Member Info for tars

83.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

83.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

83.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

456 for me please Monsieur PeakDread

73.14 for me please Monsieur Toiture

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

73.14 please Monsieur Roofer

Shorters and high frequency traders can have a significant influence on a company share price. I am not against shorting as it has merit when shares are over priced. However, what I do not support is those investment banks, hedge funds, and institutional investors that use high-frequency trading strategies that allow very short time-frames for establishing and liquidating positions. What I would like to see is the government do the following:

Firstly, you only pay commission when you sell shares, so no commission when you buy shares. Years ago there were toll booths at both ends of the Sydney Harbour Bridge until Edward DeBono pointed out that 99% of cars that drive into Sydney over the bridge leave the same way, so you only need to collect the toll at one end not both ends.

Secondly, the commission for selling shares should be on a sliding scale depending on the time you hold the shares. And furthermore, if you hold the shares for a year or more then there is no commission when you sell the shares, whereas if you hold the shares for less than three days then you pay a hefty commission, such as 75% of your profits. This, I think would severely hinder investment banks, hedge funds and institutional investors establishing and liquidating positions in a fraction of a second.

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

I wouldn't take any notice of Berenberg. On 16th January 2024 Berenberg slapped a 'sell' rating on Rolls Royce, viewing Rolls-Royce as “unfavourable" and set a price target of 240p per share. On 16th January RR share price was 295p, yesterday it was 424p.

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

How Biden’s budget plunged the Aukus submarines pact into doubt

Inside defence circles, there are growing doubts about America’s ability and willingness to deliver following a shock proposal from the Biden administration that cuts to the heart of the deal.

Amid a row at home over government budgets, the White House this month suggested halving the number of Virginia-class submarines it builds next year – the very same type it has promised to Australia under Aukus.

That means the US faces a shortfall itself, raising the prospect it may refuse to sell its existing vessels and leave Canberra in the lurch.

“It’s extremely serious for Australia,” says Hugh White, a former defence official and professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, in Canberra.

“If the Virginias don’t arrive, Australia will have no submarines to put to sea at a time when our strategic circumstances are, to put it mildly, very delicate and risky.

“In that scenario, the whole Aukus construct starts to fall apart.”

The SSN-Aukus subs, featuring US technology, will be designed and built first in Britain, at BAE Systems’ facilities at Barrow-in-Furness, in the late 2030s. Afterwards, the company will use that experience to build Australia’s boats at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide.

But the latest US defence budget proposals, put forward by the Biden administration this month, have exposed a glaring weakness in this plan.

In a bid to save $4bn, the White House has proposed allocating money to build one – instead of two – Virginia-class submarines for the US Navy next year.

This is causing jitters because the strength of America’s fleet is already 17 short of the 66 targeted by the top brass. Defence experts fear it also risks sending the wrong signal to both allies and the industrial base about the Pentagon’s commitment.

“Given the new commitment made last year to sell three submarines to our ally Australia, which I enthusiastically support, the ramifications of the Navy’s proposal will have a profound impact on both countries’ navies,” said Joe Courtney, a senior congressman on the

The Virginias are made by Huntington Ingalls Industries, America’s biggest military shipbuilder, and defence giant General Dynamics in Newport, Virginia. They cost about $4bn each and take seven years to build. The US previously planned to add two to three to its fleet annually until 2043.

For years, however, the rate of boats delivered has fallen below this target as a result of a shortage of skilled workers, supply chain problems and disruption from the Covid pandemic.

At the same time, the US Navy’s submarine fleet is struggling with a huge maintenance backlog that has also taken 18 submarines temporarily out of service.

As part of Aukus, Australia has agreed to pump $3bn into the US submarine industrial base – potentially helping with maintenance – but the Biden administration’s new budget proposal risk

“It’s important to note this is a budget proposal - so where we finish is not necessarily where we start,” says Charles Edel, a senior adviser and Australia chair at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“But the reason this matters, and the reason it is troubling, is that the United States will not sell submarines to Australia if it does not have enough for its own stated needs.

“The budget request is sending a signal… not only to Australia but also to the submarine industrial base.”

There is also scepticism among some Australian defence experts about the UK’s ability to deliver the future SSN-Aukus class of subs. They point to the existing Astute-class programme, which has been significantly delayed and run over budget.

The first four boats cost £5bn to build compared to a £3.5bn budget, according to the National Audit Office.

White, in Canberra, regards the UK’s plan to complete the Astute programme and build the first of its new Dreadnaught nuclear-armed submarines this decade as “highly ambitious”. Risks to the Australian timeline seem high.

Despite this, the Albanese government has continued to defend the Aukus agreement.

“Australia, the United States and [the] United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment,” Richard Marles, the defence minister, said.

Supporters of the deal point to several factors in its favour. For one, there remains a cross-party consensus in the US for Aukus and lawmakers passed vital enabling legislation last year.

Others emphasise the multifaceted nature of Aukus, with submarines only representing the first “pillar” of collaboration. A less-appreciated aspect of that is the plan for US and UK submarines to operate out of an Australian naval base on rotation, as well as the implied increase in shipbuilding capacity it will create across all three nations.

However, there is another major uncertainty that looms on the horizon for Aukus: the prospect of a second Trump presidency.

The Republican nominee’s unpredictability means his support cannot be taken for granted – and the threat of him deciding it represents a “bad deal” for America must be taken seriously.

“You could see him saying this is a horrible deal, that it makes no sense,” says Edel.

The weakening or even collapse of Aukus would be a major blow to not just Western defence plans but also UK plc, with BAE Systems set to lead the construction of the Aukus-class subs while Rolls-Royce will provide nuclear reactors.

Ultimately, the deal’s success is not just down to Biden, Sunak and Albanese. It is a long-term project that politicians of all stripes in the UK, US and Australia must keep alive over multiple decades, says Sophia Gaston, head of foreign policy at Westminster-based Policy Exchange and founder of the Aukus Industry Forum.

“It is a colossal undertaking, so I’m not surprised that people are concerned,” she says. “But I find it difficult to identify a

73.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

Robelo and Garonne , "Things can only get better unless of course they get worse" to quote Joseph Heller from his book 'Something Happened'. For long term holders like myself who bought in when the share price was north of 120 and wondering whether to sell, that ship has sailed. My thinking now is that the risk that the share price will dramatically decrease further by say another 20% in the next couple of months is quite low unless you are of a mind to think Vodafone is going bankrupt, whereas I think there is a much greater likelihood that the share price will be worth north of £1 in the next two to three years when everything is 5G. Shorters and high frequency traders are having a significant influence on Vodafone's share price bouncing around. I am not against shorting as it has merit when shares are over priced. However, what I do not support is those investment banks, hedge funds, and institutional investors that use high-frequency trading strategies that allow very short time-frames for establishing and liquidating positions. What I would like to see is the government do the following:

Firstly, you only pay commission when you sell shares, so no commission when you buy shares. Years ago there were toll booths at both ends of the Sydney Harbour Bridge until Edward DeBono pointed out that 99% of cars that drive into Sydney over the bridge leave the same way, so you only need to collect the toll at one end not both ends.

Secondly, the commission for selling shares should be on a sliding scale depending on the time you hold the shares. And furthermore, if you hold the shares for a year or more then there is no commission when you sell the shares, whereas if you hold the shares for less than three days then you pay a hefty commission and a tax of 75% of your profits. This, I think would severely curtail investment banks, hedge funds and institutional investors establishing and liquidating positions in a fraction of a second.

Anyway time for a hot minced π

83.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer

93.14 not 91.14 Monsieur Roofer

93.14 for me please Monsieur Roofer