politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stand by for this morning seat polling from Lord Ashcroft

Third!

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

What was the context. Give a link please.

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.

edmund, I thought there was different thoughts depending on the industry too. For example, utilities serving essentially mature and saturated markets are expected to pay dividends as they are no or slow growth companies, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, tech companies are expected to reinvest profits rather than distribute them through dividends as their growth potential is greater than other investment options.

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

MTimT said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.

edmund, I thought there was different thoughts depending on the industry too. For example, utilities serving essentially mature and saturated markets are expected to pay dividends as they are no or slow growth companies, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, tech companies are expected to reinvest profits rather than distribute them through dividends as their growth potential is greater than other investment options.

The argument is that the former should do buybacks instead. Not sure if this applies to UK-taxed companies or not.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2012/03/19/steve-jobs-wouldnt-have-paid-a-dividend-3/

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

3 hours 3 minutes 3 seconds

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

You can call him a liar if you want, I'll pass on that. The same quote is

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1342353/can-miliband-convince-voters-trust-economy/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/

Tell him what ever you like, but tell him that quotes need attribution and names if they are to be taken seriously. I have no idea if he's a liar or not (who ever "he" is, you don't make that clear either) ;but it's not a properly sourced quote so it must be taken with a serious pinch of salt.

The Management today article you linked to, just references the Spectator article by Dan Hodges you also quoted. The order order article had no attribution at all.

So what we had is, "Dan Hodges said someone told him that someone else said........"

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

OGH on R4......

CarlottaVance said:

OGH on R4......

Are Radio 4 now taking ads for the "Belgravia Hair Centre" ?

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

No, its piss poor journalistic standards, but its what we have. I notice people get much more particular about journalistic standards when it runs against people they support, but are all together more relaxed about it when it is supportive of their own preference, funny that.

I'm not a Labour supporter by any stretch of the imagination, with the exception of my Betfair account, the result of the election is of zero consequence to me. i haven't lived in the UK for a decade.

I'd have questioned it the other way around as well

CarlottaVance said:

asjohnstone said:

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

You can call him a liar if you want, I'll pass on that. The same quote is

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1342353/can-miliband-convince-voters-trust-economy/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

Do you really think that a FTSE100 head is going to go on the record with a quote like that about someone who could be PM in 4 weeks?

No, but that's no reason to take it seriously either. You can start from a presumption of truth with un-sourced quotes.

CarlottaVance said:

OGH on R4......

Is it on Today?

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.

I am not an economist (tm), (thank god), but don't dividends allow big investors extract value from successful companies without damaging their long-term shareholding .I would have guessed that that is quite important to long-term investors such as pension funds?

For a long-term investor, if you sell shares, you may have to buy them back later, and if the target company is successful that will probably be at a higher price.

And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

3 hours 3 minutes 3 seconds

Awaiting with great anticipation

Millions of PBers and news junkies will be furiously pressing F5 at 9:00am .... and one or two will be on PB at the time.

Unfortunately, I may fall asleep prior to the glorious moment. I'll be sure to relive it by reviewing the PB archives in the morning!

Might I pull you in the direction of an alarm clock to avoid devastating disappointment.

I fear my quaffing of the red stuff will prevent any reaction from said alarm clock.

foxinsoxuk said:

JackW said:

CarlottaVance said:

OGH on R4......

Are Radio 4 now taking ads for the "Belgravia Hair Centre" ?

I hope that your ARSE has recovered from your curry.

Indeed it has .... considerably assisted its required oiling by a particularly passable madeira.

That said Lord A's unseemly breakfast dump of Con/Lab marginal polling will only add to a more frenzied digestion within my ARSE less than an hour later.

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.

And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.

Apple suffers a problem common to many successful multinationals - especially US based ones: The money is not in the US. Profits and cash pile up around the world but the IRS taxes the pants off it when remitted back to head office. So the group balance sheet shows enormous cash balances - but these are not available to be paid as dividend because they're not held at group level. Apple has to borrow to pay its dividend or buy back shares! It's an oddball created entirely by the greed of the US tax authorities. If, for example, Apple UK is sitting on a mountain of cash, WTF should it do with that cash? Paying an intra-group dividend up to head office would be economically nuts. Maybe they can get an expensive intra-group loan from head office and pay some back as interest - but this will be heavily scrutinised for transfer pricing by both US and UK tax bodies. It's a tough one! Literally they have more money than they know what to do with.

surbiton said:

asjohnstone said:

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

You can call him a liar if you want, I'll pass on that. The same quote is

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1342353/can-miliband-convince-voters-trust-economy/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/

Tell him what ever you like, but tell him that quotes need attribution and names if they are to be taken seriously. I have no idea if he's a liar or not (who ever "he" is, you don't make that clear either) ;but it's not a properly sourced quote so it must be taken with a serious pinch of salt.

The Management today article you linked to, just references the Spectator article by Dan Hodges you also quoted. The order order article had no attribution at all.

So what we had is, "Dan Hodges said someone told him that someone else said........"

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

Dan Hodges is a bitter, twisted man who could not become the LOTO Office CEO because David Miliband lost. He cannot forgive Ed.

You must be beside yourself that Labour is in this election with a duffer as leader, How on earth did it come to this?

surbiton said:

Will the ARSE be released in two halves ?

Don't be cheeky.

I quite like the right to buy policy, it's one of those rare things - a policy that would actually make many people feel good about voting Tory (as in not just the ones who will benefit directly)

Anyway, given about a 3% standard deviation of swing (close to recent history), if there are 12 seats, the following results would indicate:

6 con, 6 lab: 5% average swing
7 con 5 lab: 3-4% average swing
8 con, 4 lab, 2% average swing
9-10 con, 2-3 lab, 0.5% average swing.
11-12 con, 0-1 lab, 1% pro-con swing

In short, howver many:
50-50 indicates 5% swing
5-eighthss to 3 eights indicates 0.5sd short of 5% (ie about 3.5%)
2-thirds to 1 third indicates 1sd swing short of 5%(c. 3% less than 5%, so 2%)
4-fifths to 1 fifth (ish) is about 1.5sd short of 5%
19-twentieths to one-twentieth ish is about 2 sd short of 5%

(All calculated on a tablet while feeling muzzy, so worth checking my maths!)

surbiton said:

SquareRoot said:

surbiton said:

asjohnstone said:

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

You can call him a liar if you want, I'll pass on that. The same quote is

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1342353/can-miliband-convince-voters-trust-economy/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/

Tell him what ever you like, but tell him that quotes need attribution and names if they are to be taken seriously. I have no idea if he's a liar or not (who ever "he" is, you don't make that clear either) ;but it's not a properly sourced quote so it must be taken with a serious pinch of salt.

The Management today article you linked to, just references the Spectator article by Dan Hodges you also quoted. The order order article had no attribution at all.

So what we had is, "Dan Hodges said someone told him that someone else said........"

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

Dan Hodges is a bitter, twisted man who could not become the LOTO Office CEO because David Miliband lost. He cannot forgive Ed.

You must be beside yourself that Labour is in this election with a duffer as leader, How on earth did it come to this?

Are you referring to Edward Samuel Miliband, our next Prime Minister ?

What a joy it is this early in the day to see a seasoned PBer with such a wonderful sense of humour and penning a statement worthy of the some of the finest fiction in the annals of English literature.

SeanT had best be on his guard !!

Patrick said:

JosiasJessop said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”

Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?

That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.

And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.

Apple suffers a problem common to many successful multinationals - especially US based ones: The money is not in the US. Profits and cash pile up around the world but the IRS taxes the pants off it when remitted back to head office. So the group balance sheet shows enormous cash balances - but these are not available to be paid as dividend because they're not held at group level. Apple has to borrow to pay its dividend or buy back shares! It's an oddball created entirely by the greed of the US tax authorities. If, for example, Apple UK is sitting on a mountain of cash, WTF should it do with that cash? Paying an intra-group dividend up to head office would be economically nuts. Maybe they can get an expensive intra-group loan from head office and pay some back as interest - but this will be heavily scrutinised for transfer pricing by both US and UK tax bodies. It's a tough one! Literally they have more money than they know what to do with.

They should just man-up and pay the taxes. ;-)

JackW said:

surbiton said:

SquareRoot said:

surbiton said:

asjohnstone said:

Indigo said:

asjohnstone said:

" one head of a FTSE 100 company recently given facetime with Miliband was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”"

So, unsourced quote, with no names of people involved. Yep, sounds totally legit to me.

You can call him a liar if you want, I'll pass on that. The same quote is

http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1342353/can-miliband-convince-voters-trust-economy/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9494602/ed-miliband-could-still-win-heres-what-would-happen-next/

Tell him what ever you like, but tell him that quotes need attribution and names if they are to be taken seriously. I have no idea if he's a liar or not (who ever "he" is, you don't make that clear either) ;but it's not a properly sourced quote so it must be taken with a serious pinch of salt.

The Management today article you linked to, just references the Spectator article by Dan Hodges you also quoted. The order order article had no attribution at all.

So what we had is, "Dan Hodges said someone told him that someone else said........"

Do you really think this is good journalistic standards, hearsay from an unnamed source, at an unnamed time

Dan Hodges is a bitter, twisted man who could not become the LOTO Office CEO because David Miliband lost. He cannot forgive Ed.

You must be beside yourself that Labour is in this election with a duffer as leader, How on earth did it come to this?

Are you referring to Edward Samuel Miliband, our next Prime Minister ?

What a joy it is this early in the day to see a seasoned PBer with such a wonderful sense of humour and penning a statement worthy of the some of the finest fiction in the annals of English literature.

SeanT had best be on his guard !!

Amazing really.. there is nothing to laugh about (If youvote Labour) if you have a duffer as leader.

Suggest 3/10 turns red-Rossendale,Cleethorpes,MK

Andy_Cooke said:

Anyway, given about a 3% standard deviation of swing (close to recent history), if there are 12 seats, the following results would indicate:

6 con, 6 lab: 5% average swing
7 con 5 lab: 3-4% average swing
8 con, 4 lab, 2% average swing
9-10 con, 2-3 lab, 0.5% average swing.
11-12 con, 0-1 lab, 1% pro-con swing

In short, howver many:
50-50 indicates 5% swing
5-eighthss to 3 eights indicates 0.5sd short of 5% (ie about 3.5%)
2-thirds to 1 third indicates 1sd swing short of 5%(c. 3% less than 5%, so 2%)
4-fifths to 1 fifth (ish) is about 1.5sd short of 5%
19-twentieths to one-twentieth ish is about 2 sd short of 5%

(All calculated on a tablet while feeling muzzy, so worth checking my maths!)

The maths looks right to me (though still pre coffee). Edit: it seems not!

Though a lot may depend on the geographical spread of the Ashcroft seats, if indeed there is a bigger swing to Labour in London and SE as seemed to be the case in earlier polls.

So we will be in a position this morning to say whether or not Jack's ARSE is full of it?

Andy_Cooke said:

FPT

So where was all this Labour outrage when they brought in the rule that tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit in the private sector were limited to the amount needed for the number of bedrooms occupied (c. 2003)?

Because it did not affect existing tenants,only new tenancies from that date.

Freggles said:

So we will be in a position this morning to say whether or not Jack's ARSE is full of it?

Ashcroft is the upstart new kid on the block. Jacks ARSE is old faithful. Astute punters will place their stakes accordingly!

Though I am near my limit for this election, with over £600 staked, albeit some of the stakes laying each other off.

DavidL said:

Still in something of a shock about the ICM yesterday. What I think is particularly significant is that this is far from a one off in relation to the high Tory score.

If it turns out that the true narrative of this election was materially different from what we have been led to believe by the internet pollsters there will be some serious disgruntlement, particularly amongst those who have more than fun sums at stake.

Whilst I continue to have reservations about the accuracy and reliability of Lord Ashcroft's efforts, particularly at constituency level, today just might give us an indication as to whether or not there is support for ICM. If the Tories are even in the MoE of the ICM figure very few seats needing a 5% swing should be going red, even on Andy's helpful analysis.

See that Sporting Index has not moved.

Of these seats I've backed the Conservatives in Colne Valley, have backed Labour too - though the Labour bet may well be palped (It is 66-1)

I'm not counting on it paying out at 66-1 for my book.

surbiton said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Anyway, given about a 3% standard deviation of swing (close to recent history), if there are 12 seats, the following results would indicate:

6 con, 6 lab: 5% average swing
7 con 5 lab: 3-4% average swing
8 con, 4 lab, 2% average swing
9-10 con, 2-3 lab, 0.5% average swing.
11-12 con, 0-1 lab, 1% pro-con swing

In short, howver many:
50-50 indicates 5% swing
5-eighthss to 3 eights indicates 0.5sd short of 5% (ie about 3.5%)
2-thirds to 1 third indicates 1sd swing short of 5%(c. 3% less than 5%, so 2%)
4-fifths to 1 fifth (ish) is about 1.5sd short of 5%
19-twentieths to one-twentieth ish is about 2 sd short of 5%

(All calculated on a tablet while feeling muzzy, so worth checking my maths!)

Oops, sorry - thought I was muzzy. The sd swings are in both directions, thus halve the number for pro-Lab

50-50 is still 5% swing (6-6; more Lab indicates a greater than 5% swing as below in reverse)
one quarter Lab is o.67sd short of 5% (3% swing); 9-3 to the Tories on 12 seats
one-sixth Lab is 1sd short (2% swing); 10-2 Tory
Around one tenth is 1.3 sd short (1% swing) 10-11 to 1-2 Lab Tory
Around one-twentieth is 1.67 sd short (no swing) 11-12 Tory to 0-1 Lab - and judging the difference between this last three wouldl be a trick.

How can there be a swing to Con [ on average ] if there is even one gain for Labour?

Surely, swing to Con could only be implied if Con retains all 12 [ indeed may also increase majorities ].

Random variation, SDs and all that good stuff.

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Freggles said:

So we will be in a position this morning to say whether or not Jack's ARSE is full of it?

Ashcroft is the upstart new kid on the block. Jacks ARSE is old faithful. Astute punters will place their stakes accordingly!

Though I am near my limit for this election, with over £600 staked, albeit some of the stakes laying each other off.

Think I can add a zero to that

I don't think that my donation to Shadsys annual bonus need be any more generous!

You know it's got somewhat serious when you've got over four figures that you're looking to lose on various bets.

Scott_P said:

Anyone know which party the Sun is backing this time?

@SunPolitics: Manifest-d'oh! Labour's deficit plan doesn't add up: http://sunpl.us/60184tgu

In England or Scotland ?

surbiton said:

DavidL said:

Still in something of a shock about the ICM yesterday. What I think is particularly significant is that this is far from a one off in relation to the high Tory score.

If it turns out that the true narrative of this election was materially different from what we have been led to believe by the internet pollsters there will be some serious disgruntlement, particularly amongst those who have more than fun sums at stake.

Whilst I continue to have reservations about the accuracy and reliability of Lord Ashcroft's efforts, particularly at constituency level, today just might give us an indication as to whether or not there is support for ICM. If the Tories are even in the MoE of the ICM figure very few seats needing a 5% swing should be going red, even on Andy's helpful analysis.

See that Sporting Index has not moved.

Has the moving averages moved at all since the official start of the campaign ? Unless very marginally to Labour. UKIP , Greens have certainly dropped. LD has increased and so has the SNP.

Yes, they moved quite a bit in response to the good polling for Labour at the start of last week. The gap between the mid points started at 16 and fell to 11 in about 4 days as a Tory plurality seemed less likely. It may be that the ICM has simply stopped (temporarily or otherwise) this trend.

Edit. On reading your post again I was talking about the Sporting Index figures not the moving averages which I agree have been fairly static with a modest squeeze on the smaller parties (except the SNP of course) and minimal changes for the big 2.

Scott_P said:

Commentators yesterday noted that previous Labour manifesto had a picture of Blair on the front, while now Ed is excised from any and all party literature

@David_Cameron: This is the cover of our manifesto.

At its heart is a simple proposition: security at every stage of your life. http://t.co/qOQxJGAndo

Who knew it. The Tories are now to the left of Labour with a lead policy of Socialist housing and offering "security at every stage of life".

One might say "protection from the cradle to the grave".

As the applause rang out for Red Ed after his manifesto launch in Manchester, one veteran Labour Leftie was kept far from public view — Ken Livingstone.

The former London Mayor — notorious during his entire political career for his hard-Left leanings — was a key figure in drafting the document, and so crucial he attended the final manifesto meeting with Miliband at London’s Church House last Thursday.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037813/How-Red-Ken-helped-write-Ed-s-manifesto-ANDREW-PIERCE-stories-spin-doctors-DON-T-want-read.html#ixzz3XGR4fcPt

AndyJS said:

What time is OGH on Radio 4?

6.15

3 Lab Gains, 2 Ties and 5 Con Holds

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/587872526862311424

What I have found amusing over the last couple of days is the way that Osborne has been able to weaponise (to turn a phrase) the Tories' superior credibility about the economy. He has done this by promising apparently "unfunded" (I really resent the way all politicians use that word in the context of a £90bn deficit) additional spending.

This works both ways. Firstly, every time he is challenged about it it allows him to boast about his seriously impressive economic record and demonstrate that he is promising no more than he has already delivered over the last 5 years.

Secondly, when Labour and Ed Balls in particular are trying to be oh so grown up and responsible (fingers crossed behind their backs or otherwise) it has the delightful side effect of reducing them to spluttering incoherence like we saw yesterday. Labour still get shot down on their slightly fanciful if superficially more complete arithmetic and Osborne gets to say "we will find a way, again."

If he did not have the superior economic credibility he could not possibly get away with this but he does and he is using it to maximum effect.

Dair said:

Scott_P said:

Commentators yesterday noted that previous Labour manifesto had a picture of Blair on the front, while now Ed is excised from any and all party literature

@David_Cameron: This is the cover of our manifesto.

At its heart is a simple proposition: security at every stage of your life. http://t.co/qOQxJGAndo

Who knew it. The Tories are now to the left of Labour with a lead policy of Socialist housing and offering "security at every stage of life".

One might say "protection from the cradle to the grave".

Morning all,

Each party seems to be using their manifesto purely to address their perceived weaknesses. No doubt this will contribute further to the dead-heat in the polls we are seeing (unless ICM turn out to be a canary and not a canard).

Ashcroft: Conservatives ahead in five of the ten seats: Cleethorpes (though by only by two points), Dover, Dudley South, Harlow and North East Somerset, where Jacob Rees-Mogg is sixteen points clear of Labour despite the Liberal Democrat vote falling by more than half.

Having said that: 4-9 Dover @ Coral.

As I thought, Labour ahead in Crewe and Nantwich and Finchley & Golders Green.