Member Info for TheTrotsky

Thanks Nomad for your response.

I've been thinking about investing in SEIT and this gives me some ideas to think about. Much appreciated.

Interesting. I've never had a problem with ii but can understand iWeb's stance. Presumably, if you sell after having accepted the offer, the broker's back office would need to notify the comany that your acceptance had been rescinded; saves a bunch of time and effort for the broker if it stops you selling after you've accepted the offer (but this ought to be made clear at the outset).

Monk, My understanding, in layman's terms, is that purchase yield equates to the expected annual income over cost whilst MTM yield equates to the expected total annualised return (including capital) over cost.

For most of last year and the 3-4 years prior that I recollect, TFIF's MTM yield has generally exceeded its purchase yield but that now seems to have reversed, which seems to imply (to me) that TFIF is now buying bonds for greather than their par value. I find this slightly odd given that purchase yields appear to be rising, which would normally imply that bond prices would be falling. What've I missed? E.g. does it suggest that we are now buying bonds that were issued during the period when base rates peaked in the past 12-18 months, with coupon rates higher than TFIF's current purchase yield, which are now falling below par value as base rates are falling?

Temple, What's SEIT's Achilles' heel? Market vagaries aside, GSF's Achilles' heel was twofold, doubt over whether it would actually receive its US tax credits (which does now appear to be resolving itself nicely) and doubt about its future income generation (market prices have been towards the lower end of previous expectations) and the impact that might have on NAV (albeit that the HEIT bid does seem to have improved sentiment somewhat). SEIT on the other hand still seems to be lingering towards its historic lows. The dividend yield looks excellent but what gives?

Gone ex-div this morning for those who may not have been aware. Don't panic, keep calm ;-)

SpaceX isn't FTC's only customer but I'd hazard that it probably accounts for at least 50% of FTC's income currently

No it's not. All in all, Trump's tariffs are a complete disaster for FTC. FTC needs to diversify away from SpaceX asap. SpaceX has now become a poisoned chalice. It's quite clear that Trump's long term aim is to ensure that all microchips used by US businesses are manufactured in the US. Whichever way you cut it he is destroying value for FTC shareholders - if SpaceX is the only game in town then SpaceX does not need to pay a premium to buy (even if it was permitted by the UK government) and, if not, FTC is going to be forced to manufacture in the US, even if it isn't cost effective. Trump's tariffs are illegal but he does not care and ultimate;y this is going to be a disaster for the world-wide economy and stifle innovation.

Okay I'll bite. So, you're saying that if you place your buy order at 4:25pm the day before the share goes ex-div, you receive the dividend the following morning at 8.00am. Now I'm not exactly sure why that might be the case, apart from possibly the buy order being processed after the 4:30pm cut off (the close of business), in which case your account is being credited with the share ex-div plus the cash equivalent of the dividend (effectively a rebate of part of what you paid - not sure whether it is actually a dividend but that's not really relevant). However, at the end of the day, apart from the cash flow advantage, I'm not sure what additional benefit you gain from transacting the order at 4.25pm the day before. The price of the share you bought is still subject to the vagaries of going ex-dividend the following day, i.e. if you sell it the following day you're just as likely receive the previous day's closing price less the dividend give or take, and you aren't entitled to any further dividend (you don't receive the dividend twice).

Plus, what's it got to do with the Traders Dynamic Index (TDI). TDI supposedly helps traders identify potential entry and exit points, spot divergences, and manage risk. Apart from receiving your dividend entitlement sooner, I don't see any particular trading advantage, all other factors being equal i.e. if you bought the share at (say) 3pm you'd have to wait longer to receive your dividend but if you sold you share the following day you wouldn't receive any more or less, whether you bought it at 3pm or 4.25pm.

PS. Of all the trading strategies, buying the share the day immediately before it goes ex-div generally tends to be the worst option in my experience. When investing for dividends, I've generally been better off buying shares immediately after the dividend announcement (in the absence of any adverse news, share prices generally trend upwards between the dividend announcement and the day before going ex-div). Alternatively, when investing for capital, it's generally better to buy the share on the day it goes ex-div, or perhaps a day or two after, and selling a day or two before it goes ex-div.

RWS won't be directly affected by the tariffs (there are no tariffs on services) and may, peversely, actually be benefiting from all of those trade deals that the US is currently trying to negotiate (providing translation services to government institurions is one ot RWS's core divisions) but clearly it remains to be seen how business services are being effected.

I was hoping for c4.5p at least but, following 2024's disappointing and unexpected final dividend, had set a more modest target of 4p, so I'm very happy.

Do you have any thoughts on 2026's final dividend Monk? Assuming the BofE cuts interest rates as expected over the next 12 months, I'm thinking that the 2025 final dividend could prove to be the high-water mark and, depending on how quickly the BofE cuts interest rates, c4p might be in prospect (the quid pro quo being that the sp ought to continue to rise following the reverse yield logic).

Can't really make heads or tails of RWS's current sp. I'm underwater with an average purchase price of c161p but am loathe to add more until I can understand what's been driving the fairly precipitous price fall since recent trading updates and the closure of Hound Partners' short. I appreciate that the sp has fallen significantly from its historical peaks in 2020 and before but the all signs are that the business has (at last) bottomed and that a return to (very) modest growth was on the cards, at least at constant exchange rates (you'd have thought that there would have been sufficient there for the sp to at least tread water). I'm not complaining about today's price rise (far from it) but I don't think that there's any rhyme or reason to which way this sp moves other than the market's fairly nebulous concerns for "AI"; I find it difficult to believe that any transaction critical translation would ever be left to chance (you don't get a second chance to get it right). The internet is not a reliable source of information on which to build an AI model (as Google nearly found out with their Gouda gaffe) and if you're going to have to always "sense check" what "free to use" AI is generating then you rather lose the benefit it's supposed to deliver. I still believe that AI models built on restricted access data sets, built up over years/decades, are the way forward and think in that regard RWS is well placed.

I think Trump is an idiot but he has created a very interesting dynamic.

Take Nike. Part of the reason it's been able to generate significant investor returns in the US (its largest market) and the RoW for the last 20+ years is because it's been able to offshore manufacture to places like Vietnam. Now, as a result of the tariffs on Vietnam et al, Nike has to decide whether to onshore future production (at least of the shoes it sells in the US). Whether tariff rates remain at current levels, or not, Nike's cost of production is going to rise whether it retains production in places like Vietnam or moves production back to the US (where labour and other production costs are significantly higher). So, it now has to decide whether to absorb those costs (if it can) and generate signficiantly lower investor returns or pass those additional costs onto its US customers (which will probably result in both lower sales and increased cost of living costs for US consumers). Whichever way you look at these two options, US citizens will be worse off (they'll be paying more for their shoes and/or facing lower returns/prices on their share investments - the premium pricing afforded to US companies could go into reverse).

There is of course a third option; Nike could try to cross-subsidise its lower profits in the US by charging more for its shoes in the RoW (more than they already do e.g. the $1 = £1 conversation rate they often use in the UK) but this could prove fraught with problems for Nike, US manufacturers and/or the US in the long run. If the RoW has any common sense they'll refuse to subsidise the US and turn their backs on the US and its manufacturers.

One has to wonder what the likes of Vietnam will have to do get the base 10% tariff. Maybe they'll have to remove tariffs on imported US cars that they can't afford to buy anyway ;-)

Don't be daft. Trump's world view is totally cracked. This could end up being as bad for SpaceX as FTC. The only upshot of a protectionist USA is a protectionsist RoW. SpaceX can forget about launching a global satellite service - nobody will want to buy its services (governments will ban its use if nothing else). Whilst alternate non-US satellite platforms are developed, the whole satellite industry will go into limbo. There's absolutely no way that the UK government could now permit the transfer of UK tech to a US-owned business; it's just declared itself a hostile nation.

Donald Trump should have been throttled at birth!

Sharpey, It's not quite that straight forward. It's quite feasible/probable that a UK exporter might have US$ denominated production costs, e.g. petroleum products, and should therefore benefit from a corresponding reduction in some of its input costs although it might take a period of time before that benefit feeds through as it uses its historic inventories first.

In addition, if the UK exporter does use (say) petroleum products it may also benefit from the reduction in crude oil prices resulting from OPEC increasing production. Plus a UK exporter may also already have hedging in place to protect it against US$ fluctuations (which may well be a benefit if its looking to sell finished goods held in inventory before the depreciation started).

It's probable that a UK exporter will (eventually) have to increase its sale prices to take affect of the depreciation in the US$ but it may be less than the 6% that might otherewise be expected.

PS. The tariff is paid by the US importer, not the UK exporter. It's not added to the sale price of the goods per se.

FTC has a manufacturing facility in the US

Jim800, She wasn't being a prat. She was trying to get him to stick to the question (which was very straightforward) and prevent him going off on a political rant attacking anybody and everybody who questioned the US's new tariff policy. The guy is supposed to be a deputy assistant to Trump but when asked whether the UK tariff was in relation to VAT (a relevant question given all that had been bandied about in the weeks before) denied being cognisant (it was more "you know what tarriffs you charge us"). It was quite clear that the guy is a misogynist who thinks that Derbyshire is only in her role because of diversity policies (because no woman could ever deserve to be ahead of a man in the pecking order) and that he thinks he's a superior intellect to everybody else sitting in the room (because he can shout them down if he needs to and make up "facts" as he goes); he was disdainful and rude from the outset. A hideous, odious individual who Derbyshire was forced to defer to simply because of his position in the Trump cabal.

That's one view. Another might be shareholders' obsession with chasing US equity valuations beyond what's commercially justifiable. When shareholders want to buy 10 shares for every 1 share available they overlook the consqeuential impact on equity prices (excess demand over supply is basic Economics 101). If Zotefoams trade in the US it would probably command a share price many multiples higher, not because of the lack of stamp duty or dividend tax relief but ludicrous share price expectations. I'd currently expect Zoefoams, in the absence of ReZorce and current economic/tariff concerns, to be trading in the range between £3 and £4 based on sensible PE/DPS expectations. Anything more would be just unjustifiable froth.

Trump has to be very wary that his current trade wars don't serve to drive foreign investment out of the US stock market as overseas investors re-trench because what can go up can just as easily come crashing down. In the absence of surplus of all that surplus demand, a trickle can quickly turn into a torrent, and at the moment Trump seems to be concentrated on tariffs rather than the US stock market.

Yes, it was Gorka. A hideous, odious man. In another era he would have been one of Hitler's henchmen I have no doubt.

Made me laugh to see in his bio that he was educated at Corvinus University of Budapest.

A blood sucking, night crawler would sum him up well ;-)

Personally, I think all the countries should hold off and just pay the tariffs for the time being. Trump currently has the upper hand in these trade negotiations and expects to extract his pound of flesh from each and every country. Give it 6-12 months of rising US consumer prices, pressure from US voters, concerns from Republican legislators facing mid-term elections who could all be conceivably wiped out if prices escalate by c15% and the boot may well be on the other foot (at least we might be able to agree mutually fairer terms rather than having them simply dictated to us by the US).

Trump wants us to be indignant. He wants to divide and concquer us. He wants to do deals on his terms. The last thing he wants is for all of us to simply acquiesce. He may argue that, whilst the tariffs last, they are essentially a windfall for the US but the tariffs are collected by the US importer and, generally, passed on in full to the consumer. Some US importers may try to absorb some of the additional cost or try to push back on the buying prices charged by overseas suppliers but, by and large, the US consumer will end up footing most, if not all, of the additional bill because the new tariffs are simply too large to be absorbed. He thinks that by levying such high tariffs he's been clever but it could very well backfire (tariffs of, say, 2% are far more likely to be absorbed than tariffs of 10%+). He may actually have overplayed his hand without realising it (you'd need intelligence for that) because he has completre disdain for economists or anybody else who might disagree with him or point out the potential pitfalls of his policies. The world is a compeletely different place to when McKinley was President; Trump just doesn't get it.