home-heating systems.

Thanks for the wisdom dumbdog,

"While Sussex people may leave Sussex, the Sussex mentality never leaves its people."

I think it's wise to remember this in life - it's hard to convince somone with scientific facts that oil production will not cause much climate change if they are not from a scientific genetic lineage.

Not sure about burning coal - may be it's not really a good idea - but there are a billion people in China to keep warm and feed - and I'm sure the locals are not adverse to grabbing a pick and shovel if there is easily accessible coal nearby - can't imagine the central government can really stop them from trying to make a little economic progress if the central government is not providing them with any other realistic alternative.

Why are you mentioning fracking Bronx?

Barryoe is a conventional field and it will only take about 40 horizontal wells to extract the 500,000,000 barrels of oil, (potentially double that if the deeper levels/reservoirs/strata come good).

These people are interfering with my right to economic advancement/progress/improving living standards - therefore they should not be paraded on the news without being asked about how they plan to compensate the citizens/tax payers for the economic damage which their eco policies are already inflicting.

Also are you mentioning fracking Bronx?

Barryoe is a conventional field and it will only take about 40 horizontal wells to extract the 500,000,000 barrels of oil, and potentially double that if the deeper levels come good.

I think there are more poor people in Ireland who would want to get the tax revenues from developing the Barryoe oil than their are children of wealthy people who want to keep the poor poor (and perhaps the eco protests are organised by these wealthy people who want to stop others developing better lives for themselves, which at the current point in time means owning a car and spending regularly on fuelling it).

Hence what about organising an," I'm in favour of oil development if it boosts the economy" - providing a boost to food production, travel opportunities, and wages, or alternatively being used to lower the prices of consumer goods/food/utility bills)?

Anyway, I'm pretty confident you'd only need to pay the good ole boys from the local council estates £50 and give them a six-pack of Guiness and you'd have them in Dublin in now time at all with banners saying, "we want the oil out, we want jobs, and we want economic progress, and we want it now (no longwait)."

However, I think the real issue is central government - they are cutting way too much and the wrong things.

Anyway, before even thinking of salaries/tax levels/prices/subsidies the Bank of England needs to decide (in a fundamental sort of way) what sort of lifestyles the majority of people would like to lead (and then how to create a society which mutually satisfies those individual desires).

I personally suspect that the majority of citizens would be in favour of a four-day week (if there was no reduction in incomes from implementing that). However, with automation making manufacturing less labour intensive, there should in theory be no issue with implementing a four-day working week as a legal maximum (i.e. by law no one could work more than 30 hours per week).

Also, I just think productivity would increase massively because everyone would be so less stressed and there'd be a boost in motivation from knowing that the government was actually trying to create an interesting, peaceful, harmonious, and healthy, society. As such, maybe a lot more people would be willing to give up their time to contribute economically?

(Also, as a personal grievance, it's annoying that the greens never think of the poor plants and what they will breathe if the government destroy the oil industry - you do realise without carbon dioxide being produced by other species all of the plants/trees would die?)

It's natural that you would stand-up for your profession and I respect that. Thanks for replying on here with your valuable comments/insights.

However, I think the real issue is central government - they are cutting way too much and the wrong things in my opinion. I'm not even talking financially here in a fundamental sense before even thinking of salaries/tax levels/prices/subsidies the government/BoE need to decide in a fundamental sort of way what sort of lifestyles the majority of people would like and how to create a society which mutually satisfies those desire. I personally think the majority would be in favour of a four-day week if there was no reduction in incomes from implementing that. And with automation making manufacturing less labour intensive there should in theory be no issue with implementing a our-day working week as a legal maximum (i.e. by law no one can work more than 30 hours per week). I just think productivity would increase massively because everyone would be so less stressed and know that the government was actually trying to create an interesting, peaceful and harmonious (and wealthy) society - hence probably a lot more people would be willing to give up their time to contribute economically if they actually had a vision presented to them that they could think - well that's a pretty good vision for the future of our society (especially compared to the worse alternatives of just tweaking a little hear and a little there - when a great many people already understand the train has economically derailed/is derailing and something much more drastic is needed).

What good is more fintech and AI when a single pensioner who fought in WWII and possibly Vietnam, and who worked for 30-50 years to develop the UK's economy, is now granted a pension of £7,000 per year.

Personally I think even £14,000 per year would be a share too low - but would be a lot better for Carnage to talk of rewarding the people who have contributed fairly, rather than talking of more people in offices (fintech and AI) typing away at algorithms which are ruining the real economy because they are not directly solving local problems such as providing low-impact/visually pleasing housing, generating local-grown produce and shorter/better -quality supply chains, nor providing the finance to companies such as PVR and RKH whose oil the economy will need as it gradually transitions to LPG/electric/hydrogen power (but those in power don't want to admit the obvious that it will take fifteen to twenty years to convert the UK's 31 million cars to electricity and/or fuel-cells based on hydrogen power which is a completely clean fuel as when it burns it only produce water - because there is zero carbon in a hydrogen molecule).

I seriously hope Mark C was just trying to keep well-in with someone by writing that article about opening the bank of England up to AI - for if he was serious he may as well open the Bank of England up to mindless looters who just write algorithms forgetting that the original purpose was to provide people with more of the things that they like.

Even Carney is losing the plot in my opinion ... the economy needs less fintech and AI, not more. The economy needs more "real" things - more oil and gas, more raw foodstuffs, more real genuine human interactions. I was deeply chocked and saddened to see that Carney was writing today about opening up the BoE to fintech and AI. God help the man is all I can say because I fear his soul may already be too far gone down a sad path.

Oxo42, I quite agree. You have my support - why not stand at the next election and I'd vote for you. All this country needs is simple policies - should be increasing benefits to our own such as pensioners and those without houses, should be closing down employers who have a dozen undocumented people in a single house - the gap will be filled by paying our own fairly who currently probably think the economic system is too corrupt/stupid to even engage with.

Yes we will begin the change all right Wids, and with applied common sense it will benefit us all, (rest assured and never worry - the universe has a way of correcting itself).

It's the talk of managing the electorate's expectations that's a problem, not a solution, in my view.

It's not that people's expectations are too high - it's that they are too low. If people had higher expectations of what a society of 60 million people should provide each other with, if everyone tried to cooperate economically and to treat each other with mutual respect, then a far higher average standard of living would be easily achievable.

So for me it's not that people's expectations are too high - it's that they are too low. Too little trust in each other, too little desire to see others prosper as well as oneself. too little willingness to invest so that others can create something for you to enjoy in the future, too much hoarding of wealth, too much self-importance.

Also it goes against economic theory to have such a regressive taxation system in the UK.

It's true that the high percentage tax rates fall on things like fuel, and VAT is a regressive tax as a concept.

National Insurance is also to some extent a joke as it has nearly doubled since 2008 whilst council services have been cut back.

A fairer tax system would be to scrap the tax system and just tax earnings at a flat rate the same for everyone. That means xero VAT and zero tax on fuel. You would see a massive economic boom as the economy would finally become responsive to price changes allowing entrepreneurs to actually see rewards for creating businesses/creating new products which society wants.

Also, think of all the time people would save if to calculate your tax all you had to do was to take 15% of your income and transfer it to the government - and that was all you had to do - suddenly it would be worth creating something again wouldn't it - because you would keep 85% of what your earned - so to create something either popular (large volume, low margin) or highly desirable (low volume, high margin) would become more attractive as a way to spend one's time to the citizens of the UK.

I can believe the BOD took a pay rise - executive nearly always do take everything they can whether they are entitled to it or not - because they make the rules along with their cronies they are often entitled to it legally but not morally/ethically.

What I can't believe is that intelligent people sit around talking about this on bulletin boards instead of marching into the city and demanding that this corrupt system is seriously reformed. These companies are extracting the oil now and there will be none left of it for our children and their children - a lot more people should be earning a lot more money seeing we are exploiting/using up our future so fast - and the BODs of all companies (and footballers) should be paid what the average doctor earns, for it you were dying what use is all the oil being extracted from the North Sea/Middle East if you need a doctor - not that I am a fan of the BMA because they haven't trained enough doctors as they selfishly wanted a lot of bargaining power (from undersupplying a necessary workforce) in order to boost their salaries (a 30% pay rise in a single year under the last Labour government).

What's really needed is wholesale reform of the system - maybe not yet - but as we use up our resources and levels of inequality worsen the time will come at some point when it is in more people's self-interest to reform the system than to continue with a corrupt (but more importantly economically incompetent) existing status quo.