Member Info for MikeM14

67Sam,
"The Net Asset Value would double
??????
"
What I'm sure is meant by Gazzleberry is the NAV *per share* would double. Otherwise it's wrong and you're right to question it.
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,
No probs. All the best.
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.

pastyc,
Only if the market is open tomorrow (28 Dec 2021). I don't think it is (but could be proved wrong!).
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.

Thanks Paul2566,
Yes, looking back over a 1-year period, the SP gain of UKW looks to be slightly higher than that of TRIG, although, as they say, "shares don't go up in a straight line". I've gained on both of them (at this exact point in time - things could look different in days, weeks, etc). I haven't had either of them for as long as you have, doing most of my buying around March/April this year, but have picked up useful dividend cash along the way. I intend to hold both for the longer term, and continue to accumulate either of them on respective dips. There's no harm in holding both - this dilutes any management "execution risk".
I can't see the demand for electricity diminishing any time soon - people have and want more and more "things" that need electricity, there'll be all those electric cars needing charging, all the green hydrogen requiring electrolysis to produce it, more rail electrification, the longer-term replacement of gas boilers for domestic heating, more fossil-fuel generators will be retired, and I seem to read about nothing but delays with bringing more nuclear generation on stream, to name a few.
As you say, good to hear other investors' perspectives.
Mike.

MarkGo,
Thanks for your largely polite response and for letting us know clearly where you stand. Much of what you say I am not going to disagree with.
Far be it from me to read any sarcasm into your first paragraph, about the misspelling of the variant. As I think you realise, the main effect is one of perception and your views would carry even more credibility if you got the name right - I pointed that out in the interests of trying to be helpful not as an "attack".
In terms of the government having "no true opposition", I'm not so sure that, with recent events, and the trends in those events (including resignation(s), and the way certain votes have gone), that is the case any more. Look at those 100-odd backbenchers for a start. Nowhere in my posting did I load my comments to the effect that "there is no alternative to our leader's view".
Clearly Austria, Germany, and The Netherlands, have come to similar conclusions about the seriousness of the situation. Whether they've reached those conclusions "independently" of the UK government, I'll leave you to conjecture.
Given that, as you say, the true "Dictator" and enemy is the virus, surely people's best purposes would be served by it being defeated.
Enjoy your Sunday drinks!
Mike.

MarkGo,
You have spent a very significant amount of time on this BP board criticising other posters' observations and views about COVID including Omicron, and finding and pasting-in media articles in an attempt to give added weight or support to your criticisms. Similarly there seems to be implicit, and sometimes explicit, criticism of the way the situation is being managed by the government, and of the way the factual data is presented (eg on the government/NHS websites) to the public.
Have you written to your MP to express your dissatisfaction with the way this is being managed at a national level by those whose responsibility it is to manage it?
Rather than seemingly continuously criticising what others do and think, given what is currently known, and, importantly, what is currently *not* known, about the new variant, can you please explain clearly to us all what *you* think *should* be being done?
I saw in one of your earlier postings this last week that you said that you had done your research on this, and suggested that another poster did the same. And yet despite that research, you have continued to misname the latest variant. It is "Omicron", not "Omnicron".
In your latest pasted-in article, the "Analysis" by Nick Triggle, below, whilst I am confident that he is no doubt a nice chap and means well, the job of the BBC and other media is to report the facts. With all respect to Nick, I can't believe for one moment that you seriously believe he would have the level of expertise, experience, responsibility, and intellectual insight of someone such as Professor Whitty. The "analysis", you should see, is littered with "ifs", "buts" and "maybes". Look at his 3rd paragraph. In effect he is saying that more than 1 in 5 patients fall into the "incidental" category as regards COVID. And yet, at the bottom of your posting you have translated that into: "FOUR OUT OF FIVE COVID HOSPITAL CASES ARE 'INCIDENTALS'".
It also, surely, doesn't take a genius to work out that if, heaven forbid, everyone in the country became infected with COVID, then *every* death would be "with COVID", whether or not "from" COVID.
Mike.

MarkGo,
You have spent a very significant amount of time on this BP board criticising other posters' observations and views about COVID including Omicron, and finding and pasting-in media articles in an attempt to give added weight or support to your criticisms. Similarly there seems to be implicit, and sometimes explicit, criticism of the way the situation is being managed by the government, and of the way the factual data is presented (eg on the government/NHS websites) to the public.
Have you written to your MP to express your dissatisfaction with the way this is being managed at a national level by those whose responsibility it is to manage it?
Rather than seemingly continuously criticising what others do and think, given what is currently known, and, importantly, what is currently *not* known, about the new variant, can you please explain clearly to us all what *you* think *should* be being done?
I saw in one of your earlier postings this last week that you said that you had done your research on this, and suggested that another poster did the same. And yet despite that research, you have continued to misname the latest variant. It is "Omicron", not "Omnicron".
In your latest pasted-in article, the "Analysis" by Nick Triggle, below, whilst I am confident that he is no doubt a nice chap and means well, the job of the BBC and other media is to report the facts. With all respect to Nick, I can't believe for one moment that you seriously believe he would have the level of expertise, experience, responsibility, and intellectual insight of someone such as Professor Whitty. The "analysis", you should see, is littered with "ifs", "buts" and "maybes". Look at his 3rd paragraph. In effect he is saying that more than 1 in 5 patients fall into the "incidental" category as regards COVID. And yet, at the bottom of your posting you have translated that into: "FOUR OUT OF FIVE COVID HOSPITAL CASES ARE 'INCIDENTALS'".
It also, surely, doesn't take a genius to work out that if, heaven forbid, everyone in the country became infected with COVID, then *every* death would be "with COVID", whether or not "from" COVID.
Mike.

I definitely only pressed the button once. Both my posts should be identical!

Hi Paul2566,
"Its definately underperforming when compared to UKW".
I think it depends on the length and timing of period over which you're comparing them. If you use the chart facility on this ("LSE") site for each, and pick 5 years, then the figures contradict your statement. Crudely (I've ignored the decimals for the purpose of a 10-second exercise):-
TRIG price on 16 Dec 2016: 107.
TRIG price now: 132.
TRIG % increase: 23%.
UKW price on 16 Dec 2016: 120.
UKW price now: 139.
UKW % increase: 16%.
Against that, of course, I think that certainly recently UKW's dividends have been slightly higher.
Probably at a tactical rather than a longer-term systemic level, their respective share price performances could be more influenced by the timing of their various fund-raises. UKW have just completed one. TRIG are still in the midst of an SIP (Share Issuance Programme) that runs until 4 March 2022 with a max of 600 million new shares. Again, by my crude calculation, there's still about 239 million shares left on that, that could potentially be announced/issued at any time. Given the total number of shares currently in issue, that could be anything up to roughly a 2-for-19 new Issue. We've seen how these new fund-raises temporarily depress the share price - I've recently been through them with UKW and a couple of other similar Investment Trusts. I haven't yet been involved in one with TRIG because I too recently became a shareholder, but again I observed the temporary effect on share price.
Mike.

Hi Paul2566,
"Its definately underperforming when compared to UKW".
I think it depends on the length and timing of period over which you're comparing them. If you use the chart facility on this ("LSE") site for each, and pick 5 years, then the figures contradict your statement. Crudely (I've ignored the decimals for the purpose of a 10-second exercise):-
TRIG price on 16 Dec 2016: 107.
TRIG price now: 132.
TRIG % increase: 23%.
UKW price on 16 Dec 2016: 120.
UKW price now: 139.
UKW % increase: 16%.
Against that, of course, I think that certainly recently UKW's dividends have been slightly higher.
Probably at a tactical rather than a longer-term systemic level, their respective share price performances could be more influenced by the timing of their various fund-raises. UKW have just completed one. TRIG are still in the midst of an SIP (Share Issuance Programme) that runs until 4 March 2022 with a max of 600 million new shares. Again, by my crude calculation, there's still about 239 million shares left on that, that could potentially be announced/issued at any time. Given the total number of shares currently in issue, that could be anything up to roughly a 2-for-19 new Issue. We've seen how these new fund-raises temporarily depress the share price - I've recently been through them with UKW and a couple of other similar Investment Trusts. I haven't yet been involved in one with TRIG because I too recently became a shareholder, but again I observed the temporary effect on share price.
Mike.

Hi BPinvestor,
If you're talking about "ii" I don't think what you've said is right (unless you're on a different "plan").
I pay a flat fee of £9-99 per month, and normal trades cost £7-99 (not £9-99) commission each. Each monthly payment gives you a "credit" of £7-99 which negates the cost of one trade. If you don't use the credits to do any trades, each one expires after 3 months, and they expire strictly in date order. So from, say, the Dec 2021 fee you get one credit, which expires in Mar 2022, the Jan 2022 fee gives you another credit, which expires in Apr 2022, etc. If you don't trade very frequently, the biggest backlog of credits you can store up is 3. That's my understanding, and seems to be borne out in practice. There's probably a "nominal" fee for each dividend auto-reinvestment, maybe £1 or £1-50, but I never use them so I don't know for certain.
Also, sometimes I find that once a dividend appears in my account, such as BP today, it takes some time to "clear" before it can be used for manually buying shares.
Rgds, Mike.

retirement,
Any wait for the dividend is annoying, but what's gone up "3p today already"? If you're talking about the BP share price, it looks to me as if it has been "red" all day so far, from yesterday's close at about 339p.
ATB, Mike.

My new shares, also, are now visible with "ii". Unfortunately I too have been slightly scaled back. My excess request was about 16% the size of my "entitlement", and I got about 86% of it. Very slightly disappointing in that I'll now have to buy a very small number of extra shares in the market to get up to the nice "round" total I'd wanted, and also stay alert for return of the unused cash, but that's a risk one has to take when asking for an excess.
From jjcarrera1974's post below, and mine, it looks as if they've done the scaling-back on a % basis rather than a "number of shares" basis.
Regards, Mike.

Paul2566,
Okay, thanks for getting back. Those figures got me worried for a while!
Regards, Mike.

SharingGuy,
Yes, existing holders get 1st pick (up to a limit), and then new holders get access to the balance.
I'm not sure what "PB" is - maybe PrimaryBid? That may be categorised as "Offer for Subscription", or "Intermediaries' Offer", which are subject to scaling-back.
Of course, existing holders, under the "Open Offer" (the 1-for-13 entitlement) only get what they ask for - if the pool of shares in the Open Offer isn't all asked for by existing holders, then some of it becomes available to would-be new holders.
The distribution, which you ask about, is all detailed in yesterday's (25 Nov) RNS announcement. It's interesting that the Open Offer (for existing shareholders) had a limit of 151,992,157 shares, but only 132,755,455 were taken up, and that *includes* the Excess Applications. So new investors have taken up the slack. Of course, some of the existing holders could have been big institutional investors - funds, etc - who couldn't take-up more shares because it would upset their portfolio balance.
Gerry557,
I agree - this is all a bit hypothetical until the votes from today's General Meeting are known.
Rgds, Mike.

Hi Paul2566,
I'm not sure where you're getting some of your figures from in your post at 15:09 on Tuesday. I recognise some of the UKW figures from the Annual Report to 31 Dec 2020, such as EPS 6.55p. However, the EPS figure for TRIG for the same year, according to the Annual Report, was 5.9p, not the 11.4p you have stated. The 11.4p might have been for the year to 31 Dec 2019, ie before COVID. Are you comparing the 2 companies like-for-like?
Mike.