Member Info for ValueMB

Well to be honest, the only reason for change in SP on announcement of results is if it is better than what was expected. Else any strength should already be baked into the share price.

I'll be happier when stock liquidity improves, and there is a timeline for a progressive dividend policy.

There will also be a presentation for investors etc on Wednesday if you're in London and have time available. Apparently they intend to touch upon matters such as return of value to share holders. Sadly I have other matters to attend but it will be interesting to see if there are any concrete plans. If so, that may trigger an appreciation in SP.

There will also be a presentation for investors etc on Wednesday if you're in London and have time available. Apparently they intend to touch upon matters such as return of value to share holders. Sadly I have other matters to attend but it will be interesting to see if there are any concrete plans. If so, that may trigger an appreciation in SP.

From Chinese state. Increases revenue per gas sold by approximately 5% I think but do your own research.

Do the non-gdg companies have any other revenue sources? If not, I'm not sure why they're separate entities. Other than for potentially moving money around as it suits the master. That aside, at the moment gdg may wish to contribute to plow money in to increase production or may wish to scale back to ensure profit. However, I remain sceptical of companies where one person holds the majority of votes. Their interests may be quite different from those of the other shareholders (ie pay out through salary to board rather than through dividends).

In essence, you want a company to invest all money for which there are excellent growth opportunities, but you want it to return everything else to its owners (who are then responsible for finding excellent opportunities, and if you can't find any better then just reinvest in the same company). Specifically to home owners there may be concerns about efficiency of further investments if their land banks are adequate and the bottle neck is staff available for recruitment rather than insufficient money to invest. This is all said in the general and "worth bearing in mind" sense rather than a comment on the individual companies discussed, I'm sure you have all done your research prior to individual investments. Best of luck all.

They are issuing shares to BG owners, and have said they intend to buy them back over time. If short on money, delaying that is another option.

I generally take everything said in the daily mail with more salt than is good for my cardiovascular health, but I agree that GDG is an interesting company with good prospects. If it starts running a surplus I think expectations will be that there will be some small/symbolic dividend payment, or suggestions of a future one. This would alleviate concerns that the founder and majority owner will simply collect profits through his pay cheque (which is currently more than adequate for a company this size) rather than evenly distribute through dividends/purchase of shares.

People continue to think of this deal as merely an oil deal, ignoring the natural gas component.. Check the IC article about shell getting the better end of the deal.

On merger, today: "Shell gets the better end of the deal"

Miners do poorly because of China. Oil does poorly because of China and Saudi Arabia. Home builders do well because there is a shortage of homes. If these things change, fortunes may change. I don't see the UK having to many homes anytime soon, and the government has proven that they are willing to throw tax money at underpinning housing bubbles. Best of luck with your shorts. Disclaimer: have no stake of any kind in this company.

Good morning, I know that it's a matter of internal swapping, but how many extra shares will those who opt for that get (assuming enough people opt for all cash)? Best regards

Is that even legal? Are they not your shares, are you not the one who decides what corporate actions you want undertaken on your behalf?

Basically... Over the last few years some places have significantly increased their production (America) and Saudi Arabia surprised people by saying that they would not unilaterally cut back productivity (give up market share). With such amount of production from non-opec countries, any reduction in production from opec will just lead to loss of market share. With USA and Russia not part of the cartel, I doubt any world wide reduction will be organised anytime soon. Sorry. But maybe opec will drop prices unilaterally. We'll see. Apologies for typos, sent from phone.

If you go for all shares, is the number of "extra shares" decided as cash you give up divided by share price on the day?

I do not have time to check, but I am not sure it is true that the US budget would break even by a mere increase in oil price to 90 usd/barrel. Although they are a major producer, it should not be a sufficiently large enough component of their overall income. But I may well be wrong on this. It is of more interest to look at the breakeven for gulf states where oil actually poses a significant source of revenue, but oil prices have been below most of their breakeven points for some time now.

I disagree jolly, I think my view is a simple supply and demand. If the price is low, it is not worth producing from high cost sources, leading to a reduction in supply. Often there is a bit of a lag involved, so the price will increase to a point where it is worth "turning the taps on again" for a few mothballed sources. But fact remains, the current prices are not sustainable for most countries. It is not entirely easy to transform a country that is reliant on oil to one that is not, but some are trying (with variable degree of success).

Can someone please give me a list of countries that are breaking even at the potential oil prices that are being discussed? At the moment, the oil prices are being kept artificially low by selling at below the cost of inflation, funded by gulf states by burning through their reserves. As those countries are not generating a lot of money elsewhere to subsidise this price war, the lower prices cannot continue for all eternity. What does that mean for private companies? Those that can continue producing at lower prices will be fine. Those that can moth ball operations and resume them when prices rise again will be fine. Those who cannot cope with lower prices will obviously be in trouble. So in regards to how shell will fare, I suppose the question must be whether they can adapt to changes in price sufficiently to weather this, by necessity, temporary glut of oil.

Removing a drop from the sea won't save you from drowning. ..