Member Info for Love_You

Patisserie Valerie, Carrillion, Afren, Lloyds, RBS, HBOS, Barclays, Flybe.

I can think of more shares that go down (and many bankrupt) on the London markets than shares that go up.

Just a word of caution based on my personal (bad) experience.

Maybe. However, from 10 years experience of the markets I would say I also agree with the poster who said this will also most likely dip below the placing price within the next few months. It's how the markets work these days. Ignore whatever the company says - that is irrelevant. Also ignore whatever is on the news - again that is irrelevant. Trading is largely based on price action, technicals and certain conventions. And again like I said everything I'm saying is based on 10+ years of the markets. And one of these "conventions" is that whatever the placing price was at some point within the following few months the share price will dip below it by at least 20% usually. Basically this is to allow patient people who use limit-buy orders to make a virtually guaranteed, risk-free, profit. Those who rush in hastily will either have to sit through a period of being at least 20% down on their investments, or they might even wonder why the price has fallen and believe that this is an indication they should sell. From my 10 years experience of the market these market moves after a placing are very rarely an indication that you should sell - they are just the market makers trying to shake out the "weak" holders. However the smarter traders wait for the best entry price, knowing that a lower price after the placing is virtually an inevitability it would seem, from what I have witnessed time and time again. Good luck to all traders/investors - you're going to need it - everything except technology companies has been shafted for the last ten years - it's been a good market only if you've had inside info or if you've had someone with previous experience to guide you for the first few years, whilst you learned the ropes. So this is just a heads up to all newbies to be a bit careful to begin with - just for your own sakes. Remember the market will always be here. There is no rush to invest your hard-earned money on the first share that you like the sound of. In fact it is best to try and take as much emotion out of your decisions as possible. For sure you need to learn both technical analysis and fundamental valuation approaches before you begin investing. You also need to learn how the market works - how politics influences things - the cycles that sectors go through as part of the normal macro economic cycles. And just track a few shares and watch what influences the price for six months - is it technicals (the share price graph/chart), or is it company news, or is it macro factors? Which has the most influence on predicting the price. And which of these factors can you predict yourself. Because if you can't predict the underlying factors that "drive" the price then how on earth do you expect that you'd be able to predict the price itself (without being able to predict the "underlying drivers" of the price)? So just a few thoughts for any newbies thinking about putting money into the London markets. Personally I think the London market is a very dodgy place

Two questions.

(1) What makes it uninvestable?

(2) Surely most funds are "long" funds. Hence there only want to fulfill their mandate to grow investor wealth is to aim for a higher share price to sell at. So why would most funds not want this above 75p in your opinion? Also, who are you - are you working for anyone managing "serious money", i.e. over $100 Million?

I certainly don't have any inside info to help with your trading decisions. However, my own view is that if this company were to go bankrupt like Lehman's then it would be pretty horrible for the government to explain (a government elected on being good for business and the UK economy)

I'll take them off you at your stop loss price if you'd like me to?

Mate, just let it go. You got your money - took it off the table at £12.89. I'm sure everyone respects you for that. Best thing is to go on a few nice holidays and enjoy spending what you earned here. Of course I agree with everything you said - this was stupidly overpriced at anything over £5 in the past. I'm only annoyed with myself that I didn't follow through when I considered shorting it near the highs of £15/16 per share. Also, there does need to be more propoer analysis posted of these boards - and then the prices wouldn't vary so wildly which I think would lead to more responsible/realistic trading - and people who actually had a clue about the company (rather than momentum/algo traders) would be rewarded more. And I think if you do the research deeply into a company and calculated the fair value of future expected cash flows/dividends over the next 3/5/10 years then you do deserve to be rewarded by the market. However I'm not sure why the market rewards these algo-bots and momentum traders - what do they actually contribute to making human existence better in the medium term? I mean proper fundamental analysis is useful to humanity as it allows for planning to ensure that supply-and-demand are balanced in the medium/long term meaning less painful adjustments are necessary along the journey. However algobots do the opposite - they accentuate trends in an irrational fashion and cause more "painful" adjustments to be necessary in the "real" economy. Any thoughts?

I would say the lack of "rationality" in the stock exchange prices is getting worse over time. I mean compare this to Facebook. One produces a product without which most humans could not eat, go on holiday, meet up with their friends (i.e. oil companies) and the other produces a product which the scientific evidence is starting to show is both addictive and mentally harmful (Facebook). Yet guess what Facebook is valued by the market at $460 Billion, whilst PMO is valued by the market at $0.8 Billion. So yes I would advise anyone thinking about playing the markets to really research how the market works - it is not about "value" anymore - it is full of algobots. The only way to "win" is to realise you can't change the fact the prices are further from "fair" value than ever before in the history of the stock markets. So really all you can do is to join the algobots which basically pay no attention to "common sense" or "fundamental value of the parts" and only care about following trends (momentum). So just be very wary before you commit any money and make sure you understand the market is not priced on "value" any more - it is mostly just algobots following trends - and hence "value of the parts" (as used by Buffet to provide a floor valuation of companies) no longer holds true. Basically it is a very difficult market to trade ....but that's because I'm not an algobot and always used to rely on a good deal of common sense and having an instinct for what a company could be broken up for and sold off for (hence I always new what the floor price of a company was in a worst case scenario). However there is no "floor" price in these markets as central bankers just decide what the next trends are going to be and if you disagree with them then you are screwed - hence the success of the algobots who just sell if a price trend is broken, and just buy whenever there is a price breakout. Overtime the strategy basically amount to selling any "losers" and holding onto "winners". Due to the long-term trends that have developed over the past ten years 0 tech companies rising in share prices and everything else basically falling - then it's been a market that couldn't have been better designed to reward algo-bots over any other types of investors/traders.

Dividend is 5.8% over at BP, over 5% at BHP Billiton, and 4.2% at EasyJet. Why do you think that a 2.5% dividend here makes it "worth the risk?"

Ladies and Gentlemen, just what the heck is going wrong for this bank? 8 years of a declining share price? Are they completely stuffed?

The tax+royalty rate is 27% in the Falklands (which is as it should be seeing that much investment is need to set up the necessary infrastructure from scratch - and the tax revenues will make everyone who lives in the islands a multi-millionaire in any case within say a 5-year period). Hence due to the favourable tax rate if I was the CEO of Premier I would do a deal on Zama. I would farm-out 65% of our interest in Zama for someone to come in and cover 62% of the costs of Sea-Lion but receiving 37% of the oil production. It's still in the other parties interest to do this deal because of the very large difference in tax rates between Mexico and the Falkland Isles.

Opinion: No Opinion
Price: 73.90
RE: AndToday 14:51The tax rate is very favourable in the Falklands (which is as it should be seeing that much investment is need to set up the necessary infrastructure from scratch - and the tax revenues will make everyone who lives in the islands a multi-millionaire in any case within say a 5-year period). Hence due to the favourable tax rate if I was the CEO of Premier I would do a deal on Zama. I would farm-out 65% of our interest in Zama for someone to come in and cover 62% of the costs of Sea-Lion but receiving 37% of the oil production. It's still in the other parties interest to do this deal because of the very large difference in tax rates between Mexico and the Falkland Isles.

The tax rate is very favourable in the Falklands (which is as it should be seeing that much investment is need to set up the necessary infrastructure from scratch - and the tax revenues will make everyone who lives in the islands a multi-millionaire in any case within say a 5-year period). Hence due to the favourable tax rate if I was the CEO of Premier I would do a deal on Zama. Basically I would farm-out 40% of our interest in Zama for someone to come in and cover 50% of the costs of Sea-Lion but only to receive 33% of the gross oil revenues in return. It's still in the other parties interest to do this deal because of the very large difference in tax rates between Mexico and the Falkland Isles.

Crowcast I do believe you may be human and not an algobot. What a sensible comment that is, "common sense is free." Indeed if every person just thought for themselves, and rejected any stupid orders from "higher up", then terrible things like genocides could never happen. As I don't believe anyone applying "common sense" would ever think there was a justification for anything other than economic cooperation towards mutual benefit - it's the quickest way to grow and ultimately should be the most successful strategy - because once growth between "fair cooperators" reaches critical mass they can set up systems to exclude all "free-riders" and hence growth becomes unstoppable and self-perpetuating/sustainable.

In my opinion the UK economy is dire. There is no lending, there is no willingness to support business creation - it's all a pack of lies from the government. Just providing some feedback from the perspective of one individual to those punters wishing for a share price increase. What I'd say is that when you actually provide some money to people with decent business ideas (and good competencies to support them) then maybe then you deserve a share price increase.

WTF does PMO waste so much money on? Genel has got to half the production levels in a vastly less expensive manner. I really do wonder how can oil service costs be so low in Kurdistan and so high in the North Sea. Are the oil-service workers in Kurdistan working for a loaf of a bread and a kalashnikov whilst those in the North Sea are all earning a gold-plated Rolls Royce every year?

Ultimately there are people who wish this share price to go far higher (up to 330p) and people who wish the company to go bankrupt so they can buy the assets at a fraction of their true value. I am one of those who think fair value (even with the debt) is currently about 245p a share. If one looks at the enterprise value of the assets, reserves and current production levels it comes to about $5.5 Billion. So minus $2.5 billion of debt and the equity value should be about $3 billion in a market that was rational/pricing the company at fair value.

Unfortunately this current market is as crooked as they come with central bankers interfering left-right-and-centre, thinking they know best, and wrecking a great deal of economic destruction. And soon there will be a great backlash against them and they will find they have paid the price for trying to push through change too fast, and not in accord with the scientific evidence either (which finds generally that climate change is not a threat and is barely detectable - and we have at least 80 years to cut down oil use by 25% which is all that's needed to be sustainable forever, or until all the oil on the planet runs out which won't be for another 300 years at least).

Hello all. What I don't understand is why the majority of people seem to say that lower carbon emissions are desirable. What will plants breathe in the future if carbon emissions decrease? Will the planet be able to support less trees and plants if human activity emits less carbon dioxide in the future? And if this desirable or not?

Also, where are the voices in favour of economic growth as a good thing for humanity? It seems the political agenda has become completely divorced from the fact that economic growth is not a bad thing per se. Although certain types of pollution are very harmful (nuclear waste for example) probably carbon dioxide emissions are necessary to support the amount of trees and plants that grow on the planet (and in order to survive they need to carbon dioxide to breathe in and then in return they emit oxygen).