Member Info for Svend

Phoenix Group PLC changed its name to Standard Life last month. Remember, they purchased the Standard Life brand name from Aberdeen.

Athens81,

I shall leave you with my last word on this matter:

“You expressed yourself too effectively, and I do not like it.”

Athens81,

That is a beautifully emotional speech, but it still dodges the actual point.

Using a calculator does not mean you do not understand maths. Using spellcheck does not mean you cannot spell. Using AI does not mean you have no view. It means you used a tool. The only question that matters is whether the argument stands up once it is posted.

And this idea that “if AI can argue both sides, substance is meaningless” is weak logic. A human can argue both sides, too. Lawyers do it daily. Debate clubs do it for fun. The ability to construct opposing arguments does not prove there is no substance. It proves that the substance still has to be tested.

As for “a 10-year-old can write a prompt”, yes, and a 10-year-old can buy a piano. That does not mean they can play one well.

The real giveaway here is that you are not attacking the reasoning; you are attacking the method. That usually happens when the method is easier to sneer at than the argument is to dismantle.

And the “AI replying to AI” line is a bit theatrical. This is still a message board, not Skynet’s Christmas party. People post views. Other people challenge them. If a post is wrong, prove it wrong. If it is right, whining about the keyboard used to type it is not much of a rebuttal.

So by all means, disagree. But “you used a tool” is not the killer blow you seem to think it is. It is just the modern version of an old complaint:

“You expressed yourself too effectively, and I do not like it.”

Retirment,

If I am such a “dullard,” it is curious how much time you keep spending replying to me.

Telling others not to engage is usually what people do when they cannot win on substance and need silence to do the heavy lifting for them. That is not confidence. That is retreat dressed up as bravado.

As for the tired “AI tool” line, it is not the insult you think it is. Whether a point is typed by hand, dictated, or polished with assistance is irrelevant. What matters is whether it stands up. If you cannot challenge the reasoning, shouting “AI” is just an admission that substance is not your strong suit.

So by all means, stop replying if that is your plan. It would certainly save you from digging the hole any deeper. But trying to rally the crowd on your way out only makes it look like you know exactly how thin your own position is.

Retirment, my bad for calling you 'Sir'-totally inappropriate..

Sir, I have not seen your apology to Richard or me, so before you call out any names perhabs you should look inside first.

Retirment,

So So Wrong. If LSE/Banks shows RR closed below 1,400p on 26 February 2026, then 1,420p was not the closing price, full stop. That makes it an intraday high, not proof of any closing record. Confusing a 52-week trading high with a closing high is basic market-data sloppiness. If you can't even do the basics of maths and accept Richards advise, you should not be involved in investing in the stock market. Now move along..

Retirment,

You are still missing the point.

Nobody has argued with your factual correction. If the figure was 10% rather than 5%, then fair enough, that is a valid correction. The issue is that you keep pretending that anyone challenged that fact, when in reality, the problem is the way you conduct yourself once you have made it.

You corrected a number, then immediately wrapped yourself in insults and started behaving as though spotting a percentage error somehow elevated the rest of your post into serious commentary. It did not. A factual correction is useful. The abuse that followed was not.

So let us separate the two clearly:

Your correction: valid.

Your behaviour: childish.

Your contribution beyond that: negligible.

You say you do not need to make a market argument. Fine. Then do not posture as though you have won one. If all you did was correct a figure, then leave it there like an adult. The moment you move from “that number is wrong” into “tool”, “idiot”, and “knob jockey”, you stop looking factual and start looking rattled.

The irony is that the one person turning a simple percentage correction into a playground slanging match is you.

So yes, keep the factual correction. That part was fair. But drop the tantrum attached to it. It weakens your point far more than any original percentage error ever did. And lastly, the share price has never closed above 1400. Read the chart before you spray nonsense.

Richard70

Correct the daily close on the 26th was 1386.25 whis is the highest close in 2026 (1397.38 was the hourly close on that day)

Richard70,

Spot on, mate. The 1420.00 price was an intraday high, reached on the 26th Feb, 2026, and closed at 1397.38

In other words, the price has never closed above 1400 yet.

Retirment

You stated one fact. Nobody is disputing that.

What you keep missing is that stating one percentage correction does not suddenly make the rest of your post intelligent, relevant, or worth listening to. “It’s 10% off the high, not 5%” is a factual correction. Fine. Beyond that, what you’ve added is abuse, repetition, and the communication range of a broken foghorn.

On the currency point, you are arguing against something you plainly do not understand. Yes, the US line is derived from the sterling price. Nobody said otherwise. But the dollar quote still matters because US investors, US screens, ADR liquidity, institutional thresholds, and international comparisons all exist whether or not you understand them. Dismissing that with “$ means fu4k all” is not analysis. It is ignorance delivered loudly.

As for the car comments, you seem oddly emotional about a throwaway remark. If mentioning a Porsche rattles you this much, perhaps the issue is not jealousy on my side but insecurity on yours.

And on the lazy “AI crap” line: calling something AI is not a rebuttal. It is what people say when they cannot actually challenge the substance. If my view is wrong, counter the logic. Counter the numbers. Counter the thesis. But stamping your feet, typing “tool” in capitals, and congratulating yourself for knowing the difference between 5 and 10 is not an argument. It is just noise.

So let’s keep this simple:

You corrected a number. Well done.

You have still not made a serious market argument.

Until you do, all you’ve really proven is that you can count and insult people at the same time.

Retirment,

You corrected a percentage move. Fine. That was never the issue.

The issue was the usual leap from a simple price move into a stream of smug commentary, insults, and chest-beating as if rounding errors somehow make you the oracle of the board. Correcting 10% versus 5% is one thing. Wrapping it in abuse and then calling anyone else a tool is another.

As for posting in dollars, Rolls-Royce is followed by a global shareholder base and the US price matters because international flows, valuation comparisons, and institutional thresholds matter. It is not about making the number “look bigger.” It is about understanding the stock beyond your own driveway.

The Porsche line is just childish noise. Whether someone buys a car, a boat, or a wheelbarrow is irrelevant to the investment case. Markets do not care about your toys, and neither do I.

You are free to disagree with my view. That is what a market is. But if your whole contribution is correcting a percentage, throwing in insults, and then pretending that counts as insight, do not be surprised when someone points out the difference between analysis and pub talk.

If you want a serious discussion, make a serious argument. If not, save the name-calling. It adds nothing.

The next 3 port calls for Rycey are 13, 14 & 15; however, the Trump Turbulence factors remain highly elevated, so do not expect an easy ride or plain sailing from here onwards. In the wings, Pending SMR orders are incomming by the dozen, and the new Ultrafan is being commissioned and rolled out for launch on narrow-body planes.

Wake up, retirment: the buyback programme alone is worth £2.3B this year. Add to that the buybacks in 2027/28, and Roycey is turbocharged to soar past the magic $20 mark, which I know is still beyond your current understanding, as you still need to figure out why $20 is so significant and influential in institutional investment cases. To be honest, it’s probably best you return to the sandbox and continue playing with your Porsche toys.

Just did 😂🤣😅✌

Perhaps the Ukraine war is reaching a critical point, escalating to a much higher level of global diplomatic tension. Without external intervention, it appears to be heading in the wrong direction for both sides. It is time to halt that conflict immediately and pursue negotiations and diplomacy. IMO

SIDI, you might be right; however, Mr Market (SP500) stays up 2.35%, which suggests a follow-through day!

Last year on April 7, 2025, the low price was 566.80. That was the Donald Tarriff Tandrum moment. Then what followed was a rocket move, with a high point at 1420 on Feb 26, 2026. The question is now: when are we taking that high point out and making a new blue-sky ATH on the road to IV? 🙌 The wind is currently blowing in a favourable direction 👍 in the air, we could be there by August AGW/DYOR etc

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hx4gdlfamo

Call is situated at January resistance high @ 1306.50, just above the IKH clouds on the daily TF, the longer time TF weekly voyage points towards 1420, and then new ATH to follow in due course. Enjoy the voyage IV🙌