Top 18 pension funds with the highest direct exposure to BP shares

mitchaa

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No annoucement on dividend policy until end of July. So huge uncertainty in the short term.

If my pension provider bought 100 shares in April at £2 per share, then 133.33 shares in May at £1.50, followed by 200 shares at £1 in June, then I have 433 shares in the 3mths as opposed to just only the 'regular' 300.

Or does it not work like this? Im not going to pretend to understand the stockmarket, I just thought that short term blips like these are beneficial, not negative as it allows you to buy shares at a much reduced rate?

Thrugelmir

mitchaa wrote: »

If my pension provider bought 100 shares in April at £2 per share, then 133.33 shares in May at £1.50, followed by 200 shares at £1 in June, then I have 433 shares in the 3mths as opposed to just only the 'regular' 300.

Or does it not work like this? Im not going to pretend to understand the stockmarket, I just thought that short term blips like these are beneficial, not negative as it allows you to buy shares at a much reduced rate?

As the costs of the "clean up" are unquantified at the current time. BP is considering its options with regards to its dividend policy. Whether its maintained, cut, or stopped altogether. BP may well do this to build up cash reserves to deal its potential liabilities . No doubt there'll be a considerable number of class actions brought to bear on BP.

A reduction in the dividend may well mean a rerating of the shares. As BP is held by the majority of investment funds as an income stock.

Regarding averaging when buying. Buying individual shares as opposed to a larger investment fund requires far more research and time and effort. As there'll be any number of reasons why an individual share price will react. One thing is for sure though, the market will know before you.

k-hkr

BP where at £6 a share 10 years ago after the consolidation. So they haven't accrued any value in 10 years??

They were massively undervalued as a stock before this disaster and were starting to be valued more in keeping with thier position in the global oil and gas market.

I for one am going to going in heavy in the coming weeks. They will not stop the dividend. They CANNOT stop the dividend. This is merely political gesturing by the two faced American politicians. Have they forgot that BP only have a 60% share in the disaster? Have they forgot who ran the platform, and under whose regulations? Have they forgot just how many american pension funds rely heavily on BP? Have they forgot the carbon footprint they leave on OUR planet when they preach about the environment?

If I was BP I would tell them that they are pulling out of US waters and markets and leave them to it. They won't of course cos they own a hell of a lot of it.

They can, and will, weather this storm without cutting dividends (unless they bow to political pressure) and have the resources to pay the required compensation over the coming years. Exxon paid the final payments 19 yrs after the event, although of course they are an American company.

One more thing. Who do you think runs the US based BP enterprises? British? No, good old Americans.

dunstonh

If I was BP I would tell them that they are pulling out of US waters and markets and leave them to it. They won't of course cos they own a hell of a lot of it.

Given the US Govt's anti British stance (the administration frequently call BP "British Petroleum" despite that no longer being the name of the company) and the deflection away from any of the US companies involved who may end up having more responsibility for the disaster, it's possible that is what the US Govt want. Then US oil companies can move in where BP was previously.

Did you know Haliburtan purchased a major oil clean up company just 10 days before the disaster occurred on a well that they were meant to complete? The conspiracy theorists are going to love that.

withabix

Given the USA's unquenchable thirst for petrol, BP will probably be the best thing since sliced bread in a matter of months....

Thrugelmir

k-hkr wrote: »

BP where at £6 a share 10 years ago after the consolidation. So they haven't accrued any value in 10 years??

They were massively undervalued as a stock before this disaster and were starting to be valued more in keeping with thier position in the global oil and gas market.

I for one am going to going in heavy in the coming weeks. They will not stop the dividend. They CANNOT stop the dividend. This is merely political gesturing by the two faced American politicians. Have they forgot that BP only have a 60% share in the disaster? Have they forgot who ran the platform, and under whose regulations? Have they forgot just how many american pension funds rely heavily on BP? Have they forgot the carbon footprint they leave on OUR planet when they preach about the environment?

If I was BP I would tell them that they are pulling out of US waters and markets and leave them to it. They won't of course cos they own a hell of a lot of it.

They can, and will, weather this storm without cutting dividends (unless they bow to political pressure) and have the resources to pay the required compensation over the coming years. Exxon paid the final payments 19 yrs after the event, although of course they are an American company.

One more thing. Who do you think runs the US based BP enterprises? British? No, good old Americans.

BP cannot afford to make more enemies in the current climate. So good PR is valuable.

Seeing as the capping of the well is yet to take some time. There's no point in getting over excited as the ultimate outcome is far from clear.

moonrakerz

dunstonh wrote: »

Given the US Govt's anti British stance (the administration frequently call BP "British Petroleum" despite that no longer being the name of the company) and the deflection away from any of the US companies involved who may end up having more responsibility for the disaster, it's possible that is what the US Govt want.

Another interesting point in this saga is the way that this "disaster" is hyped up by the media (regrettably the Beeb are in the forefront of this).
The spill is now being reported as "as big as" or "bigger than" the Exxon Valdez spill - as though this was the yardstick all spillages should be measured against.

If you look at the list of "biggest" oil spills the Exxon Valdez is so far down it doesn't actually appear on the list ! Unlike the Amoco Cadiz wrecked off Brittany -223,000 tons. It took 12 years for the French to get compensation from Amoco. Isn't that an American company - doesn't its name come from American Oil Company ?
The Beeb says around 100,000 tons in the present Gulf spill. No mention of the one in the Gulf in 1980 when an estimated 500,000 tons were discharged by the Mexicans.

Still - all this oil must be lubricating lots of votes for Mr Obama !

Richard_DandR

Amoco has been part of BP since 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoco