Member Info for tedmak

The price in the US has just spiked 5% on the tariff pause.

AZN should not have been sold today.

AZN sells drugs all over the world and producers in multiple locations.

They can source the drugs they sell into the US from elsewhere to manage pricing.

AZN is the biggest stock in FTSE 100.

The recent news is positive. IMHO today is just selling of the most liquid and representative stock in the index.

The kind of move that is a good opportunity to get in.

Its a drug company. Even Trump cant stop people getting ill.

Just bought back the slab I sold after the results pop. The business will sail through this.

The yield has risen when bond yield across the world have just fallen.

The bonds on their books will have risen as well.

Tuck away and forget.

I bought back in after selling Friday.

I still want the board out.

Primetime

you may be right. The dividend is good so you are paid to wait - but this week, for example, the move has been bigger than the dividend yield.

Is volatile, so I reckon iIwill get a chance to buy back in lower.

There have been plenty of 'cheap' stocks over the years. Problem is one man's 'cheap' is another man's 'value trap'.

I am not dying on the hill of this board.

I topped up at the lower levels yesterday. I didn't buy enough thinking about it.

Any level near where the shares were priced the day before the results came out is a bargain.

The yield is high, secure and growing.

I bought this as play on restructuring/takeover. Sold yesterday and took the hit.

A general environment of uncertainty combined with a management I have little confidence in means that the share is prone to weakness on any shocks.

With matters as they are - I think only a European company being welcomed to take them over as well.

I will buy back in when things calm down but, when looking at my portfolio, this share has always been the one i was least convinced about and hence it was ripe for the chop.

I doubt if I am alone in this thinking.

As a result of the Review, Wood has identified material weaknesses and failures in the Group's financial culture within the Projects business unit and engagement between Group Finance and Projects.

The above is in the release from today. Not just the results but the financial 'culture'? And that is the interim report. The stock is uninvestable at the moment.

And with the potential bid - for an acquirer, that is the kind of thing that gets a CEO sacked if anything further comes out after a purchase.

Would steer well clear.

Hjkl

Your comment presupposes the board and current management is given time.

I don't have confidence in them. It is the board that gave us the previous strategy.

So managing better is not a solution.

Is not really relevant as a National Grid matter invesent-wise.

NG are incentives to build and manage the connections between large scale demand and large scale supple.

If there is a change to zonal.pricing it will.impact consumption and production locations but the grid will still be needed.

More of an issue for generators that have a weight of production in particular parts of the UK - say Scotland - and large consumers in the SouthEast.

Opinion - neutral

Is below - it was published overnight,

Not massively out of kilter with my thinking although a merger with Shell would be the simpler.

The strategy shift has not really excited anyone.

The Case for Breaking Up BP PLC

1

58

BP PLC has consistently underperformed its peers, with its stock price trending downward since its peak in 2007. The company's latest financial results only serve to underscore this trend, with fourth-quarter profits plummeting 61% compared to the previous year. Annual profits also took a hit, falling from $13.8 billion in 2023 to $8.9 billion in 2024. This decline can be attributed in part to lower oil prices and shrinking margins at its refining business, as well as the financial strain of its investments in low-carbon ventures.

Unfortunately, BP has lost its focus and core mission, and its attempts to diversify into low-carbon ventures have only added to its financial strain. As shareholders of BP, we have a vested interest in seeing the company return to its core competencies and achieve long-term success. In 2021, Murphree Investment Group (MIG) approached BP about exploring possible spin-offs and asset sales, but our proposal was met with resistance.

In our view, the best solution for BP is to undergo a strategic break-up and merger. We propose spinning off the company's midstream and downstream North American assets into a separate entity, Amoco, to be headquartered in Houston, Texas. This would allow Amoco to focus on its core business and operate more efficiently, while also providing BP with a much-needed injection of capital. Additionally, we recommend selling the low-carbon renewable energy assets to private equity or merging them with another low-carbon renewable energy company. This would allow BP to exit a business that is not core to its operations and focus on its traditional strengths. Finally, we suggest merging the company's exploration and production assets with Shell, given the synergies and cost savings that could be achieved through a combination of the two companies, both of which are headquartered in London.

We believe that a break-up and merger is the best way forward for the company, and we urge BP's management to reconsider our proposal and take bold action to restore the company's fortunes. By doing so, we are confident that BP can return to its core competencies, achieve long-term success, and provide strong returns for its shareholders.

Am listening to a podcast and an advert came on about BP's strategy.

Basically we are doing some of the net zero stuff but not as much as before.

Erm - why am I hearing this? Who are they communicating to?

Regardless of the message - the strategy is for the shareholders and regulators/policy makers.

Why they are shouting at someone listening to a f9otball podcast (other podcast types are available) puzzles me.

I wonder who the senior management think they are serving.

Fair point - I hadn't noticed that.

Still relatively down - but not sharply so.

All gone - have been looking to buy in. Now I better sharpen my pencil on my analysis.

(Cant say I was wowed on the name change but worse things happen at see).

The management has no credibility to go buying.

They have to demonstrate generating value with what they have.

It wouldnt surprise me if Shell was not in discussions with common shareholders to see if they are in favour of a merger. BP is so relatively undervalued that a competitor will come in for them eventually.

Enhance shareholder distributions from 30-40% to 40-50% of cash flow from operations (CFFO) through the cycle1, continuing to prioritise share buybacks2, while maintaining a 4% per annum progressive dividend policy.

More cost cuts and seem to be downplaying the renewables (or not mentioning them - which may the same thing).

Wonder if they want a bump in share price before making a tilt at BP

A bit of an overreaction;. The big issue is that LHR did not have its own backup power supply - as it is critical that they maintain power. They were too cheap to pay for one.

Hospitals have their own combined heat and power units for the same reason.

Missing

an argument why the CEO - who was in cahootes with Looney and is long-term BP - and the Chairman should stay.

Al they are proposing is what ANY half decent E&P company should be doing. Getting the gas and oil out of the ground as cheaply as possible and not killing the staff in the process.

The basics of the business.

That the renewables business is going asset-light, just what ARE BP adding to any partner? It cant be expertise because they are late to the party and their are plenty of others (SSE/Iberdrola/Engie) with more capability.

The asset-light areas should be sold or floated. They dont have the conviction to push investment in those areas through.

The management has to rebuild credibility by producing results - so will now be back into the process of assessing the quarterly results when they come through. I give them 6 months.

I would assume that is because they have just released their results and are about to do the strategy presentation.

They will be ironing out exactly what/how the shareholder renumerarion is to be executed and buying now could be misleading. Only have to wait a week.

In the scheme of things - a nothing burger.