Member Info for Love_You

What on Earth is going on? The pound has risen 2% today and yet people are worrying about a No Deal. A rising pound indicates that a No Deal is being seen as less likely. (My understanding is that if there was a No Deal then the pound would drop by at least 10%).

Well Carnage is doing a mixture of recycling money and printing new money out of thin air.

The trouble is the winners and losers haven't changed for a decade ...and one wonders how long one can keep flogging this same strategy.....any ideas as to how long??

I agree....Carney is recycling money...everyone can see it and yet the man acts as though he is a magician pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

Basically the plan was simple....destroy the pension funds ….cut everyone's pensions...devalue people savings (low interest rates)...and funnel this money direct to large landowners and already wealthy businesses.

It was what might be considered a typical Conservative economic play … only one fit for about 90 years ago rather than a modern economy.... only Carney (perhaps, this is how I imagine anyway) dreamed up that perhaps if enough people were on his get rich quick schemes that the ordinary person wouldn't be able to complain that they were getting poorer: as for some reason people often blame themselves for being poor even when the economy never provided them with a chance of a job even close to matching their skills/experience/abilities.

Anyway, I don't have much knowledge of the gilt market. However I do know that annuity rates on pensions have nearly halved since 2006 …. and ultimately the responsibility for a gradual, decade-long, devaluation of people's pension must lie with the Bank of England.

Also the fall in the value of Sterling is another factor that only compounds the devaluation of pension pots/savings.

I'm not sure how many people yet really realised what has happened ....or how it all stems from an old fashioned Conservative type economic playbook that was more fitting of the 1920s than modern Britian. But maybe one day historians will tell peole what really unfolded...and how it was a time of great deception and great upheavel...to enrich small groups of landowners and special interests at the expense of pensioners, savers, and anyone with a normal job.

https://www.chiangraitimes.com/global-elites-warned-on-populist-rage-economic-uncertainty-at-world-economic-forum.html

BoomerBower

At last someone is prepared to say something approaching the truth .... that the government/BoE became a laughing stock to most ordinary folk when I heard (through a land agent friend) that they were paying someone £125,000 per year for the next 20 years just to erect 18 wind turbines on that person's land. These people don't live in the real world....that person had to absolutely nothing to earn £2.5 million over the next twenty years...it's the shareholders at SSE and Centrica that have had to pay for the wind turbines and to install them.....yet people are being made millionaires just because they were (purely by chance) the landowners in the site chosen as being highly suitable for a windfarm.

It's stories like this, heard through professional friends, that really annoy he average voter ...because clearly it is just luck that someone owns some land and to turn them into millionaires just to erect a few wind turbines seems ludicrous to most people....when at the same time the government is talking about austerity and capping public sector pay to either 0% or 1%.

Basically let's just call it what it is ...it was a means of funneling who quantities of money to landowners who are traditionally far more likely to be Conservative than Labour. Otherwise they would have just legislated through Parliament that it's in the national interest to erect wind turbines and they would have paid the landowner maybe £5,000 per year for the site because the land below the turbines can still be used for grazing/sheep farming/whatever.

Also what's the point of all these wind turbines when there are bound to be a few very calm days during the year. It basiclaly means you still need a high proportion of generation capacity to come from reliable sources of power such as nuclear, gas turbines or coal.

Even tidal power would be better than wind as at least the tide is reliable and predictable. Otherwise with wind one can never phase out the older coal/gas/nuclear plants because it would only take an exceptionally calm three or four days at some point to cause blackouts across the country.

So it really peevs people that ordinary people are paying a green tax of £75 (minimum) per household in order to funnel this money straight to a group of extremely privilieged landowners at a time of public service suts, pay caps, and the government constantly saying we need austerity for the national good despite the fact it always affects the hard-working person far more than the people who have already invested in assets which hedge against inflation such as land, gold, property, bonds and even good quality shares bought at sensible times.

Saw a beautiful grey Ferrari yesterday …. time to get out the bling boys and girls.....after all this QE for a decade the money is finally going to get spent instead of just accumulating in bank accounts....really?

Anyway....if the economy was really strong why can't interest rates be raised to 5%?

Every time Carney speaks I find it difficult to reconcile what he says with reality...he talks about a strong economy...the UK being a rich country....and yet interest rates need to be at 0.5% for ten years and he needs to print an extra £430 Billion during a ten year period when the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) doubled?

Someone has been having a laugh in the media ….they've not been honest about the economy for a long time ….drive out to West Wales, Up to the North of England, or West to Cornwall/Devon and you will see a load of dying villages and a few tea shops....what's the point of concentrating more and more money in cities? Surely there has to be some chance for outlying areas to grow and to receive some benefits from the past ten years when there has been a massive devaluation of people's savings....and Carney can never explain what he is achieving with all the money he is spending. Why does he want just to concentrate all the wealth and business in the very heart of the already wealthiest cities. Of course money attracts money ...therefore it would help if Carney set up a scheme to purposefully invest in outlying areas ...as ultimately that might in future attract some people away from the cities to actually spend money as part of some enjoyable daytrips out/UK-based holidays.

I just question was there a clear vision for how the UK should look in ten years time when all the money-printing was announced ten years ago? And if there wasn't a clear vision then what right did they have to devalue everyone's savings just so the economy could continue it's strange meandering course guided by short-term interests/greed.

But if Centrica was performing well as a company who would be shorting it? Therefore the market is alerting us to the fact there are very serious problems somewhere within the business....and that is the board of directors job to fix these problems with urgency and great intelligence (you don't pay millions to them to have some slow moving dimwit trying to fix the company).

Actually we are already a third world country in many areas - just I bet government ministers don't like visiting those areas...so they pretend that everything is fine when actually they only had a plan in 2008/09 to bailout half of the country at best...and the other half were destined to be ignored …. guess all this was predictable from the moment the government acknowledged there was no longer enough wealth to go around …. it's only natural that they should cut the most in areas of the country that they never liked to visit in the first place....then they can pretend to themselves they are doing a great job and everyone is driving brand new gas-guzzling RangeRovers in the Home Counties, and even the city centres have had a few new shopping centres open....but nobody mentions that the suburbs...and especially former council estates...have been the ones to be sent back to the stone age …..just walking around such areas is a shock at how little anyone in central government cares about the lack of economic activity in such areas....definitely a 4 tier country now the UK - you have the elite wealthy in their little communities in prime areas protected by walls of cameras and the age-old strategy of trying to blend in on the outskirts of the "old-money communities". Then you have the top 2-3%, the high earning businessmen/women, self-made wealth/entrepreneurs, and high-earning professionals (often the ones working as much in private practice as they do for the NHS), then you have maybe 25% of people are are middle class and either have professional jobs or a relatively decent pensions from having worked all their lives either as a successful professional or running successful businesses. Then you have a huge swathe of people who pretty much have got nothing from the last decade except zero-hour contract, minimum wage jobs, or cuts to their local public services. On top of this council tax rises, national insurance rises, energy price rises, enforced pension contributions. And any hope they had of owning a home has been inflated away by rampant inflation in the housing sector ……

That's just the way I see the economy ...becoming a complete joke.

Surely the problem with interferring in free markets is that you can never know enough to understand what the unforeseen consequences of your interference will be in 5-10 years from now.

Free-markets are rational because they allow the people closest to their area of observation/understanding to make the relevant financial decisions.....this has always been considered by intellectuals to be more efficient than a group of people who are too busy to understand the local issues fully to interfere in prices that don't directly affect or concern them.

I just think it's ironic how the free market is never allowed to operate if it is perceived to damage the relative wealth of someone who is well connected politically. Just imagine how much more knowledgeable and intelligent the person who managed to trade the right way without any political connections needed to be to end up on the correct side of the trade. And yet is this skill ever rewarded by a party which supposedly believes in meritocracy? In my opinion they just change the law, or print more money, to bail out their friends ….it's practically a state of nepotism the UK has descended into ….. thirld world country coming to the UK within the next 20 years …. there must be other places in the world which are still running governments where the main aim is not to funnel as much money to your friends as quickly as possible even if that means changing the law or printing money at an unprecedented rate?? Or has the whole world descended into money-printing, financial fraud, and nepotism? And if this a result of technology such as smartphones and Facebook …. or what is the root cause?

Why doesn't the government cap council tax (or stop increasing national insurance contributions) if they really want to help the UK citizen.

Capping energy bills is a horrible way for a Conservative government to behave in what is a supposedly free-market economy - how can a group of people who believe in the market ideology now not believe in it (surely they need to change the name of the party to Command-and-Control Conservatism)

So we can see that the panic was perhaps/probably artificially induced given that the share prices returned to sensible valuation over the next few years. Now the only forces in the world powerful enough to cause such a panic were central banks ….hard to believe that they didn't do it on purpose ….feel sorry for RBS and Lloyds shareholders ...bet they never receive any compensation...….yet it was hardly a sane functioning of the markets which induced their financial losses ….Of course the other explanation is that central banks didn't realise the liquidity problem until it was too late ...and once they realised it they did their best to solve it and restore trading in share prices back to a vaguely sane range of valuations ...take your pick as to which you think is most likely...or offer another explanation which I shall look forward to hearing.

Sorry about all the typos in my last post - but the offer of 55p just makes me so angry when the directors should be trying to sell our Mozambique assets for between $1-1.5 billion.

The people who say it was an offer above the share price at the time ...how naïve can you be....don't you know the financial markets are as manipulated as a conjourers' playing cards....it only takes a few rumours and a couple of hundred thousand pounds to move a small share like Ophir by 20-30%...look at the typical sizes being traded on SETS....look at how spaced out they can be …. if trading is light you can have 10,000 shares at 70p and nothing in between up say 5,000 shares at 72p and then not much again in between until maybe another block of 10,000 at 73.5. That is just an example ...but I have been trading for ten years and it makes me so angry when politicians look to the market to decide on fair value ….like I said the market is as manipulated as a conjourers' pack of cards …. the only way to get close to fair value is to ask an auditor/accountant to make some reasonable assumptions about the future and to model the future cash flow ….everything else is just manipulation as it is setting prices based on rumours/political interests rather than what a company's value truly is … that is the sum of all of its future cashflows ...that is the one true metric of value to shareholders ….but the market is full of spivs who have found easier ways to make money than by modelling out a company's cash flow (based on reasonable assumptions) far into the future - anywhere from 3-30 years into the future would be reasonable timescales to consider for financial analysts.

We also have our 20% stake in the world's biggest known undeveloped conventional gas field - nearly 100TCF close to the shore - perfect for LNG - and as old nuclear stations from the 1960s/1970s are decommissioned by 2030 I think governments will have to boot up a few new gas-fired power stations (as they can't build enough nuclear by 2030 as they are already 5 years behind that schedule and haven't even begun most of the hypothetical new nuclear plants yet). Also nuclear is toxic and can be vulnerable to human error / earthquakes / and the waste is a nightmare to dispose off - and the plants produce hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste (most people don't realise the volume which is produced). I would say the 20% stake offshore Mozambique has to be worth $1 billion as Shell paid $1.1 billion for the other 20% back in 2011 and since 2011 government have been printing money like crazy, so it simply can't be worth less now than it was back in 2011. But to give Shell a good deal I would be happy to accept $1 billion this time around rather than $1.1 billion. Hence what does $1 billion in cash plus our producing assets and the chance to sue to Guinean government for breach of contract amount to in total.

would say based on the above that is someone offered £1.70 per share for Ophir then they would have got themselves a stonking deal if they do a half decent job of managing the assets out to 2025 - and their is always the potential that they can get back into the Fortuna project in the future once the LNG market normalises and dmand from China/India picks up again - which surely it must when you consider these two countries have 2.3 billion citizens and most of them are still ploughing fields with donkey and walking from village to village … sooner or later their must be a trickle down effect in these countries and the average standard of living be raised up - and gas can be used either as LPG as a cheaper alternative to petrol or it's also the quickest way of reliable generating more electricity (to build gas-fired power stations, this is old tech, very efficient, very simple construction, very high efficiency and very clean burning - not bad for the environment as it burns so clean).

Ridiculous offer of 55p per share. Three times would be a bargain for someone. Come back with a sensible offer of £1.65 Medco and you may stand a chance of getting yourselves a bargain. he current directors of Ophir can have no sense of financial responsibility at all...they are a disgrace to even consider selling the company at 55p when they must know how much our 20% stake in the fields offshore Mozambique is worth ...if Shell/Exxon don't want that 20% then I'm sure the Chinese or Indian would snap it up at the price Shell paid for the other 20% back in 2011.

Also Auson, if you've been around a while in the markets you will understand as well as anyone how extreme they can price things. Look at RBS in 2007 and then at the price in 2009. Look at Lehman and AIG in 2006 and then by 2009 Lehman didn't exist. Look at GKP, was price at 9p in 2009 and hit £4.40 per share in 2012. Even a large UK household company like M&S has fluctuated wildly between just over £2 to over £5 (it's done this several times during the past decade). Look at Taylor Wimpey - I nearly bought shares in them at 4.4p per share in spring 2009 and now today they trade at £1.80 per share. The list of extreme share price moves is endless - there is far more movement in the market than stability in my opinion (at least in terms of share prices). Look at the massive diversified (both in terms of commodities and geographic locations) miner BHP Billiton. It traded for less than £7 per share in early 2016 and now trades at over £17. Look at Royal Dutch Shell (one of the 5 largest listed oil companies in the world). It traded at below £12 per share in 2016 and now trades at over £24 per share.

I think you have misread me Auson - I am not some short-term, small minded ramper - I am just experienced in the markets, and from that experience I now expect them to be extreme and to set share prices that are as far away from realistic valuations as day is from night ( and all of that is only based on my lived experience of share trading over the past decade).

Also nobody would buy or sell because someone on a bulletin board makes a comment....that would be ridiculous …. if people are going to buy shares they will have done their own research …. you wouldn't ask someone whether a shoe was good value at £95 - you'd make your own mind up - and I assume most people who do so even more when it comes to shares because generally people will be spending a bit more than £95 when they choose to invest in a company.

No offence but I wasn't de-ramping. I was genuinely surprised to read in the results that Enquest were producing 67,7bopd. Nothing more, nothing less - I had my production forecasts wrong as I thought 62-63bopd would be the production level. I'm not going to apologise for forecasting the production incorrectly...it can happen....and I do respect the people who are holding from much higher up here …. I think everyone in the market has some theory (based on their life experience and financial knowledge) as to why the company they are investing in is undervalued. I would always totally respect that. If I was making the market I would love for everyone to be right....because everyone has a theory and who's to say that one person's theory is better than another person's theory.

I'm being lazy but does anyone know when Sainsbury's will reapply/appeal to the CMA and they will issues a further ruling on the issue?

If Jezza is really on the side of middle England (which he needs to be if he want to be Prime Minister at the next Election) then what good could it do to totally disrupt the energy market by randomly nationalising a few companies and spreading fear and panic amongst investors in every other company related to the sector.

Surely far more sensible to work with Centrica towards a common goal of lowering wholesale gas and electric prices in the UK.

It can't be a coincidence that this share price has fallen so heavily under a Conservative government. I actually think Labour could be a friend to Centrica as well as to middle England ….lowering energy prices benefits everyone ...surely Centrica knows which gas/electricity projects are good value for money and which aren't...surely as soon as he gets a sniff of being PM Jeremy C would realise he needs to take Centrica's advice and stop his ridiculous threats to nationalise them??

Anyway the Conservatives are no friends of investors in the UK energy sector ….. a new government could hardly be any worse than a 60% destruction of shareholder value under the current government? Or if you disagree I would be interested to hear why?

Also Centrica did a right's issue recently at 200p per share …. I can't imagine they could get another one way after shafting the last lot of investors ….another point to make to ministers …. you can take from one group of investors once but not a second time (generally they are too smart for that). Hence really the government (however much inclined they are to their current position) may see logic on these issues sooner or later …. or may not …. it's hard to be sure of anything since the days when Lehman collapsed and half the companies in the world went being being worth billions to a few million almost overnight.

Yeah...learned a lot from this experience....hope nobody was too offended that I thought Enquest had got themselves into deeper financial doodoo with Kraken than it actually seems from their latest results...also to whoever was saying Magnus was not being valued correctly in the share price....I've got to say that I agree with you now. But this has taught me that whatever we think about the future....most of us will be wrong a lot (just some of us more than others). Hence I can see why many of the pros tend to keep their comments fairly general and just let their actual trading do the talking ….

Anyway it's a complicated world ….but ideally banks would be balancing up new lending which benefits their customers, against not lending in such a manner as to destabilise existing businesses which are performing well. My earlier comments were because I think from what I can see in my local area that UK banks have got this balance very wrong ….incredibly wrong...way off the scale wrong....but that's just my opinion until I do something about it such as getting investment from other sources....or getting the bank to see things from my perspective ...or going direct to customers and getting them to each provide £2 of up-front financing for a return of £5 in lower costs over the next year. Many options …..

Hi BruceJamieson,

However, the whole system stinks. Despite all the QE whenever I wonder whether the time is right to approach a UK bank for a loan for my business to expand I don't even bother asking the question.....as there is zero effort on the part of banks to be welcoming to people seeking to borrow.....can't help thinking the QE was sent with instructions about who it was to be used to bail out of a hole ….certainly doesn't feel like business ideas are judged on merit or that it is a level playing field and that the best businesses can borrow ...more like if you know the right people then you can borrow even if you are better qualified and have a better proposal....can't fight the fact people don't tend to like people who say they have a cheaper and more efficient way of running a service....the customers would no doubt support the idea as they would benefit...but the banks themselves only care about protecting inefficient businesses from what I have seen …. don't seem to get enough customer views about whether the new proposal really is a better offering or not....hence old business can continue overcharging without even worrying as long as new businesses are being starved of capital for expansion. Just a rant ….maybe a little personal....but miffed at the amount of financial fraud I've seen since 2008....and at the hypocrisy of central banks saying they are providing liquidity...when at the same time the banks have actually tightened up their lending criteria and become more insular and more protective of "existing interests" whether or not they benefit the other side of their business - that is the customer side.

I'm kicking myself not because the price has increased (any fool could wish to have bought cheaper). But because I had all the info needed that probably the results wouldn't be as bad some seemed to expect....despite the poor performance of Kraken I should have realised that Magnus more than made up for it ….oh well....another piece of learning for the future ….one day I will put all my learning into practice and make out like a moni bandit!!