Member Info for LWHL

You must be young. This is going to play out exactly the same way it has for decades.

Although if this time is going to be different, to the upside for the British people, not just slightly less dreadful, then that would be great. Not going to hold my breath though, and suggest you do not either.

Oh, and read Taxtopia. Based on your post, I presume you have not done so yet.

And yes, it is chillingly accurate. And no, the other lot are not going to change it. Why would they?

Good old Hardman and Co. For those thinking of investing based on their material, do have a look back over all the presentations that they have done on behalf of STX. Maybe this time will be different, eh?

What has not changed of course, is the amount of their own money the CEO and CFO have put into buying shares.

But, I presume the only people left buying here now are those willing to play the greater fool game.

So, well done in advance to those of you who manage to get out with a profit and, well, no sympathy to those of you who end up on the wrong side of this greater fool game.

And willing to overlook all the red flags and the market misleading stuff too, like those false prescription numbers - what was the conclusion to that?! - goodness me.

Well, I am pretty sure everyone here has the measure of you. Presumably, of the two of us, you are the only one that gets paid per comment, so I guess that makes you the winner in your own mind. Anyway, I will not respond to your tedious mendacity again.

Good spot. Either way, a nothing burger, as our friends across the Pond might say :)

I am not currently invested here. Rest assured if that changes, I will post accordingly.

Equally if I end up missing the boat, because something special happens and the SP gaps up to something extremely material, I will post my congratulations to holders. I will also not claim I bought back in just beforehand.

Why would I? I have nothing to prove.

And ultimately, those posters whose opinions I respect, probably know that I am sincere. Wrong at least as often as I am right when it comes to this stock market stuff, but genuine.

The boiler room types and the other disingenuous types that IMO make up only a small percentage of this otherwise excellent community, can do one, as far as I care. GLA longs.

Not de-listing news. No idea where that poster got that idea from.

In due course, when they can no longer get any more raises away, sure. More likely than not, by some margin of probability, IMO, but not right now.

They have some cash, but presumably this R&D event is going to try and get some more interest for, I would imagine, another round of dilution, to extend the lifestyle runway. But I could be wrong of course :) GLA.

Not sure they would do so in favour of shareholders though. Regardless, surely this needs to be concluded, one way or the other, before a GE?

Would not put it past these lazy Tories to call a GE now, in order to put off having to make any hard decisions, like this one and a bunch of others. Joking. Actually, I am not joking.

Meh, meet the new government, same as the old one. Although perhaps one day the election results might be somewhat more fun. Unlikely in this one though, based on those recent local election results.

I can understand that sentiment. I have more lumpy trades in BATS for that reason, although happy to just hold it until I hopefully see my various slice prices. Total exit price is sufficiently far away that it is not in my thoughts. All subject to the usual caveats etc.

Meanwhile, that partial fill allocation was annoying me....so rather than adding at a live quote price for the balance, I just dumped them. A princely 10 quid profit on those ones, lol.

Nvidia and FOMC later. Want to see how that goes first. Got enough of these already anyway for now. GLA.

Well, we got one, but probably not the one we expected :) Could be another one in the pipeline I guess.

Either way, nothing to worry about, just an II trim, IMO.

Thanks for sharing that link. Putting aside my general loathing for politicians (briefly!), I think the Belfast one who asked the question and gave the outline to Parliament, did a good job in getting it raised.

A lot of questions do not make the cut, as many of you here will probably be aware, when it comes to the background machinery of Parliament.

I remain bearish on how shareholders are going to be treated now, as I have been open about recently, but I do see something, or certainly hope so, that does protect those jobs.

Unfortunately, I still cannot see how they can swing it to not make shareholders take at least a big haircut for simple political reasons, even if you ignore the potential (and hotly debated) legal dispute as to whether it would be state aid or otherwise.

Something that is no doubt a delight to legal minds to battle on (at great expense to one cost code or another), but as far as I can see, not something that is a slam dunk certainty to say it is not.

But just my agenda-free opinion and we will find out soon enough either way. I just did not see something positive for shareholders in that Parliament debate clip, personally. GLA longs.

In case you still misunderstand me: I did not say it will take 50 years to get back to 2% average inflation. I do not know how long it will take, but that in itself is not the issue. I'm done here. GLA.

If you are going to offer a rebuttal, then you need to read the comment properly. Like mistaking my earlier comment about average inflation. Details are important.

I suggested that a credible period of time to use for measuring average inflation could be 50 years. Why? Because since the GFC, we have seen interference with the monetary system like never before.

With lots of consequences (intended or otherwise) that will have an impact on the purchasing power of the GBP and therefore lots of key asset classes and other commodities for a long time into the future. Which in itself, will influence inflationary trends going forward.

If you disagree with this, that is fine. If you think it is clueless, well, so be it.

That is fine, RL. Feel free to listen to the experts at the BoE. And the politicians. They know what they are doing and they have got your best interests at heart.

I notice that you have not offered any of your own opinions, or rebuttals, just vacuous and snippy insults.

I thought you were actually being serious and engaging in a grown up way for a change. I was mistaken.

The debt pile always put me off them, and they are also not cheap on fundamentals either IMO, but I can see how that dividend is a big carrot at the same time.

Have a look at BATS for a potential dividend play. Not advice of course etc, but if you are not bothered with the so called 'ethics' of its products, then lots to like IMO. Buy backs in place and a few lucrative strings to its bow, other than just the main stuff. Or some of the REIT's, although with those high dividends comes higher risk of course.

I have no problem with that...will defend to the death your right to do so etc.

It is a good question. 'Historic' is the answer (and what indeed does that actually involve?) 12 months is probably the most common time frame that economists use (I am not, nor ever have been one, so might be wrong about that), but IMO, you really need to look over a far longer period of time. No, I do not have a set number in mind, but at least 50 years IMO.

Have a look at the BoE's own website. Does not tell you much at all on this topic, but that in itself may tell you a lot.

It is all only smoke and mirrors really, when you think about it.

As for ASOS expanding its horizons...if they can get India right for example (and that is not going to be easy, but is also not impossible) then I agree, with a LT horizon, that would likely be very, very, helpful to the overall business.

But right now, cost controls and debt reduction are really important. Get the business lean and healthy again, on a firmer financial footing. Not easy to square the circle of this, plus expansion, but C-suite are extremely well remunerated, so that is there headache and challenge to overcome :)

Well, either way, and in spite of what I said (and planned) the other day, I set another small cheeky small buy order which appears to have partially filled. 1398 shares. Less than half, since you asked. I am going to have to either dump those or add to round the number up at some point :)

I said average 2%, jamesss and RL. Not the current number of 2%. If we see a 1% inflation print next month (we won't) - but if we did for arguments sake - then we will not be much closer at all to that 2% average.

I am too lazy to do the calculations for what would be needed to get us back to that 2% average, but I certainly would be interested to know if anyone else wants to crunch the numbers :)

Remember, the central bank mandate is to achieve an average of 2% inflation.

That is without even getting into the reeds on how inflation is calculated, which goods are included in the 'basket' (and which are omitted) for said calculations etc. Trustworthy or otherwise.

Again, you can drill pretty deep on that topic, too.

But ASOS, like all outfits, can only control what is in their power to do so.

What we do know, at the time of print, is that shorts are steadily unwinding here (on average, to slightly below average, volume) and the SP is reflecting this.

We know the level of inside buying from two of the big guns has been significant quite recently. Shame the CEO did not put his hand in his pocket, but that in itself is not a reason to be bullish or bearish. But it would have been another tick in the box, IMO. It is what it is.

I can tell you that the chart suggests a likely retest of the 50 DMA at this point. Beyond that, no idea.

For those with a long term horizon here, none of the above matters. Could it go bust? Sure. Could it multibag from here? Equally possible, certainly if they deliver on the plan and get that debt down. Which Barker and a few others appear confident they will, you would have to presume.

Lots of stocks could, and over the years ahead, no doubt many will, go bust, as they have since the first stock market exchange was established in Amsterdam in the 1600's (I think).

Anyway, that was a slight derail, but not entirely, so I hope I have not broken my promise :) And in fairness, it was largely a post made in response to some questions. GLA.

My post was not a de-ramp here, jamesss. Merely a macro economic opinion, driven by facester's post, which caught my attention, along with their rhetorical question about whether we should revise the inflation target upwards.

FWIW, and because getting back to an average 2% inflation is probably not going to happen for a decade or more, it would not surprise me if 'they' did eventually suggest something like this and for that reason.

Anyway, I will not derail again.

You all should know I am fond of this one by now (albeit as a trader), so no more de-ramper accusations por favor :)

I would get rid of the central bank, as well as the 2% inflation target. Inflation is a tax.

It is amazing how successful the establishment has been, in convincing 99% of the population that a 2% annual inflation target is something good to aim for.

Or that almost nobody seems to have considered that, after such a long period of high inflation, the idea of letting inflation drop below 2% for a while might be good for the people, to 'offset' the high inflation period.

Ah well, all we can try is to play the markets, not the macro. GLA.