Nice move by EU and co. very encouraging progress.
Great find Bunny.
Not in anyone?s interests not to have a deal with Iran, not least safe air travel. Plenty of action behind the scenes to dilute the effect of US proposed sanctions or work round them.
The deal is signed. Bring on the news soon with results in 6 trading days time. We were at 30p on speculation of a deal. We have a deal so what price when we start and that?s without all the add on deals plus other MOUs.
No wonder some hefty buying been going on at this price. Good luck all
Firstly, for the record I have now dumped all my holding, taking just about 30% on my last couple of tranches, having often doubled my money in the past with WSG.
Now, your recent posts. Although a few years back Iran did move towards paying for oil in Euro and there was much talk of the petro-dollar having finally had its day … we all know what then happened to the Euro which only just about survived as a currency.
This link is from the KGB-run RT news Russian propaganda organ which pumps out fake news minute by minute. I wish people wouldn’t post stories from this source. It is about as trustworthy as Fox News and delights in exagerating any story or rumour that may cause discord in the EU or between Western countries.
The EU moving to protect European companies as reported by Reuters in one of your other posts is exactly what the EU is all about and, basically, is the only economic power that ever holds the USA and some of its more powerful companies in check (see fines levelled against E.g. Apple, Google etc and E.g. actions taken in past to stop steel dumping etc by the USA).
Unfortunately, we’ve voted to do away with this protection and so I can’t see how WSG are going to benefit over a 15 year contract. As we know various federal agencies will take any British company to court on a whim and the Westminster government will do no more than protest, which will be duly ignored. E.g. BP, GSK, Barclays, LLoyds, HSBC … the list is pretty much endless these days.
The question is, does WSG have any interests in America that it doesn’t mind losing? Nothing major I am aware of so the directors can ignore US sanctions so long as they avoid stepping foot on US territory and the UK government finally throws that one-sided extradition treaty in the bin. Something that should have been done years ago.
I Don’t want to sound too much of a wet blanket, it could all work out very well, but I think that even if there is an RNS saying that the contract is going ahead the potential rise in price (I was expecting well over @30p) no longer has the potential spring behind it that it once had. There are too many potential pitfalls down the road and it will all take a long time to play out.
One for high-risk speculation? Yes, certainly. A Strong Buy posted daily? Not in my book.
I understand you’re disappointed, we all are, but don’t lose perspective, there are always other opportunities in the markets …
… anyone care to suggest one or two?
Eadwig, you seem to have made several assumptions about my position and in the process have told me quite a lot about yourself.
Anyway, we all have our opinions, but I remain encouraged by how this is unfolding so far with regard to WSG’s near term prospects.
Bunny007, “Eadwig, you seem to have made several assumptions about my position”
Yes I have, based on you making no posts for a while and then a flurry of posts in the last few days on WSG, with the maximum number of Strong Buys. My main assumption is that you’re a bit desperate.
I hope you’re not, but that’s what the activity looks like and what it suggests to probably most people looking on.
Or, maybe you’re just upset that stupid politicians in other countries can step in and (seemingly, potentially) ruin an investment story for many of us and that has actuated you into unusual amounts of posting action.
Or maybe you absolutely think the market has got this pricing wrong and that you have read the situation correctly and are buying WSG shares on every price drop.
If so, I apologise. It is your risk to take after all.
I don’t apologise for reacting to any supposed news link from Russia Today (RT News). This propaganda organ has no place as a source for these discussion boards. I hope you (and several others) keep that in mind next time you see a news story from them. They’re not exactly subtle or hard to see through and never put out a balanced story that I have ever seen.
Eadwig, ‘Fair and Balanced’ … just like Fox News
Eadwig. It is interesting how my optimism translates as desperation to you. All the political and economic developments so far have been very encouraging since Trump did the dirty; I think I have a reasonably logical case for being optimistic about WSG prospects at this stage. 25th May is close, we’ll know soon enough I guess.
(Hopefully we don’t need to waste any more of this forum’s space with your futile speculations about me, or with draconian policing of each other’s sources of information. I will henceforth discontinue this particular line of discussion with you).
Bunny007, “Hopefully we don’t need to waste any more of this forum’s space … with draconian policing of each other’s sources of information.”
You don’t need to engage with me, fair enough, but unfortunately it is an error these days not to question people’s sources of information if these boards are going to remain useful to investors.
I’ll leave you with the following from Wikipedia, which I urge you and others to consider carefully and I also note that so far as I know you only ever quoted them once. Good luck with your investments.
"RT is a brand of “TV-Novosti”, an “autonomous non-profit organization”, founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005. During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO “TV-Novosti” on its list of core organizations of strategic importance of Russia.
RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality and of broadcasting “materially misleading” content. On 13 November 2017, RT America officially registered as a “foreign agent” with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network) for the full article and multiple attributions of all claims made in the paragraphs above.
Eadwig, I take all news sources with a healthy pinch of salt and generally try to cross reference where possible. RT has actually proven quite useful in this regard. But why pick on RT? Do you seriously think they are the only outlet to spin a narrative for some ulterior motive?
If you’re going to throw wikipedia at me (lol) then I’ll return the favour; see the sub heading “Risks for media integrity” on this page:
GLA, IMO, DYOR.
Of course we should all take media sources with a pinch of salt, especially as the basic ethics of journalism (never publish without at least two verified sources) seem to have become absent from many an outlet these days.
I sourced Wiki for the piece on RT because it in turn rigorously references every assertion made … at least in this piece saving me the effort. Obviously other parts of Wiki are worse than useless as a source of info.
Why target RT? you reasonably ask. Simply because this particular story is massively political - obviously - with Russia, Syria, Iran (and others) on one side and the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc on the other, with poor old WSG getting potentially squeezed in the middle of it all.
Specifically, therefore, Russia’s active involvement in this area means that RT is a source that should be treated with an even higher degree of the usual scepticism when it comes to this particular news item (Iranian deal/ US sanctions etc).
As for concentration of media ownership, anyone who had followed my posts over the last 30 years would know that it has always been my assertion that globally we will end up with perhaps six to a dozen media outlets, including news, entertainment, research sources, communications etc etc which will carve up the global market between them. Some of these will probably be state owned.
Indeed, much of my long term investment strategy is based on this belief. People used to laugh at my thesis, but it doesn’t look so off-the-wall these days, does it?
Eadwig, fair enough. Let’s move on
Aye - good idea.
No, you both make valid points, but it’s a bit worrying now that a lot of companies seem to be shunning Iran for fear of losing US business.
velocipede, "companies seem to be shunning Iran for fear of losing US business. "
Its the same with the banks and many others. They pay fines that seem to be dreamed up by the Dept of Justice in multiples of Billions of USD ultimately to retain access to the US market. Otherwise they could just tell them to get stuffed and not pay one thin red cent to a body that ultimately has no actual jurisdiction over them.
They all seem to think its worth it. Not just British banks but other European ones too, and of course any drug or oil company cannot afford to lose access to the US market.
I’d like to know where the recent car screening contract quoted as being worth $4.5m is. The middle east somewhere, but is it also in Iran? The fact its quoted in USD seems to indicate not.
If not overshadowed by the airport contract, this would have been a major piece of news for WSG all by itself and may well explain why the market hasn’t discounted the price further amid the Iran uncertainty.
I wish WSG would give more detail about it. An existing middle east customer really isn’t enough, is it?
The problem is with chasing the US business is that you dance to the tune of the puppeteer .