Member Info for TakingMyTime

@SpyM25, have Prim seen the note or just been told of its existence?

@Sanboy, I don't think it's ramping to say that you are most likely correct. I just have this cautious side that says what seems to be good news might be bad. I'd rather not be completely blindsided if bad news comes.

This makes me boring at parties, I suppose. But then, I have many other boring qualities to go with it.

"30p will make me run round the streets tonight naked......whilst clapping for the NHS of course. ;-)"
I appreciate the warning but without letting us know which streets to avoid it doesn't help much. ;-)

"This is extremely positive and very surprised the market hasn't picked up on it. They will be actively providing detail on GGP and pushing investors to purchase the stock."

Likely but not guaranteed. It means they will be providing detail on GGP and making recommendations. Those recommendations could be to sell / short rather than buy. Doesn't seem likely in this case but maybe they know something we don't.

The fact that they advise on some mergers/acquisitions is not relevant in this case. If they were advising NCM or GGP in acquisition talks they wouldn't be putting out an initiation note, that would be a serious conflict of interest and would likely put them on the wrong side of insider trading rules. If there's M&A activity / advice going on, they aren't involved.

"I'll be dead in 20 years. That avenue doesn't appeal to me"

Maybe not but it would appeal to a lot of investors and would push the SP high enough that you could take a really nice profit.

If there's as much gold in the ground at Havieron as most here seem to think, it's going to be a win for everyone, however it plays out.

I had to do that horrible thing called work today. I come back and there's been almost 300 posts since I last checked. How do you guys keep track? Is everyone here retired or furloughed?

Did anything happen today I should know about? My head is spinning.

"neil, mate - I do write it like "advise" for you to read it like "advi$e"..."

This exp£ains a £ot. Most of us are thinking in pounds, dude. Your currency trading has you a££ messed up, no wonder most of what you are saying doesn't make sense. You c£ear£y have some things to £earn. ;)

They aren't derampers, they are awfulizers. LOL.

OED Online Word of the Day

Your word for Wednesday 13th May is: awfulize, v.
awfulize, v.
[‘intransitive. To class as awful or terrible. rare.’]
Pronunciation: Brit. /'??f?l??z/, /'??fl???z/, U.S. /'?f??la?z/, /'?f??la?z/
Forms: 19– awfulise, 19– awfulize.
Origin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: AWFUL adj., -IZE suffix.
Etymology: < AWFUL adj. + -IZE suffix.
1. intransitive. To class as awful or terrible. rare.
1931 Bookman Dec. 368/1 It should be understood that the present writer does not intend to Awfulize; that is to say he does not mediate a counter-attack upon publishers.
2. intransitive and transitive. To interpret a situation as having the worst possible outcome, especially habitually. Cf. CATASTROPHIZE v. Additions.
1974 S. G. KATZ Effects Cognitive Emotional Educ. on Locus-of-control & Self-concept(Ph.D. diss., Hofstra Univ.) 4 When the individual ‘awfulizes or catastrophizes’ about reality, he is invariably setting up an unverifiable, unemperical [sic] hypothesis.
1988 J. BRADSHAW Healing Shame that Binds II. x. 197 Filtering is a way to magnify and ‘awfulize’ your thoughts.
1990 J. BRADSHAW Homecoming i. 22 Fear addicts tend to catastrophize and awfulize.
2017 Washington Post(Nexis) 1 June T15 Our brains tend to awfulize and generalize every bad event in our parenting lives and not remember the good.
Derivatives

'awfulizer n.
1980 Northwest Arkansas Times 13 Dec. 3/5 The awfulizer makes the worst of a situation and insures [sic] that this prophesy will come true.
2006 M. OLPIN & M. HESSON Stress Managem. for Life(2007) vi. 85 The awfulizer predicts disaster and lives as if it is inevitable. Awfulizers spend much of their life feeling upset.

@Olderandwiser
"You missed out one very important segment of the US institutional market. Hedge funds.

They will be the front and centre group ready willing and able to take positions in GGP for a number of reasons."

No doubt. But we were talking about the NC meeting with institutional investors to sell their bonds. And the discussion was whether the statements about buying GGP might bring some of those investors into the market for GGP shares.

It's possible hedge funds were part of that meeting, but not extremely likely. They'd say the NC bonds are rather a "plain vanilla" offering for hedge fund interest. So I doubt the NC presentation will trigger any hedge fund interest.

I also suspect some of those hedge funds were already well aware of GGP, and some may already hold it. In fact, it would be surprising if they don't.

The US hedge fund industry is about $1.5 trillion, for what it's worth. Not all that big compared to mutual funds but still a massive "chunk of change".

John, even the whatamess guy slips up every once in a while and admits that there's value here, he just thinks it is too high for him to get in yet. He's trying to convince guys like you to take a loss because he somehow thinks that convincing a few people to sell will move the price lower. Crazy that.

Stuart is telling you we're at the bottom. That's crazy, too. How could he know? Who knows what Donald Trump (or for that matter Boris Johnson) will do tomorrow?

Someone else is telling you there's massive risk while others are telling you there's little risk. There's always risk, that's the way it is. If you don't want risk, buy gilts and get a pittance on your return.

In this case, there's significant risk to airlines as a whole. In my view, that means you'll see some go to the wall, and the strongest emerging even stronger. Thus, I think the risk with IAG is significantly less than with some other airlines and that the reward scenario is magnified. But if you can't afford to lose the money, you shouldn't be in IAG. And if you can't afford to wait (since no one knows how long it will be before the reward scenario plays out), again you probably shouldn't be in IAG.

But don't let people talking up the industry risk dissuade you, and don't let people talking about whether we're at the bottom or not sway you. You assess the industry risk, you assess the risk of this company within that industry, you assess your own risk tolerance, and perhaps most importantly, you assess your own patience. Then, having done that, you forget what you bought at. Instead, you assess whether today's price is low enough to create the reward you think you need for the risk you think you are taking. If it is, then you hold. If it isn't, then you sell.

Don't be stubborn about holding just because you bought higher. Maybe you made a mistake. Be ready to admit it and move on. But if your reasoning when you bought was sound, then given that today's price is lower, that reasoning is even more sound, unless there's been new information.

The only thing I can see that is new information is the quarantine. If you believe that's going to be permanent and widespread, that's new information. If you think it is only temporary or going to be narrowly applied, it's probably not relevant to the reasons you bought.

And as to the cash burn, if it's £200M now, it will be less once they start flying a little bit, and the more they fly, the less it will be. It's not going to be that every week for a year.

Good luck with it.

Ok, a little bit more about US "institutional investors" -- it encompasses a range of institutions.

Insurance companies. NC is selling long term debt, so these would have been included. Say they sell life insurance to 30 year olds. Most will live a long time, so they'll put some of those premiums into 30 year bonds, to get the best interest rate, since they won't need most of the money until after they mature. US insurance company aren't likely buying GGP shares. It's not what they do.

Retail banks. They take investor deposits and put them into a range of interest-paying bonds. Their capital protects their liquidity and is a buffer to absorb any losses. These may also buy long term bonds, but perhaps more 10 year bonds than 30 year ones. US retail banks may in some cases buy highly liquid income producing shares but bank regulations make it very unlikely they'd buy AIM stocks.

Then, there's mutual fund houses. Here you might see some activity. US mutual funds are probably $15-20 trillion, half in equities. The willingness to look beyond American shores for return is growing. Most fund houses offer both fixed income (bond) funds and equity funds. The bond guys would have been interested in the NC presentation. Their equity colleagues might be interested in GGP. Especially with a blended fund (equities and debt/bonds in the same fund), you'd expect the two sides to be talking a lot. So if any of these bond guys were awake, they should be talking to their equity colleagues, both about NC and GGP. However, there's an exposure risk in this case -- if something goes wrong with Hav, and the same fund is in both GGP equity and NC debt, it could hurt the fund. So that may hold back some of these guys.

Then, there's private banking. High net worth individuals who are too busy making buckets of money as execs at Microsoft, Apple, etc, or just playing around on their yachts, don't want to be bothered to research investments. They tell their private banker their investment goals / horizons / profile. The bank's bond dealers scour the market for good deals on bonds and buy them, then allocate them to their private clients' portfolios in a way to match each clients' profile / goals. Their equity guys do the same. Again, I'd expect these guys to be talking to each other. And I'm guessing that here's where the NC presentation might bring some US institutional investors into this action. They'll have some of their private clients who have a higher risk tolerance, some who may have said they want gold miners, some who are happy to go overseas looking for return. They'll have client portfolios that they could happily drop GGP shares into and hopefully end up looking like geniuses. If you're looking for institutional action in GGP from this NC presentation, this would be the most likely source of it.

I don't know how that helps anyone make investment decisions but I thought some of you might find it interesting anyway.

I know nothing about mining or geology and very little about GGP, to be honest. But I can tell you all something about US institutional investors.

Mostly, your fixed-income (bond) managers are not trading in equities, nor equity managers in bonds. If you have a blended fund, you'll maybe have someone setting the strategy / mix between equity and debt instruments, but mostly you'll have someone who knows equities buying stocks, and someone who knows bonds managing the debt side of things.

This would have been the debt people. They aren't going to be buying GGP shares.

That doesn't mean it is irrelevant. The debt and equity teams typically know each other. They might go out for drinks or have lunch together. They'll walk down the hall and talk to each other. The bond guys who heard this presentation might not have run down the hall afterwards (they might even be at home right now) but they'll have dropped a message to the equity guys, "You might want to look at Greatland." Not all of them, of course, there's always internal rivalries and jealousies, but there's also friendships or at least the working partnership that we look out for each other.

So, when there's a hint of a takeover, that's likely to be passed on by at least some of the people who heard it. That doesn't mean there will be buys right away, because the equity guys won't just take the tip, they'll research it. A takeover isn't certain and they don't want a dog if it doesn't happen. Also, AIM is notoriously volatile so they'll want some reassurance that the takeover, if it comes, isn't going to be at 7, and that all of us here aren't mugs.

So if institutional investors are coming in today it is because they were already paying attention, and today tipped the balance for them. Others, it may take some time. And they'll listen to the presentation themselves and they'll get the sense it isn't happening tomorrow so they can take the time to do their research.

So don't expect an immediate surge in SP from a bunch of big institutional investors deciding to get in before the takeover. They might be coming in but if so they may be looking to buy the dips just like a lot of people here. It's not likely to be immediate, that's not the way it works.

I'll try to post a little more about this later.

"if you want to invest in airline rebounding then choose an ETF, so you diminish the risk of individual airlines going belly up."
Absolutely incredible advice.

Airlines almost certainly ARE going to go bust in this environment. If you invest in an ETF, you are going to share in those busts.

In a normal world there's a case for an ETF. In a market where some are going to go bust and others are going to benefit (in the long run) from the reduced competition, DO NOT buy an ETF. Have a good hard look at the balance sheets and decide who the winners will be, and buy them.

And don't do it if you need a quick turnaround because no one knows how long the turnaround will take. Might take two years, might take 3 or 5 or even 7. Be ready to ride it out or don't play the game with these shares.

But whatever you do, don't buy an ETF. Not until Virgin and a few others go under and most of the bleeding is over.

Just remember, the guy who just told you to buy the ETF is shorting it. On that point, he's not stupid. He's stupid if he really believes what he's saying about IAG, but not about shorting the ETF. More airlines are likely to go under, so it's a reasonable bet he's making.

@tacet
Well, if companies make money, they'll either reinvest it or pay dividends. There will always be investors looking for income. So there will always be companies that will pay dividends. Supply and demand.

And there will always be companies that make money. Maybe different companies from the ones that have in the past, but there will be profitable companies paying dividends.

But Covid-19 is less lethal than the HK flu and the Spanish flu were. We may never get a vaccine, but treatments will improve, methods of prevention will improve, and within a year, even if it isn't eliminated via vaccine, it will be in the "manageable" category. And economies will start to roll again.

I don't have any doubts on that.

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/05/primark-superdry-eu-store-reopenings-may-offer-clues-in-customer-behaviours/

Footfall down, basket sizes larger. Not surprising, people will shop less often and look to plan their shopping trips to buy more of the things they need in one visit.

Looney is setting expectations low so that if he succeeds he's brilliant and if it doesn't go so well, it's not his fault, it's coronavirus. He's just started. It's sort of a gift to a CEO to have bad problems when you start that aren't your fault. It's not surprising he'd be talking those problems up a little bit right now.

In a year when things are going well he can say how great things are going compared to a year ago when we thought we might have passed peak oil. Everyone will applaud and not complain when he gets big bonuses.

"negative interest rates, negative swaps and it will be NO divis for you... "
Yeah, you're a trader.

For a long term investor, the company might miss one or two divs but this is and always will be an income-producing stock.

"should we not expect the share price to continue dropping daily as those cash reserves are eaten into?"
I don't think anyone has expected significant flying before July. I assumed cash burn until August when I bought in here, and reduced cash burn after that for the rest of the year. I paid a price for the shares that I thought was worth it even with that much cash burn figured in. I'm assuming others have done the same, they'd be foolish not to.

That's why the share price dropped so much from where it was. Everyone knew there would be massive losses this year. It's already reflected in the price.

"personally i think its a better way to go then NOT PAYING ANY DIVIDENDS"

If they only paid scrip dividends, then every shareholder would have exactly proportionally more shares than they had before. It wouldn't increase the value of the company, but there would be more shares, so each share would be proportionally worth that much less. So your suggestion would accomplish nothing.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have a company worth £100 and you have ten shareholders who each have ten shares. They all have shares worth £1 each and a total investment of £10. Now suppose that company pays a dividend of one share for every 10 shares held. Every shareholder now owns 11 shares instead of 10, right?

But no one is better off. The company is still worth £100. Every shareholder still holds 10%, so each one's shares are worth £10, just like before. Since they all own 11 shares now, their shares are worth 90p each rather than a quid. So everyone broke even on it.

What you described is really a share split. Sometimes this is beneficial. It can help with liquidity issues, for instance. Having more shares which are a lower price each can be helpful in setting up employee share plans. But to do it just so shareholders can feel like they are getting a dividend, when there aren't funds to pay a dividend, is just incurring extra expense (the cost of issuing the shares, administering the whole thing) for no real benefit.