Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Follow,
"Anybody know why this share has fallen so dramatically compared to others?"
Which others are you referring to? The whole market (with very few exceptions) has plummeted today. Look at SKG for a comparator - down 7.4% as I write, whereas SMDS "only" down some 5%.
Energy prices, interest rates, inflation, supply-chain difficulties, sanctions, cost-of-living increases for consumers, to name just a few - where do I stop?
Mike.
Emerald,
"Only today, tomorrow and Friday left to get in for the special dividend."
Sorry to have to say it, but I think you are incorrect. It goes ex-dividend tomorrow (Thursday). You'd have had to have bought by close of play today (Wednesday) to get the Special Dividend.
Happy, of course, to be corrected.
Mike.
Hi Rovernut,
Okay, I'll have to take your word for it regarding the exact price at which you bought, and as you can see there has now been lengthy discussion here about the effects of consolidations etc since the "good old days". The simple point is that you bought at a very much higher price than the price today, and you're now sadly very much "under water". My sympathies about that. My current holding is also still significantly below the average acquisition cost, but to nothing like the same extent as yours.
All the best,
Mike.
fleccy,
I think that that's a very good point you make. Producing a chart now, retrospectively applies consolidations (or splits) that didn't exist at the time. Therefore one needs to be very careful that one is comparing like with like.
My 2nd holding of Vodafone (there had been an earlier one from about 2002 which I had sold out of) started with a purchase in Feb 2006 at a price of about 124p. Then in Jul/Aug 2006 there was a 7-for-8 consolidation combined with a cash return via "B" shares. Having then built up that holding over the years, I sold out completely in Sep 2013, near the peak share price because of the Verizon sale, in 2 tranches - one was at 214p and one was at 205p (leaving off the decimals) - this info is from my contract notes. I was out of Vodafone for about 5 years so didn't take part in whatever happened next. I see now from the contract notes that the shares I sold were USD0.11428571.
In Sep 2018 I started a complete new holding of Vodafone (which I still have) buying a first tranche at 164p (leaving off the decimals). The shares had been as high as about 220p just before that, and that can in fact be seen if one creates a 5-year chart on this (LSE) site. Unfortunately as we all know, the falling knife then continued to fall, but that's another story! I now see from my contract notes that the shares I bought in Sep 2018 were USD0.2095238. So the shares I bought in 2018 were of a very different "par value" to the ones I sold in 2013 - there must have been one or more very significant consolidations during the 5-year gap between Sep 2013 and Sep 2018. Not being a VOD shareholder at the time, I didn't watch the corporate developments too closely.
This probably goes to explain the much higher peaks that people are mentioning, than the ones I remember from the time.
Anyway, enough of history, "we are where we are now" and let's hope it continues to improve.
ATB, Mike.
Thanks danielh and Narcus for the facts. That was a bit before my time, in the midst of the "TMT" days and dotcom bubble. I started with Vodafone in late 2002.
Mind you, I certainly won't complain if we see those kinds of prices again!
ATB, Mike.
Rovernut,
Are you on the right share? When was it 280? I've been involved with Vodafone shares on and off for nearly 20 years, and I certainly don't remember it being anywhere near 280. I think the highest was just after it sold its part of Verizon, and that would only be in the low 200s.
Hi picklerick,
No. According to the 21 Jan 2022 RNS announcement, you retain your old certificate(s) and don't get a new one. See here:-
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RDSB/royal-dutch-shell-plc-changes-its-name-to-shell-plc-qpbtznagxfie6jb.html
Mike.
Hmm, fascinating debate...
Walkersworld, I'd be a bit careful about using words such as "criminal".
There's a difference between how things are reported to the taxman (if indeed this is required), where things have to be done to one particular set of rules, and how one uses statistics to assess one's own investing performance. With the latter you are at liberty to use any method you like.
It's similar to how companies report their financial results, where there are "statutory measures" which have to be done and done in a particular way, and "Alternative performance measures", where companies can also choose to present figures in ways of their own choosing. As long as they state clearly which are which, is there a problem?
With my own share dealings which are outside my ISA, I follow the HMRC method (currently called the "Section 104" holdings) with my spreadsheets, simply because I only want to run one system, not 2 different systems in parallel. If people also want to run their own system, for whatever reason, where's the harm in that?
Mike.
Hi doubleorquits8 (and anyone else who's interested),
Boyobach has given you a good answer. If any of the "distribution" *was* to be paid as a dividend in the future, to work out how much it would be per share you'd have to divide the total cash dividend amount by the total number of shares (which includes both the RDSA shares and the RDSB shares).
You can get the total number of shares from the "Voting Rights" RNS announcements (they include a figure for combined total of "A" plus "B"). The most recent one was on 30 Nov 2021, when the stated total was:-
7,714,589,773.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/RDSB/
Of course they're buying-back shares on an almost daily basis, so the amount now is most probably less. There should be a more up-to-date figure very soon, as these "Voting Rights" announcements probably come out monthly. Or if you really want to keep up to date you could subtract the daily amounts bought back, which are announced almost daily.
As the plan now is to combine the "A" and the "B" shares into a single type, it will shortly be even easier to work out. According to the relevant recent announcement with timetable, that should take effect on 31 Jan 2022.
I hope that helps,
Mike.
meoryou,
I think you've just about been answered already by others, but most of what you say is about right.
For any share, not just BP, market cap (short for Market Capitalisation) is exactly as you say. Total number of shares x the market price of the shares. The market price of the shares changes almost all the time, while the market is open, so market cap changes all the time.
All market cap is doing is valuing the Equity in the company. If you wanted to buy *all* of BP (all its oil wells, refineries, etc etc) it would cost you more than the market cap, because you'd have to pay off the debt as well to fully own it. What you'd have to pay is called the Enterprise Value, which in your example would be 120b.
You have to think of the Balance Sheet.
Assets = Equity plus Debt.
Debt is a fixed amount at any point in time (like a mortgage on a house), whereas Equity is what people are prepared to pay for it.
Your 107b would be the new Enterprise Value, not the new Market Cap.
You're right that the share price would probably change, but no-one "sets" the share price. It is the result of all the buyers and all the sellers. If more people want to buy than want to sell, the price will rise, and vice versa.
You're also right that the company would be more profitable if its debt was lower, because it would have to pay out less interest. However, you're not quite right about it being more profitable because there's less to pay out in dividends. The dividends are a *result* of the company being profitable, and the company can choose whether or not to pay them, and how much they should be. Whereas, the company can't choose whether or not to pay the interest on the debt - it's *got* to pay it, or it will find itself in big trouble.
I hope that helps and is reasonably clear.
If anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'm sure they'll jump in and correct me!
Regards, Mike.
albert25,
"... so what was the point is it a way of getting people to buy the share a complete conn or what".
What makes you think its about "getting" people to buy the shares? No-one is "getting" you, or me, to buy any BP shares - it's our free choice. In fact it's almost the opposite - if you don't buy any more BP shares than what you've already got, then the result of the buy-back is that you will end up owning a bigger fraction of the company than you did before. If there are a total 50,000 shares, and you own 1,000, you own one fiftieth of the equity in the company. If BP buys back (and cancels) 10,000, you will now own one fortieth of the equity in the company.
If the company makes a profit and can afford to pay say £1m dividend, then it will now have less shares on which to pay it, so the dividend per share could be made higher, or alternatively more of the profit could be left to keep in the company, which should (everything else being equal) make the share price higher.
However, buy-backs also can have downsides. They could mean that the company now has more debt, or less cash, than it would have done otherwise, which could make its profits (or losses) more volatile, which in turn could make the share price more volatile.
Mike.
Paul2566,
"I'm not certain in this instance if the shares are being cancelled and taken out of circulation, or being held by the company.".
They are being cancelled, not being held by the company in Treasury. I've just checked in the 3 most-recent RNS announcements.
Gary59,
"Cynical or what but ...".
I wouldn't say "cynical", just "realistic"!
Mike.