Member Info for Smallholde

I would much rather they reduced debt than persisted with buy backs, which don't seem to deliver anything but give the BOD a lovely bonus without putting real effort in.

I suppose, on reflection if I was in their position why wouldn't take the buy back route. Set yourself up for life in just a few years.

The warrants expire next week. Could be a topsy tervy week. Will be interesting to see how we fare in the coming weeks without them hanging over us. Positively I hope. GLA

I can see why I don't invest for a living - my only shares currently showing red are BP, JOG (both O & G) and QQ (Defence). Exactly the opposite of what I was expecting last night.

Just seen this - another $1billion which will no doubt be wasted on buybacks:-

(Reuters) - BP has agreed to sell a stake in a firm invested in the TANAP gas pipeline linking Azerbaijan and Turkey for $1 billion to Apollo Global Management, the two firms said on Friday.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bp-sells-apollo-1-billion-stake-in-firm-invested-in-tanap-gas-pipeline/ar-AA1Bna0I?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=25db3a336a6f4a6c9a259144565b3e93&ei=75

Personally I think they should take the last two words off this bullet point. How much have they spent on buybacks now - what benefit have I seen as a shareholder. The best argument you can make is that without them the SP would be even lower.

Higher Shareholder Payouts – 30-40% of operating cash flow allocated to dividends and buybacks.

Sorry but I think this blows the theory.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/named-plymouth-murder-suspect-could-9887567

LTI - Of course it does by the very nature of what is being done, but is it value for money when you consider the billions spent - you seem to think so. Others would differ in their opinion.

LeeRex - I agree with you. in my opinion buybacks deliver little, but it is hard to evidence either way, as you only see the outcome of doing the buybacks and not what would have happened without them, or vice versa. To me it is lazy management, and the money should be invested in growing the business and/or truly returned to investors.

Naturally there is a lot more to it than this, and sentiment plays a big part, but I wouldn't say the market actually 'values' the business daily as there is no real constant analysis of the business and it's decisions. It does create a value but I would say that is driven more by daily fluctuation in share sales / purchases and an algorithm rather than the actual business' activities. Naturally some days events have a more genuine impact but again that could be argued prompts the share activity.

If I decide to sell my shares for personal reasons (about to happen shortly). in theory the share price would take a little dip (if it was a big enough sale). in that scenario has something changed about BP which now means it is worth less. I would argue not.

I think I need to join the campaign for plain English. I assume it is the same for others but I see the below which I am being asked to vote on. I thought I was voting on whether to agree to the company being taken over by Deterra for 49p a share. It doesn't exactly read like that and implies it can be changed and amended - so even if that is what I vote for, it seems they then have a free hand to change it as they see fit - or as I see unfit!). I know there are supporting papers, but even so, it should be a bit more explicit surely.

And it's a no for me.....

Here's what the vote paper states:-

AGM -

TO APPROVE GIVING THE TRIDENT BOARD THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO CARRY THE SCHEME INTO EFFECT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE TRIDENT ARTICLES (A response to this proposal is mandatory)

Court Meeting

THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND, IF THOUGHT FIT, APPROVING (WITH OR WITHOUT MODIFICATION) A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT (THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT) PROPOSED TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO PART 26 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 (THE ACT) BETWEEN TRIDENT ROYALTIES PLC (THE COMPANY) AND THE HOLDERS OF THE SCHEME SHARES (AS DEFINED IN THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT) (A response to this proposal is mandatory)

I just feel like I have been shafted again, shares ripped away from me with no real say in the matter. So frustrating when you are looking long term, endure the the risks in the last few years then as the company grows and becomes more resilient it is ripped away from you without the SP reflecting the improved position. Whilst I will make a small profit, I stuck with this and am so disappointed that the offer doesn't even reflect the peak share price experienced when the outlook was not as bright / secure.

The share buybacks improve the EPS. Nothing improved in the business, but bonus measure delivered. Easy work if you can get.

Thanks you both for taking the trouble to respond

MosquitoSqudron - I am not sure how I missed that. It was a bit obvious! No defence, but probably because I paid more attention to the video

Having listened to the latest video here, relating to the Dandoko deal, I am left wondering why a well capitalised multi-billion dollar company would need to make such a deal. Can someone enlighten me please.

I liked what I heard in the video and couldn't help myself at these prices. I was surprised, and pleased, to get them at them at 42.2 - although I note it appears as a sell.

If the returns on Thacker Pass are anything like that stated I can't see why the sp didn't jump once the legal hurdles were cleared. The approach outlined in the video gives me confidence. Just wonder what I'm missing? Hopefully I'm getting in early before people recognise the potential. I have been burnt before so hoping I finally get one right.

Crikey and there's me wondering why the SPs of companies not doing buybacks ever moved. Thanks for the insight

LTI - I agree your percentage ownership increases. But if the sp doesn't increase the value of your holding doesn't change.

Interesting. A bit of a mixed message there, it says the switch to 48v systems 'could' reduce the copper required per car. It then states that the first approximation is that it will reduce to just 25% of the current requirement. So I would have thought the initial statement would have been more confident in saying it 'will'. That may be a bit pedantic but as he plans to increase production from 1.37 million cars p.a. to 20 million it still equates, overall, to a huge growth in his demand for copper. There are many other factors that will increase the demand for copper over the coming years. I am more than happy for TRR to increase expose to copper based deals.

Must be a positive indicator

Sentiment of my previous post remains despite your revision of the average price

LTI, you say 'shares have been bought back at an average 55p per share'. So with the current SP well below that, the buyback clearly isn't having the impact it should, or do you think the SP would be in the 30's without it.
Voted no to any more buybacks, not that it will make any difference.
I still maintain they should invest the money in growing the business and/or increase the divi with the money.