The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Now that's what I call HL Service. This follow up message to yesterday's phone enquiry:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your call.
After speaking with our Corporate Action team, they have confirmed that we have received no communication that JPMorgan Russian Securities plc are currently going through a corporate action.
I can confirm they had a general meeting on the 4th March 2022 but no other meetings have been announced.
If the stock goes through a corporate action which leads to a material change to the value of your holding we will send correspondence through secure message.
Have JP Morgan announced the timetable yet? I contacted HL requesting my vote, they knew nowt about it.
Well, I always look at the time of rns announcements. If this was announced before Friday close, then it would be factored in.
I wonder what barrow boy brexiteer Hargreaves has to say about all that. People like him, Philip Greene, the chap who does "The Apprentice", and other self made men can smell Managerial BS a mile off. For them (and I agree) it's all about how much the till is ringing.
I'm in this one, so I wish it well, but they could do with a change of Management. Swapping deck chairs on a Cruise ship isn't going to bring the punters in.
Good value and good service is. As a customer, I find it excelent value (Shares, Investment Trusts and ETFs) and the service is, frankly, excellent (bar a period when they were short staffed). Their online service is (more than) ok, although they should bring back Brokers' consensus.
All this fasting about with fiddly stuff is going to cost us Owners bucket loads, before it flops and this fellow is given his golden handshake. At our expense.
Peter, are you listening?
"The execution of this strategy is underway and being delivered through five key pillars:
· Accelerate Growth via our Integrated Proposition
· Create a step-change in Client Service and Efficiency
· Develop our Digital Backbone
· Enable our People, Strengthening our Culture
· Scale the Foundations"
Absolute waffle and B.S. The more I hear from Hills, the less impressed I am.
My concern is whether that massive Investment in technology is worth it, or even necessary.
Ok I'll do, Freddie...
Can someone (whisper to me very quietly) why recent movement upwards? Shhhhh's the word.
Down to possible re-jigging to other countries? I'm against it, by the way.
Goldman Sachs raises HSBC price target to 800 (710) pence - 'buy'
Goldman Sachs raises Standard Chartered price target to 1,030 (945) pence - 'buy'
Goldman Sachs raises HSBC price target to 800 (710) pence - 'buy'
Goldman Sachs raises Standard Chartered price target to 1,030 (945) pence - 'buy'
Butt out. It's not our war. Nor will it ever be. It's bankrupting us.
The Ukrainians are cut from the same cloth as the Russians. They are no angelic supermen and women who are holding back the "evil hordes" from invading Europe. Incidentally, I have been there on several occasions, so know (very) intimately the mischief the British and the Americans (through the Canadians, who have a large Ukrainian diaspora) have been up to.
And Ukraine is no beacon of world liberalism. As a non-white (elderly) person, I have never felt more uncomortable than in any other country. I have even been shoved in the back for no reason, and threatened by their "Ultras" at their wonderful Olympic Stadium. (I popped along for a Kiev vs Chelsea Football match on one of my visits).
And no, I am no Russian bot or whatever they call it. A real life flesh and blood Brit.
I posted the below as it was penned by Jeremy Warner (an Economist I have a lot of regard for). The DT (and especially their readership) on the other hand...
What is more, the sort of price cap envisaged may or may not be tolerable for low cost producers such as Saudi Arabia, but it will likely render higher cost production uneconomic. At a time when the West is furiously trying to find alternatives to Russian energy, this looks particularly stupid.
None of this is to lightly dismiss the scale of the problem the G7 is facing. Sanctions against Russia are all very well, but one of the effects has been to put a rocket under energy and food prices, such that it is sometimes hard to know who sanctions are damaging most - Russia or the West.
In any case, Putin is getting a lot more for his exports of oil and gas than he could otherwise have hoped for. The Russian despot is still in the money, even at the deeply discounted prices he is forced to sell at in Asian markets, and therefore has no difficulty continuing to fund his war in Ukraine.
Russia’s current account is in massive surplus, and the rouble is consequently strong. Moscow did admittedly default on some of its external debt this week, but this had nothing to do with inability to pay. Rather it was because sanctions prevented payment. It was therefore a somewhat meaningless default.
The dismal truth is that sanctions are not working in the way that had been hoped. Putin is progressively losing his Western markets, but at this stage it doesn’t really matter because skyrocketing prices provide compensating rewards. At the same time, sanctions have greatly contributed to a politically destabilising cost of living squeeze across the Western world. Putin can reasonably claim to be winning the economic war, even if the physical one is in stalemate.
The G7 intention is simple enough - to reduce the amount of money going to Russia while at the same time countering one of the main causes of rising inflation. Yet even if it were possible to impose such controls internationally, the long term consequences for supply would still be deeply negative.
A number of developers have already threatened to suspend promised new investment in North Sea oil and gas because of Britain’s imposition of a windfall profits tax. A price cap would have much the same effect, but on a grander scale, further undermining the quest for greater energy security.
Even before the pandemic, politically driven net zero targets had prompted a growing hiatus in oil and gas investment.
Collapsing demand for hydrocarbons during the pandemic further reduced the investment required even to keep things ticking over, let alone meet the additional demands now being put on the industry to provide alternatives to Russian energy.
A couple of weeks back, Biden’s White House urged refiners to do their “patriotic duty” by expanding capacity and cutting their prices. The obvious contradiction here went entirely unrecognised. You are unlikely to increase supply if you are also trying to control the price.
Russia could of course take the view that a capped price would be acceptable if it means tha
The dismal truth is that Putin is winning the economic war
There is bad policy, and then there is really bad policy. I was wondering when the idea of imposing price controls as a means of countering resurgent inflation was going to make a reappearance, and then sure enough, up it pops at the latest summit of G7 political leaders in the Bavarian mountain resort of Schloss Elmau.
It sounds so simple, doesn’t it? Confronted with out of control inflation, all you have to do is limit the prices that producers are allowed to charge, and the problem goes away.
Only it doesn’t. Price and wage controls were extensively tried in both Britain and the US during the 1970s; they didn’t work then, and they won’t work now.
Here’s the US economist Milton Friedman explaining why: “We economists don’t know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can’t sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you’ll have a tomato shortage. It’s the same with oil or gas.” There is not much point in making high prices illegal if the end result is closed petrol forecourts and empty supermarket shelves.
But if you bear with the inflationary shock, eventually it creates more supply and prices come down again.
This most basic of lessons in economics does not appear to have had much impact on the thinking of France’s Emmanuel Macron. What began as a proposed cap on the price of Russian oil and gas, leaving other producers unaffected, all of sudden - and to the astonishment of the world’s largest producer, the US - transmogrified in the mind of the French President into price controls for all oil and gas production.
This is never going to fly, but somehow or other, the idea seems to have crept into the G7’s final communique, which reads; “We will take immediate action to secure energy supply and reduce price surges driven by extraordinary market conditions, including by exploring additional measures such as price caps.”
Presumably, the communique meant just Russian exports, for it is hard to see how even this might be made to work, let alone a blanket cap. We don’t yet have a world government, however fondly G7 leaders might imagine they amount to one, so imposing such a regime across borders would be well nigh impossible.
Some countries do indeed control the retail price of energy - notably in the Middle East, Latin America and the subcontinent. But to say we won’t allow fuel to be sold above a certain price level is not only exceptionally costly to governments and retailers when wholesale prices are high, but also quite different from the current suggestion of refusing to buy at any more than a defined price.
The response from the producer may well be that of simply refusing to sell, as is all too possible with Russian supplies to Europe if buyers are banned from paying the going rate. If that were to be the response, it would send prices higher still.
What is mor
Not to worry katenip. More to do with number of holdings, diversification of the portfolio, I suspect. I've had one as well (several weeks ago). I ignored it, as I see my holdings as part of a larger portfolio held elsewhere.
They're covering their behinds and laying the groundwork for you to access their (fee earning) Financial Advice service.
ok ngr... thanks.
Yep. That's me.
If you Register on the Times, you'll be able to access two articles per week (Monday to Sunday). The slate is wiped clean on Monday. I also know how to get behind the Telegraph paywall... my own little two finger salute at that awful rag and its psychologically damaged readership.
But the chap who's written this is a "teenage scribbler". Not much kop. I recall once he wrote about long-term investing - with a 3-6 month horizon.
Neither is that other chap ("Diary of a Private Investor") any good. He uses it as a vehicle to brag about his successes. But not his failures quite so much
Ok, look forward to your calculation.
If you are asking for that info (available through JRS' latest Accounts - can be Googled) to calculate the "Actual" NAV rather than the published estimated NAV of 43p, this HL link tells us it's 621p?
https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/j/jpmorgan-russian-securities-ordinary-1p
Which other board? Findmyidealpartner.com?
BP have made no RNS announcements yet. JRS are also an ("unfriendly") foreign shareholder. But of course, let's hope you are right.