Member Info for Love_You

Guys and ladies, take a drive somewhere and make sure that other people in your community have the opportunity to do the same - see some countryside - make people happy - don't be boring - include people from your community also as not everyone can afford the finer things in life (sometimes through no fault of their own).

The Essential National Parks Pilgrimage
Whether you’re seeking America’s most awe-inspiring sights for a humbling perspective or doing it for the ’gram, there’s never been a better time to drive through the rugged West—especially if you prefer to sleep in the lap of luxury.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-03/five-all-american-road-trips-for-foodies-luxury-seekers?srnd=premium-europe

Also CrowCast Facebook can use it's shares as payment, so yes it does have over $500 Billion at its disposal.

If Facebook offered me 5p in cash, and an equivalent of 95p in Facebook shares, for each Lloyds share then I would probably take it given the current price of Lloyds' shares are only 63p.

I could then immediately sell the Facebook shares in the market for their 95p cash value. Hence I would of realised £1 in cash for each Lloyds' share which I had.

Hence a company's market cap is in fact the money it has available for acquisitions - because it can always pay for these acquisitions with its own shares. Hence if Facebook is worth $500 Billion in the market's eyes (its current market capitalisation) then that is the amount is has at its disposal to buy other companies.

For example I would certainly accept £7 in equivalent Facebook shares for each BP share I hold. This would be easily affordable by Facebook as if it bought BP for £7 per share it would be valuing BP at a market capitalisation of about £150 Billion. This is far less than Facebook's current market capitalisation of over £350 Billion. Therefore to do this deal Facebook would only have to issue a third more shares than are currently in issue - surely anyone owning Facebook shares would be willing to create 1 new share for every three they hold if they could swap these new shares for the entire ownership of BP - which produced 4 Billion barrels of oil a day if you include its Russia production.

What do you think CrowCast?

Hi CrowCast,

You've made the same point as I was hoping someone else would make in response to my post.

If Facebook only has physical cash/assets of £7 Billion then what right has the market got to value the shares in total at over £350 Billion?

Basically anyone long on Facebook shares have seen a tenfold return on their money - it should be enough to make Lloyds investors wants to peacefully enter the Bank-of-England and demand Carney to answer how can he allow charlatans to make a tenfold return on their shares in Facebook, whilst anyone holding Lloyds shares has seen effectively a zero return on their capital over the past decade.

Why is Facebook worth many-many times more than all the mortgages which Lloyds has on its books?

Facebook has been shown in scientific journal to lead to increased rates of depression, for those people who only overuse Facebook by a small amount, and hence Facebook is perhaps as harmful as drinking too much or smoking 30 cigarettes a week.

Building houses give citizens homes, pleasure, and contributes to the real economy by requiring furniture to be made, and people like to redecorate from time-to-time also.

I thought the last financial crisis and QE was all justified by accusing RBS/Halifax of being unethical and therefore the 90% share price losses were "deserved".

Well now I think Bernanke's rhetoric doesn't stand up to scrutiny because Facebook is a product will many risks and if QE/low interest rates helped its shareholders to make tenfold their original investments then this is unethical behaviour by the market as much as 110% mortgages were (or fraudulent self-certified mortgages).

Hence it's a complete market failure, and a moral failure, by Central Bankers to be praising harmful companies like Facebook, Amazon and Google.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/04/jeff-bezos-maintains-control-amazon-billion-dollar-divorce-deal/

So what is MacKenzie Bezos going to spend all that money on?

Will she buy herself a toyboy?

Will she buy some Lloyds' shares?

Will she set up a competitor to Amazon or to Facebook?

Will she empty suitcases full of cash from a helicopter over a random city?

Will she buy herself a Palace in Iran?

Will she buy up agricutlural land in Russia/Ukraine and aim to control a third of the world's wheat production?

Will she put it in US Treasury Bonds and let the Fed rapidly inflate away their value as they tend to do on average over time.

Will she put it all in a broker account and go long on the shares of all the companies which she "loves."

What would you guys/ladies on here do with £27,000,000,000?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/05/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-mackenzie-worth-36bn/

Jeff Bezos's ex-wife MacKenzie is worth more than $36bn

At the current market capitalisation this lady alone could buy more than half of Lloyds.

Not sure the stock market is pricing things correctly given that who know's Mackenzie Bezos may spend her $36 Billion on in the future. Just because she was married to Jeff doesn't necessarily mean she will spend her $36 billion on Amazon shares or on Amazon products. She might be a secret Ferrari lover for all we know and buy 300 classic Ferraris to keep in a large private showroom - that might cost $1 Billion.

But what might she spend the other $35 Billion in. She could buy the whole of Tescos for that money according to the current market price of Tescos. However perhaps she doesn't want to own Tescos and its £55 Billion of annual revenues, and it's supply-chains and politicial influence in both the UK and across Europe, and it's 50-50 JV in China.

Or perhaps she is going to ask her bankers to give her $10 Billion in cash, in suitcases, and fly over a city in the world chosen at random and just empty the $10 Billion in dollar bills over the heads of all the citizens in that city.

Who knows?

Sometimes big companies sell things and then later realise they were worth far more.

Man United sold Pogba, realised he was actually very talented and a player they wanted, and then bought him back for at least four times the amount that they'd previously sold him for.

Also look at Rockhopper. Shell didn't want the license to the North of the Falklands despite having found oil in a well they had drilled in 1998. Rockhopper took the licence for next to nothing, sure enough when they drilled in 2009 they found a large oil accumulation about 1.5kms from where Shell had previously drilled and found oil, and Rockhopper's share price went from 30p in April 2009 to nearly 300p by the summer, and then later it briefly reached an all-time high of 520p. So basically the market said the company was worth ten times more than previously believed, despite the fact everyone in the oil industry knew the oil was in place to the North of the Falklands from 1998 onwards - yet no-one wanted the licence except for Rockhopper. Let's just hope this turns out well a bit like the Paul Pogba story - if Chariot prove up a plan of development and secure a gas contract at a good (but reasonable) price - then perhaps a different department in Repsol will farm-in for mutliples of the value that the old people thought this was worth - people are mistaken all the time in life - let's just hope Chariot are not the mistake one's this time around.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-throws-investor-vote-pushing-144422001.html

SEC throws out investor vote pushing Exxon Mobil to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

So I doubt Ireland's domestic policy would even influence global emissions by even 0.01%.

The US employment figures are probably faked - when they closed down all the heavy industries and rust-belt they cut people's pensions but did often give them some amount of pension (just nowhere near as much as they had been promised). Hence these people, if they are baby-boomers, would have retired in like their mid-forties with a small pension. They're probably not the type of people to go and work in a coffee shop serving the bourgeois students who are paying for it all with student loans that most of them will never pay back in full. And I doubt they'd go and work in an amazon warehouse or at Walmart either. They probably just cut their expenses right down and have become more self-sufficient, maybe just driving one car per family, ergo these people are using a fraction of the oil that was expected of them before the US government created the rust-belt and a socio-economic disaster for tens of millions. However, whether you agree or disagree with what happened - it does seem a lot of heavy industry got closed down in 2008, many pensions were cut/reneged upon, and in the end many citizens decided rather than fighting the state they would just cut their costs, reduce their lifestyles, and try to make the best of it. Ergo oil demand from this sector of the population may never recover to what had previously been expected - and this is a recurring effect, probably for the rest of their lives, as if they haven't got compensation/founded new steel/aluminium factories/sand and gravel quarries by now then maybe they never will.

However a positive for oil demand is the amount of sand/water/chemicals that each shale well takes to frack. All of this is lugged about by truck and the oil often shipped out by rail (often powered by diesel trains). Hence if they are fracking 20,000 new wells per year in the USA this is going to be requiring a commensurate amount of sand, gravel, water, chemicals, and a mobile workforce..... so at some point (as the number of shale wells is growing every year) the resources used in their fracking will come pretty close to the new oil produced - hence meaning there is very little overall economic benefit from the shale industry. However there only plan currently is to keep drilling more wells each year to offset the increasing number of declining wells each year (the more wells in total there are each year the more wells in total will be suffering production declines the following year). This is going to be fun once the economic balance is reached and the amount of resources required to drill the number of new wells the following year required to increase overall production become as much as the new oil produced from those wells - at that point they start burning through shareholders capital and logically the share prices (and bond prices) of a lot of shale companies will plummet - because unless the change their future financial value will within a few years be zero - and investors like to sell a few years before disas

Hi Xciteless,

Well I disagree that politically it is necessary - these people could easily be housed on new council estates out beyond the suburbs, or in new market-garden towns. Some of them are probably too addicted to drugs - but I suppose that many of them could find employment in a sort of poly-tunnel, small-scale agri businesses growing fresh fruit and veg - if we leave the EU then Britain will need far more people who are willing to work in agriculture - and they say that this type of work is therapeutic because it is so closely related to nature/the natural world. I can't see the middle classes who've grown accustomed to cushy lifestyles doing non-jobs in marketing AND life-coaching being willing to work for £8.25 an hour growing raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, cherries, tomatoes, gooseberries, tending to beehives, and growing all manner of fresh veg in giant polytunnels - but you may find people who used to be associated with coal mining, steel, shipbuilding may just think that this type of occupation is actually okay for their children - it's not particularly dangerous, it's like to lead to good physical health and a balanced lifestyle, and with new villages of affordable rents their children should still have enough disposable income to go to the cinema, dine out, go for days out and a couple of foreign holidays per year. The main things is to get them off the drugs, cut down on the alcohol and fatty/sugary foods, and too realise that being an arsehole/antisocial solves nothing in their lives.

But who wants to accept EU law when they are ruining the economy - law only works because it benefits the majority of citizens - another rule of law is that it is never fixed - is there law in a war? Not much is there? Every citizen is a self-interested economic actor - do you think people are going to sit at home and watch petrol prices soar whilst a few greens on TV spout nonsense about oil not being of benefit to the general economy/your lifestyle?

The EU is sowing the seeds of it's own destruction - remember law/politics only survive because it implements economic projects which benefit the majority - once the majority realise the politicians/economic planners don't care about them then people emerge who just get on with reshaping the economy at a local level - and when the nanny state sends in the police they find that they are outnumbered by the majority - the people who the system tried to steal their hope of a better life than their children from, ergo new laws are made and a new economic system emerges which does promise the majority of people a better life than their children had (better food, more holidays, more flights, more gigs, more dining out, more trips away, just more stuff of what people like to do).

Playing fair is for children ….adults play rationally and a despotic elite (whether it be despotic economically or politically) will soon find itself in trouble.

Please guys, if you want a job stick to fundamental analysis of the economy/balance sheets/oil supply-demand,

I will not reward anyone for speculating about the price - the price will take care of itself - what we need to know to get our strategic deicisons correct here at PMO is which economies are going to have the technical skills required to proceed with SeaLion, Zama, Tolumount, and how do we access these technical skills to get the devlopment done. Also what will the demand for oil/gas be out to 2030 (to determine prodouction rates - should we go for lower production for longer, or for higher production but for shorter?)

Surely with youth unemployment so high in the Eurozone we should be attracting these people into the Oil and Gas industry without seeing any wage inflation - this is a great position to be in for PMO and should be what the board of directors are focused upon - i.e. recruting young graduates from Europe to train up to work on SeaLion, Zama, Tolumount, and Big-P in Indonesia.

By mad I also mean there is far too much algo-driven trading happening - there should be a greater role for people doing fundamental analysis to set stock prices - if everything is algo driven the people who make the most profits are those who use an algo style of trading - however this means share prices come to bear no reflection of the underlying economic fundamentals or of the cash/debt position of different companies. This inevitably means take-overs are done at the wrong prices - which means some companies have no chance of ever paying off their debts no matter how hard they work, or how austere their cost-cutting is in the future. When these losses feed their way back into the market you get a lot of people thinking it is just unethical and left feeling that the regulators/government doesn't care about proper behaviour in the financial markets - this makes people angry and is one of the reasons why governments are so unpopular recently.

Regulators really need to start involving people who do fundamental analysis of companies/the economy to set share prices - the people preaching quants/technical analysis don't understand how they're wrecking the real economy - all they know is that because the system is currently skewed towards them that they make a tonne of money from it and hence they use this money to lobby the regulators/government not to change anything about the way the City of London works - but how long can governments keep believing a small number of lobbyists when there must be howls from 90% of the real economy that something has been going very badly wrong for about 15 years.

Look at the government's debt to GDP ratio, look at how many companies have broken their financial covenants over the past decade, look at how few IPOs there have been - all of this is due to too much algo-driven technical trading and not enough respect being given within markets to fundamental analysts.

By "mad" I mean the markets have become a popularity contest instead of fulfilling their proper role of matching investors to good business ideas. For example I have had several business ideas that would lead to improvements in my local community because it's what makes sense/is sustainable in the medium-to-long term, and this could then be rolled out nationwide - however there is not a chance the charlatans who run aim is interested is arranging an IPO for me because I'm not part of the old boys club, and haven't been to the right schools, despite having had an extremely good education and having 4 degrees and a currently unfinished PhD.

The markets these days are all about robbing investors - not about IPOs - but the middle class have woken up and maybe the city of London is in the process of continuing to destroy itself (which began in 2008). This will drive money away from the UK and even towards the EU or anywhere where there is more ethics than AIM/City of London.

Facebook could buy Lloyds about 8 times over with money to spare - Amazon could buy Lloyds about 16 times over with money to spare - that's just based on their current relative market valuations - I wonder how long until the politicians realise the markets have gone mad and hardly anything the markets do is geared towards making a happy long-term future for the population, which is after all what gets governments elected.

Can I ask when you decided to make a new life - say from 2011-2014 when you had made that break from your old life and into a new life - why did you never sell your Centrica shares? I'm not blaming anyone for not selling shares, this is not personal, and I do respect you a lot for making a new life for yourself. Yet, all the same, I'm interested to know why you didn't just dump the shares from your previous employer and perhaps do something else with the money?

Who would vote for the cons again ...they have been a complete con ....my share portfolio got decimated since 2010 - and stupid Cameron never told the USA that he wouldn't allow them to fine BP $62 Billion for an accident that was just as much the fault of Halliburton as BP. Absolutely spineless but then again Cameron is not rich is he - whoever were paying out the legal claims from BP in Florida are now rich - $62,000,000,000 got paid out - and what does Cameron have, maybe $5,000,000. It's peanuts by comparison. In case you don't understand maths Cameron's wealth goes into $62,000,000,000, twelve thousand four hundred times - so to visualise this take one pea and put it on one side of your kitchen table - and one the other side of your kitchen table count out twelve thousand four hundred peas - and the one pea is Cameron's wealth - and the other side of the table is that the US government and their Florida lawyers managed to steal from BP's shareholders (i.e. mainly UK pension funds).

Who would vote for the cons again ...they have been a complete con ....my share portfolio got decimated since 2010 - and stupid Cameron never told the USA that he wouldn't allow them to fine BP $62 Billion for an accident that was just as much the fault of Halliburton as BP. Absolutely spineless but then again Cameron is not rich is he - whoever were paying out the legal claims from BP in Florida are now rich - $62,000,000,000 got paid out - and what does Cameron have, maybe $5,000,000. It's peanuts by comparison. In case you don't understand maths Cameron's wealth goes into $62,000,000,000, twelve thousand four hundred times - so to visualise this take one pea and put it on one side of your kitchen table - and one the other side of your kitchen table count out twelve thousand four hundred peas - and the one pea is Cameron's wealth - and the other side of the table is that the US government and their Florida lawyers managed to steal from BP's shareholders (i.e. mainly UK pension funds).

Who would vote for the cons again ...they have been a complete con ....my share portfolio got decimated since 2010 - and stupid Cameron never told the USA that he wouldn't allow them to fine BP $62 Billion for an accident that was just as much the fault of Halliburton as BP. Absolutely spineless but then again Cameron is not rich is he - whoever were paying out the legal claims from BP in Florida are now rich - $62,000,000,000 got paid out - and what does Cameron have, maybe $5,000,000. It's peanuts by comparison. In case you don't understand maths Cameron's wealth goes into $62,000,000,000, twelve thousand four hundred times - so to visualise this take one pea and put it on one side of your kitchen table - and one the other side of your kitchen table count out twelve thousand four hundred peas - and the one pea is Cameron's wealth - and the other side of the table is that the US government and their Florida lawyers managed to steal from BP's shareholders (i.e. mainly UK pension funds).

Well I'm also in favour of improved health and safety and making combustion-engines cleaner in terms of emissions.

What has annoyed me the most about the markets is the level of corruption/fraud - such as Afren going bankrupt in 2015 when they had made the third largest oil discovery in the world in 2013.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-oil-markets-opec-cuts-153000927.html

Anyway it seems that some analysts expect OPEC production levels to fall throughout the early 2020s - so maybe that will provide a boost to the sentiment needed to give projects the go-ahead which are comemrcially viable at below $50 per barrel - such as Rockhopper's SeaLion field and the Barryoe field owned by Providence shareholders/stakeholders.

But why can't the markets be better regulated like the oil industry is. What happened at Afren was criminal precisely because no criminal charges were brough against the people in that company who failed to hedge the oil price in the volumes they told investors they had done (and several other things which could of amounted to criminal charges being brought - except what actually happened was the CEO got to walk away with about $40 million whilst sharheolders lost $1,500,000,000 over the course of a few months).

Genel revenue will now be materially higher now that oil has moved higher from $52 to $62.

I mean the operating costs won't be much higher - okay the production sharing contract will probably take more revenue for the government as the oil price increases - but at the same time all of the extra revenue is a pure marginal gain for Genel because their costs are relatively fixed.