Member Info for Track11

Well thank the Government for triple levies on housebuilders (remediation, extra for cladding, residential levies).

TW had to reserve near 500million for cladding remediation alone, with little choice -- in cladding, architectural consultants and construction management inflate the quotes triple. Because it's a legally mandated necessity so they know customer has to pay.

Then, turn to the backdrop of little investment interest in the property, increased taxes, unnecessary high rates and the Government done zilch for the year in power to improve availability of rental properties (instead there are new council license fees to rent, and difficulties for landlords), or to stimulate housebuilding. On the contrary Bloomberg recently reported the housebuilding in London area collapsed: on track to deliver less than 5% of its annual target of 88,000 homes. The worst performance in two decades.

Incompetent governments, levies for residential remediation, levies for cladding, levies... unnecessary high rates.

Homebuilding in London has all but ground to a halt. The capital is to deliver less than 5% of its annual target of 88,000 homes with half the year gone, source is Bloomberg online.

Pocker

It's unclear to me if Provision for cladding remediation will be posted to TW accounts for their current accounting period, but if it does surely will lead to lower tax paid.

Government must step in not only on planning but cladding costs madness and levying house builders with fees. Net result is that only 5% or so of planned 80,000 new homes were built in London area for the year. Lowest in 20 years. Staggeringly pessimistic number.

> First instead of just allowing gilts to expire and remove them from the BoE's balance sheet they are actively selling billions into the market at a loss and therefore competing against the government for buyers which pushes prices up.

Here to be precise on the mechanisms, the Gilts bought during QE are placed in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF), operated by BoE but not on its balance sheet. Outright transfer of APF assets to the Bank's balance sheet = monetisation of debt.

Correct, it was madness that throughout 2023, 2024, 2025 BoE was liquidating into the economic backdrop of raising yields -- making the long-term bonds fall even further, in the absence of the past natural buyers for them (DB schemes, insurers).

Mechanics point 2, BoE does not create currency: each pound it 'prints' will be fractionally reserved and eventually cancelled.

It has to start with the Government showing a modicum of concern about public debt levels and especially the long-term debt. Last year, I estimated the rates are about 0.5% higher than where they could've been. The mismanaged long rates do not help anyone: mortgages are higher, the taxpayer will eventually be paying outrageous debt costs (the interest on public debt is already on par with annual NHS budget), and funny enough -- no one wants to buy that long-term debt, even at 5.4% yield!

Yes, lower rates were needed but BoE were lethargic about lowering them.

Now we have a new wave of concern about public debt costs and its monetisation (transferring of APF onto BoE's balance sheet). If they will be cutting rates into that, and inflation edging up -- inflation stays higher.

There will be inflationary growth, and then there will be a CGT bill taxing it.

Have missed the news that rate cuts are working AGAINST disinflation. Mortgages are priced off long rates, close to 10Y.

The long rates will stay up longer as short rate going to 3.5% and inflation stays where it is -- also the inflation's volatile components, eg, food inflation constantly popping. Look at energy tariffs, they all repriced slightly higher at end of June.

-- 10,800 millionaires left the UK in 2024

If this stat is realistic, it's too late to make any noise short of announcing serious fiscal stimulus, towards small business particularly.

Who/what is going to replace that spending in the UK?

With all the scepticism, Bernanke is not the worst Fed Chair, and blaming 2008 problems on him is a populistic garbage. For the record, Lehman had 600 types of debt in their structure and 2008 aftermath could've been worse. You also forgot that Fed does not authorise spending, US Congress does, and it's administered by the Treasury Department.

But it's all irrelevant to us, what is happening that because some wages grew from 11.10 to 11.44 and because electric rate grew from 22 to 26, the working people have to shell out extra billions in interest, everyone has to refinance a mortgage at near 6%, and the cost of servicing of public debt races like a winner at Ascots.

The incompetent members of BOE MPC are full of institutional inertia.

They will not "go down by 0.25% this coming Thu" and they will keep BOE reference rate at bloody 4.75%, when UK economic growth is 0.1% per quarter.

4.75% rates

0.5% GDP growth

BOE inflation forecast has been criticised internationally, see Bernanke review.

In reality these targets are not good indicators.

We all lost a decent chunk of money, making buy decisions based on target prices. Oh, Barclays research note saying BP has a potential to go to 1000..

The government has not much to do with the achieved mortgage rates of today. Rates are high, which is why it's hard to sell a house.

It's the BOE's wisdom that the Government pays extra 50-75bps on 0.5 trillion of reserves deposited, and people pay more interest in mortgages today, then they should've been. The US can keep rates high with the economy growing 5.5% (annualised).

UK neutral rates are not 4.75% when the economy is growing 0.9% (annualised), given that 3rd quarter just eked out 0.1%.

However, the Budget and spending plans - are worrying. These are likely to keep the long rates and mortgage rates high going forward (again, higher than the rates could've been with a more responsible spending).

- the money has been written off by bp and it would be political suicide to accept any of it back (0%)

On the point of brains turning into a smoothie. The sanctions are supposed hit them more than they hit ourselves and our interests. Why should BP refuse/not seek payment for assets and happy to leave those assets and money to the regime that will utilise them economically and aid their war efforts?

Essentially leaving money in hands of Putin, rather demanding a payment for assets/and protection of own economic interests.

Reminds me a case when a vessel with paid for Russian oil was refused entry to a UK port in 2022. So we sent the oil back to Russia! If instead measures were taken, and the ships held as collateral, maybe we wouldn't have a problem of shadow oil shipping today.

It's not about the absolute price. You have to look at the portfolio, and inherent valuation.

Kestrel income fading out, there is a gap to 2027-2028 when the current seed royalties will become operational, and some resemblance of stable cashflow in will be achieved.

2024 declared div to be ~4 cents at 30% FCF -- from March 2024 results presentation/company update.

You can compute yourself, which SP makes 4 cents $ forward div match 5.25%, and where the price should be to give 8-9% div, which is expected from a stagnating royalty portfolio, to match the various risks.

There is no doubt the share price can gyrate into 380es.

Any econ slowdown/recessionary signal will be negative for oil price itself and majors. Despite limitation of exports from the Gulf. First they impose quotas and reduce exports, but if demand not there, they start offering big discounts. See 2020.

Decreasing interest rates, esp long term -- counts as a recessionary signal.

Specific to BP, the debt levels are worrying. And if their investment in renewables did not eke profits in recent high energy price environment, then it is about appeasing stakeholders and GR, not financially fiduciary to the shareholders.

overwritten by director sells, even at 74 p price..

26-jun-24 25-jun-24 sell kevin ***** 74.60 gbx 37,546

26-jun-24 25-jun-24 sell marc bishop lafleche 74.60 gbx 23,549

How is capital being eroded. A cursory look on financial shows L&G collects increasing insurance premiums.

-- bought at £18, now got a decent wedge to invest in some of other shares

We are all in different positions/entry points.

Overnight GOOG announced 70bn buyback and GOOG shareholders now earned just the same 12-16% overnight. But they didn't have to wait for once in a lifetime event -- such as BHP offer for AAL.

Sucks to be an investor in FTSE stocks -- saying this with a pain.

-- Per bloomberg - their offering 31.1 billion for anglo, current market cap is 33.35+ billion

On this point, hard to see where is 31% premium.

If it's the premium "over the implied value of Anglo's unlisted assets" (--BHP) that language implies that if Anglo were to list those assets separately, they must've been trading cheaper than the AAL altogether as of yesterday -- 2,140.

It's also a complete upside down: parts are cheaper than the sum.

It is frustrating as Nasdaq made circa 4.5 + 2 = 6.5% (talking from memory) but SMT is where it was a day ago -- two trading days.

Even before yesterday gains, Baillie Gifford website says NAV at Fair 1189.33p (11/03/21).