Can you buy the club?

It’s probably patty?

I got lucky with Kodak, got the high and shorted for the low.

I invested in the pubs when they were closed and really low

Trying to profit off the virus Richard?

I forgot I mentioned SCE on here-what a dubious business person I am ahem.I bought into this company 3 years ago after meeting the team in Liverpool.

I think the stock still has a long way to go-great product in a new green environment with the market for ceramic brakes owned almost exclusively by Brembo-with their inferior product.

The OEM deal announced earlier this week is in my opinion the much needed commercial verification for the SCE product.I expect other OEMs to follow as electrification and emission reduction takes hold.Target £1 short term.I own a lot of stock-as do a few mates.

I also like Chariot and Tristar Resources-not for the faint hearted but massive potential upside.

Good luck-no investment advice intended

Thanks for that Andrew. Agree that the OEM deal announced will be transformational for the company, no pun intended. Will look at Chariot and Tristar. Been stung by resource companies on AIM over the years but, probably, haven't we all. Gold's interesting, have a relatively huge holding, for me, in GGP which has risen c2000% this year. Probably missed the boat buying in there now but a cheap way in, hopefully for a quick return, is to buy into SVE who apparently hold c82m shares in GGP and that stake is hugely undervalued and not reflected in SVEs share price. DYOR, no advice intended

They were at all times lows DB during lockdown, was always going to bounce back once open.

Thanks-will look at SVE and let you know if I take the plunge.

Tristar is one for the bottom drawer.Crispin Odey, who I know, is a big shareholder and he is pretty smart

I've lots in the bottom drawer which weren't intended to be there. AIMs a minefield as you'll well know

Indeed-I have a few certificates which are worth no more than fire lighters

Thanks-will look at SVE and let you know if I take the plunge.

Tristar is one for the bottom drawer.Crispin Odey, who I know, is a big shareholder and he is pretty smart

Sounds a top gadge like

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53611958

He doesn’t like a naughty boy to me-and he’s actually a very decent bloke.

Anyway, shares up 20pc since I mentioned them this morning

So things are not as bad as we thought - the rich are continuing to get richer.
I will certainly sleep more soundly tonight!

I wasn’t aware that making a living by backing UK companies with solid management which employ many people in good long term positions was an offence but there again, I may be wrong.

Thanks-will look at SVE and let you know if I take the plunge.

Tristar is one for the bottom drawer.Crispin Odey, who I know, is a big shareholder and he is pretty smart

Sounds a top gadge like

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53611958

Sounds Odey-ous. Looks it too.

So it only took her 22 years to report it.

Buy out rumour as I'm sure you'll know Andrew. Dipped a toe in the water and bought just 1k shares this morning at 29.8p. Wishing now I'd thanked you for the SCE heads up on Monday !!

Just read the rumour board-would be a shame to sell out now after all the effort by the company.Lets hope its good offer if true

So it only took her 22 years to report it.

It took a while before Jimmy Savile was accused as well.

Interesting how attitudes differ between Alex Salmond and grouse shooting Tory Boys.

What a pathetic, limp, and misguided post by a stereotypical hairy shirted socialist-happy to wallow in misery and underachievement rather than fun and self betterment.A true foot soldier for the revolution no doubt.

I thought innocent until guilty was the rule of thumb in this country and I think comparing Saville to Odey is totally off the mark.

What a pathetic, limp, and misguided post by a stereotypical hairy shirted socialist-happy to wallow in misery and underachievement rather than fun and self betterment.A true foot soldier for the revolution no doubt.

I thought innocent until guilty was the rule of thumb in this country and I think comparing Saville to Odey is totally off the mark.

I don't think that is what you said about Alex Salmond. Do you want me to remind you what you said?

You seem a bit touchy today Laffy - it seemed a reasonable response from Howoldboy.

Toppstep-o: Yes, to the untrained eye, sir lapp’s outburst does look like the ramblings of a mad man.

However, lappfans will know that bad blood between these two runs deep.

It all stems from a BBQ at Bruno Brookes’ house in the mid 90s. Lapp was telling the guests how he once have a hunting jacket to an impoverished Romanian gamekeeper, but How bested him in the generosity stakes when he announced that he favours a political system in which wealth is more favorably distributed through society thus allowing gamekeepers of all lands to be able to afford basic clothing. This resulted in How being invited to Bruno’s annual fly-fishing trip whilst Lapp was left out. He’s never forgiven him

I wasn’t aware that making a living by backing UK companies with solid management which employ many people in good long term positions was an offence but there again, I may be wrong.

It's not an offence but you've said in the past that you are opposed to people making an unearned profit, for example profiting from the sale of their council homes. There are plenty of people who see investing as a similarly unearned profit and would take issue with you calling it "making a living". Because what are you actually doing to earn your profit? Are you showing up every morning, rolling up your sleeves and doing an honest days work, or do you just put money in and expect others to do all the work while you come back later and take some of the profit they have made? I personally don't see any difference between the two, which is why I was a bit harsh with you when you said you would implement a tax to discourage profiting from council houses. To me it felt like you were wanting a system where you and other businessmen could profit but working class people were punished for doing the same.

I've never particularly liked what you say Laffy but I do think you are genuine in your beliefs and that you argue them in good faith so would like to ask this question. What is the difference between someone profiting from selling their council house, and you profiting by investing in a company? In my view, you have both made a profit while not actually contributing any work to the economy. You obviously feel there is a difference and I'd genuinely like to hear what it is.

Kessler-I am exec chairman of Hyperdrive, a fast track 100 company in the Sunday Times which is at the forefront of the new world economy .Do you seriously think I just put money into companies like this and put my slippers on??I worked 15 hour days at PWC as an employee, then started my own business as a self employed investor-same hours and more risk.My choice and my God, investing your own money and running the underlying business is oxygen for me.

I also make passive investments.CUFC was one such transaction-I had absolutely no intention of running the club day to day.

As for the Odey references yesterday, I took offence to a comparison with Saville.Odey is a friend, married with kids.He is no Saville.

As for Salmond, in my view he’s a fumbler-an amateur predator who had power behind him to make him feel untouchable.He’s innocent of the charges brought but he freely admitted he was no saint.

I never liked that Odey when he was in The Goodies.

There's plenty of sex offenders married with kids.

I never liked Bill Oddy either-he’s anti shooting

"As for the Odey references yesterday, I took offence to a comparison with Saville".

If you read it again you will see that there was nothing in my post that compared Savile to Odey.

What I was comparing was the length of time that it can take between an offence being committed and charges being pressed.

The length of time doesn't make the crime any less offensive.

I should also add that neither Savile nor Salmond were actually convicted of any offences.

Kessler-I am exec chairman of Hyperdrive, a fast track 100 company in the Sunday Times which is at the forefront of the new world economy .Do you seriously think I just put money into companies like this and put my slippers on??I worked 15 hour days at PWC as an employee, then started my own business as a self employed investor-same hours and more risk.My choice and my God, investing your own money and running the underlying business is oxygen for me.

I also make passive investments.CUFC was one such transaction-I had absolutely no intention of running the club day to day.

As for the Odey references yesterday, I took offence to a comparison with Saville.Odey is a friend, married with kids.He is no Saville.

As for Salmond, in my view he’s a fumbler-an amateur predator who had power behind him to make him feel untouchable.He’s innocent of the charges brought but he freely admitted he was no saint.

You obviously feel that there is a difference between making a profit from passive investment, and from someone selling their council house because you support the first while wanting to discourage the second. I just want to know what you think the difference is. In my view there isn't one, you are both making profit without actually doing any work. Isn't your passive investing just unearned profit too? A socialist will likely never see eye to eye with a businessman but I do accept you are genuine and argue in good faith so I'd like to understand your point of view.

Bloody hell ive read it all now. I’ll get on the phone now to Hargreaves Lansdowne and get my portfolio cancelled.

Kessler-go away again you utter buffoon.Do you think stelios flies planes for Easyjet

No need to be like that Laffy, I genuinely just wanted to hear your point of view and try to understand it. If I remember, you said that selling a council house is unearned profit and you wanted to tax that. But surely passive investing is unearned too? You aren't actually showing up at those companies and doing any work for them, so what exactly are you contributing that makes your profit earned? Try me, I do actually know quite a bit about economics and believe it or not I read the FT.

I'll put it in simple terms Kess. If i gave me my Granny's old diamond wedding ring that was worth a grand, for a much discounted price of say £100.00, because you liked it and I like you.

If you then sold it for the grand you would make £900.00 unearned profit (unearned being that you did not add any value). Now, if you did not give me at least 50% of the unearned profit as it was more a gift than a means of profit, I would give you a kick in the bollocks ( as an alternative to Tax). You could look at that as being short term pain,for long-term gain.

This is where I disagree. If i sell something then it’s got nothing at all to do with me what happens to it in the future unless I make a legal agreement saying otherwise. Just look at all these antiques programmes on tele. The whole idea is for them to buy stuff as cheaply as possible and sell to the highest bidder.

I agreed with him that people shouldn't profit from their council houses as they haven't done anything to earn it. But I feel that passive investing is the same. If all you do is buy shares and wait for them to go up in value so you can sell them, in my opinion you've not actually done any work or contributed anything to society or the economy that justifies your profit. Isn't that unearned too? Like I say I don't often agree with Laffy but I know he is genuine in his beliefs and argues in good faith. I would like to hear his point of view, although preferably without being called a buffoon for wanting to discuss economic theory.

I’ve worked hard and got some surplus money so I decided to trade and buy some shares - i then hope they go up, or down if trading.

It’s all my own money and I’ll do what I want with it, one time I gave it all to Mr Betfred now I’m more careful.

Mullen I agree that if you've worked hard you are entitled to that money you've earned and if you want to put it into shares in the hopes they rise that's your right. It's legal it's your own business what to do with the money. My point is if you do make a profit from those shares, in my view that would be unearned profit because while you did earn the money you originally invested, you didn't actually do any work to earn the profit it's made. Make sense?

That’s true

I agreed with him that people shouldn't profit from their council houses as they haven't done anything to earn it. But I feel that passive investing is the same. If all you do is buy shares and wait for them to go up in value so you can sell them, in my opinion you've not actually done any work or contributed anything to society or the economy that justifies your profit. Isn't that unearned too? Like I say I don't often agree with Laffy but I know he is genuine in his beliefs and argues in good faith. I would like to hear his point of view, although preferably without being called a buffoon for wanting to discuss economic theory.

Yes, however, how did buying and selling shares come along in the first place ? As a means to raise the capital to start the business, to purchase the equipment, to develop the product, to hire the workforce etc, etc.

When anything starts up their is a risk, the investor (share buyer) takes a risk to either make some profit and a return on his/her investment,or potentially lose some, maybe the lot, with risk comes reward in the form of dividends on the shares paid from the Company Profits. However sometimes the Company makes no profit, no dividend and a reduction in the holding value, bringing this below what was invested in the first place.

Many of our estate owning gentry are now penniless for this reason. They being wealthy were shareholders and underpinned the largest Insurance Company in the World, Lloyds of London.

A Oil Tanker hits the rocks, causing gazzillions in environmental damage, the largest Insurance claim ever, and Llloyds went to the shareholders (names) and cleaned them out.

Generations of wealth, estates, valuables, you name it, they cleaned em out. They enjoyed the reward for decades, then got bitten by the risk.

In you're wonderful "we're all equal state" where does the capital come from to start the business/venture in the first place.

I don't believe in an "everyone being equal" state. That's communism, and one of the few things where I do agree with Laffy is that it doesn't work. There always has to be some incentive. I believe in socialism, which is a different economic concept than communism.

I don't believe in an "everyone being equal" state. That's communism, and one of the few things where I do agree with Laffy is that it doesn't work. There always has to be some incentive. I believe in socialism, which is a different economic concept than communism.

Socialism: a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

I personally see socialism as the ideal, not as a stepping stone to anything else. Look at any country that has tried communism, it simply doesn't work. Everyone should be paid a fair wage and have good working conditions but there will always be a need for some kind of incentive for hard work and personally I feel socialism can offer that better than capitalism can.

This is where I disagree. If i sell something then it’s got nothing at all to do with me what happens to it in the future unless I make a legal agreement saying otherwise. Just look at all these antiques programmes on tele. The whole idea is for them to buy stuff as cheaply as possible and sell to the highest bidder.

Thankfully, that's why many Antique Dealers get their fingers burned from time to time, its purely a game of chance. Those that have trained for years to become experts in their field, add some value, their knowledge and understanding of provenance.

Unskilled Antique dealers are like second-hand car dealers.

It's all about adding value.

Antique dealers by the very nature of the job are con men. Buy stuff at well below it’s value and then resell it.

I'm shocked Kessler if you're as smart as you say you are. If a business wants to expand or grow, invest in new equipment or premises,, it needs money. It has two choices, go to the banks or issue shares. Banks are fairly risk averse whereas investors will take a punt. The bank will charge interest on the loans to make their money (what have they done to earn that? hmmmm?) If they issue shares to get the money to invest, the shareholders will hope to receive dividends as their return (no guarantees with that). If the business fails, a bank will have security on assets to claw back what they can. The shareholder? what can he claw back if the business goes tits up? Nothing, they lose their investment, they took the risk. I'm sure you appreciate that when businesses grow, they often employ more people, you know, jobs that pay wages? will you get those new jobs without people investing in businesses? It ain't that complicated is it?

This is where I disagree. If i sell something then it’s got nothing at all to do with me what happens to it in the future unless I make a legal agreement saying otherwise. Just look at all these antiques programmes on tele. The whole idea is for them to buy stuff as cheaply as possible and sell to the highest bidder.

Thankfully, that's why many Antique Dealers get their fingers burned from time to time, its purely a game of chance. Those that have trained for years to become experts in their field, add some value, their knowledge and understanding of provenance.

Unskilled Antique dealers are like second-hand car dealers.

It's all about adding value.

I’d say a skilled one like Philip Serrell would make a excellent used car salesmen. FairPlay to them I say they’re all trying to con someone. some with more success than others. Bit like I didn’t feel guilty years ago when these friendly building societies decided to privatise and offer shares to anyone savvy enough to invest a minimum amount in one of their with profits funds.

Kessler-by unearned income, I mean income from property.It should be taxed higher-and the current naughty Tories have achieved this by adding stamp duty levies and restricting tax relief on bank loan interest.

I rarely invest passively-and I’m fortunate to be able to access management teams to check them out.In businesses where I’m a large investor, we employ the best people and make sure they are aligned-no room for cuckoos in the next.

Your rationale that we are all equal is just plain wrong.Covid for example is hitting people who choose to live a life of obesity particularly hard.Life for most is a game of choice-and those who do not have that choice should be protected by the state with safety nets.

Your rationale that we are all equal is just plain wrong

I don't believe in us all being equal, I said that in my last post. But thanks for explaining what your interpretation of unearned income is. I don't think we're going to agree, but I do like to hear your views. Debates like this can often get heated because everyone feels they are being attacked. I feel it's important that as long as the other side is arguing in good faith which you are, it's important to give them a fair hearing and try to see things from their perspective. We're not all lazy lefties, most of us are decent people who are just as willing to get our heads down and work. Besides a lot of my criticism of capitalism doesn't apply to businessmen like you. You pay well and you treat your staff right. Contrast with many employers who don't do this yet always wonder why morale is low. If you pay me minimum wage then that buys you my minimum effort. If you want more than minimum work, it surely stands to reason that you must offer more than minimum pay in return.

If I’m a saint, why are you preaching to me?I said a while ago that your ultra left views made you unemployable.That you have gone away for a while then came back spinning the same crap sadly doesn’t change my view.

Consider this Kes-why did stamp duty collection for HMRC fall when rates went up, and now rising when rates fall?

And I explained to you that politics should play no part in the decision making process for employment. It has been held in the past that such beliefs can count as a protected characteristic under equality legislation. While you might be of the opinion that socialists are unemployable, you can't actually act on those views or refuse to hire a socialist because of it. If you did, you could potentially be taken to a tribunal for discriminating against them.

I work hard and I go above and beyond when needed. I believe in a fair days work for a fair days pay, which is why I resent your implication that we're all lazy. Your misinformed views about us suggest that you've never actually taken the time to get to know any socialists? Might I suggest that you consider the idea that a belief in socialism and a belief in hard work are not mutually exclusive, and you might be pleasantly surprised at how good workers some of us are if we are treated right.

Your rationale that we are all equal is just plain wrong

I don't believe in us all being equal, I said that in my last post. But thanks for explaining what your interpretation of unearned income is. I don't think we're going to agree, but I do like to hear your views. Debates like this can often get heated because everyone feels they are being attacked. I feel it's important that as long as the other side is arguing in good faith which you are, it's important to give them a fair hearing and try to see things from their perspective. We're not all lazy lefties, most of us are decent people who are just as willing to get our heads down and work. Besides a lot of my criticism of capitalism doesn't apply to businessmen like you. You pay well and you treat your staff right. Contrast with many employers who don't do this yet always wonder why morale is low. If you pay me minimum wage then that buys you my minimum effort. If you want more than minimum work, it surely stands to reason that you must offer more than minimum pay in return.

Here's a challenge for you.

You own a Company that makes things,and you employ 20 welders. One day, a guy comes along and say's, look Kes, I have this well proven new super dooper all singing and dancing with bells and knobs robotic welder that will do a better job than you're 20 men. Faster, more efficient, doesn't need holidays, breaks, pension, employment rights, or go off on the sick. it can also scale up if you're business expands and never ever complains. Our calculations show the pay-back is three years, then you can also enjoy vastly improved profits and have more capital to reinvest, or a yacht or a ferrari or anything else you may want.. All you need is two trained operators.

Would you buy it ?

I personally wouldn't. If I've already got a successful company and am making a profit, I wouldn't want to make 20 people unemployed just so I could make even more profit. Me having to go without a yacht or a Ferrari is better than 20 of my staff going without being able to pay the rent or put food on the table. I think people should sometimes be content with what they have instead of constantly going after more and more profit at the expense of others. Constant growth is an unsustainable economic model, we've only got finite resources in the world. But this is a very interesting point you brought up. With the increasing automation of jobs, what happens to the people who find themselves out of work? They still need to eat, they need some form of income. If you don't provide an income for them to put a roof over their head and food on the table, then they'll probably turn to illegal means of getting income. Personally I feel that some kind of UBI, as advocated by Friedman, will ultimately end up being necessary.