Member Info for Ricardo2019

Ok, look you clearly don't understand how militaries work and I don't have time for a long debate. I also get the unfortunate impression that you aren't interested in learning, just arguing for the sake of it. I'll try to summarise and that'll be it for me:

Resupplies are intrinsically linked. You can't reinforce without supplies. You can't move without organisation. You can't supply anyone without organisation and even more supplies (the logistical overhead) to move those supplies. It's like a vicious circle. You also can't use troops that aren't combat ready. Those large numbers you mentioned aren't ready to deploy, and even if they were they haven't got the logistics to do it. It took them months to get a mere 200k troops ready and get everything in place. Many of the units now in place are in a total shambles and even if the logistics/supplies were there to reinforcements somewhere, the level of organisation is way too low to allow it. That's why Russia has been forced to pause in the north to re-organise.

If you are interested in the topics of military logistics and organisation I can post some reputable books that would be of use.

> , they very well could reinforce whenever they want. They could have reinforced a long time ago tbh, they never did.

They can't. I don't know if you've been following developments closely but it's clear from military movements reported by reputable third parties that they are really struggling with supplies - you can't reinforce without them. Not unless you think they can all walk to the front line.

> They could literally reinforce with another 190,000 tomorrow if they wanted.

This is not correct. You may think that by just looking at the numbers. In reality, there are numerous practical reasons why they can't.

It's Friday, so don't take my calculations below too seriously as I haven't done enough research, but I was thinking ahead and I'll just throw this out there and see what you all think:

- $2Bn AUM (note: dollars not GBP) planned by 2025
- Prospectus says fees for the BOAGF fund of 1.5%
- I can't work out what fees apply to the insurance assets, so I'm going to be very cautious and say 0.5% of AUM
- I can't work out what % of the assets will be BOAGF by 2025, so will guess at $200m (10% - too conservative?)

So I estimate that by 2025, if all goes to plan, revenues will be something like ($1.8Bn * 0.5% + $0.2Bn * 1.5%) = $12m PA in 2025.

All constructive comments appreciated.

> Sounds like Biden and Boris and not pleased and indirectly backing an attempted soft coup.

That's right Mizman. Those people are so backwards that they can't organise their own opposition and have to be told what to do by foreign politicians. (Yes, that's sarcasm for anyone who is a bit hard of thinking).

Mac4671, you speak as if anything has changed for Nationalists lacking a moral compass, with only a thirst for power over principle. History speaks volumes.

Just checking but I assume the reduction is due to the placing on Jan 28th?

Price going up. Letters working well. Please send more.

Acquisition (funded from operations) and change of focus to the insurance and fund areas.

Zak knows nothing. Ignore him. You may as well read Simplywall.st.

If you press the 'sell' button, you get a return. Other option is to wait for a potential dividend.

Super, thanks Odins. And with a mkt cap of just £30m. Well undervalued, 'scuse the pun!

Can anyone calculate what we could be talking per annum?

Ah, that is plausible. Thank you.

Interesting RNS about UBS Group AG Investment Bank taking a (first?) notifiable holding. I don't want to be one of those people who points at Nominee II Tr-1s and mistakenly claims it's an 'institution buying', but I don't know if this is significant or not. Can anyone shed any light?

4 revenue producing assets, not 3.

> I believe it was one vote short of being passed

Good point. On that basis, and given the other changes you mentioned, I think it is more likely that you will be proved correct.

I've previously posted on why that's a fool's errand. Ain't gonna happen. Luckily, I'm not sure it really matters now. The company seems to have moved into a different phase.

I'm suspicious of Micky's agenda, but he/she has a valid point. How far will the geopolitical situation sway the local councils? I don't think we can know until it's tested.

I'm confused Micky. You keep mentioning the SP, and it's true that is very important. But the SP only matters if you are a trader or need the cash now. You mention historical highs, and we all want to make a profit so those who got in at a higher SP need that higher price. But this is AIM, and prices rise and fall. Often prices spike quickly on nothing more than sentiment, which then fades away. But it's fairly clear I think that this company has a decent future ahead of it and sentiment is not driving the SP now - it's actual progress. I'd prefer to see less reliance on on well for production, admittedly. But given where we are, I don't quite understand why you keep going on about historical share prices and leaked places. None of these are particularly relevant now, unless you bought in at a high price and need to get out.