Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 2)


Recommended Posts

Yadda yadda yadda
4 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

LNG prices will be up 100%+ if every family in India get a fridge/freezer.Fridge/Freezers are more important on my roadmap than Dems in the white house.Nothing else.Just a fridge.

 

I imagine your roadmap to be drawn on tatty A0 paper. Possibly 16 pieces of A4 taped together.

  • Lol 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DurhamBorn

    2523

  • Harley

    1870

  • sancho panza

    1800

  • Loki

    1566

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just wanted to wish everyone a happy xmas and for all adding their thoughts and knowledge to the thread this year.I think we can safely say without any doubt the thread has proved itself and a lot of

Exactly,my portfolio hit a record today,really really pleased how things have gone for people on here.A few mistakes along the way,but a lot of work from people has really shown through.I think we are

This was one of the main factors behind me leaving the prison service.    I joined in 2003 and I learned the ropes from ex squaddies and NCOs, every prison was staffed by around 80% ex force

Posted Images

JMD
2 hours ago, Transistor Man said:

I can tell you a story about a now forgotten technology, which was once going to change the world. And still might, in 100 years time. 

Uranium out of the ground comes mixed together as two types: U235 & U238.

The fraction of each being: 0.72% U235, 99.3% U238. 

The small, less than 1% U235 component is fissile, and is the actual nuclear fuel. 

The rest of the uranium, basically, creates no heat in a reactor. 

In the 50s and 60s, there were several of programmes to produce Fast Breeder Reactors. E.g.: Dounreay in Scotland.

These reactors are more efficient in terms of neutron generation/ absorption, and could convert all the non-fissile U238 (99% of natural uranium) into fuel.

Using a combination of Breeder Reactors, and standard reactors, it’s said that there are many millions of years of fuel available. 

A thorium reactor would be of this type, and could be a molten-salt design.

What happened to this technology?

I think they just found more uranium and the whole thing became massively uneconomic. The reactors were a pain to develop too, leaks of sodium and the like. They are probably far more dangerous too. And a non-proliferation risk. 

None of the technology really exists today. France built a large reactor of this type: Superphenix. I think it was so much political hassle that they turned it off.  

Still, there’s millions of years of zero carbon, high energy density fuel, just ready and waiting.

 

Yes, but that's why I put 'benefit' in quotes. The politicians will be looking to sell any controversial continuance of the nuclear industry as a temporary emergency necessity... Just like they did with the covid lockdown which we were originally told might last for only 3 weeks! Something tells me that we should get used to these 'tempoary but necessary emergencies'.                                                                                                           ( Please feel free to skip my following tangential 'rant!'... So Pandemic or plandemic or panicdemic? Personally I think all three, but shall leave others to weight their own ratios for each. Today I also note that Amnesty International - I am not their biggest fan - but from day one, and regularly since, they have been highly sceptical of even Western government's cynical and authoritarian, highly political response to the covid health crises. Their latest report was mentioned in news bulletins today, but it is very strange (not really) how they have not been invited by any national broadcasters during the last year to discuss their fears of how Western freedoms are slowly being stealthily withdrawn all across Europe, as we trade in our ancient freedoms for so called safety and security)

Edited by JMD
  • Agree 7
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
nirvana
9 hours ago, Transistor Man said:

A thorium reactor would be of this type, and could be a molten-salt design

isn't that what the chinkies are now using? I'm sure I read about it donkies years ago....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lightscribe
9 hours ago, Transistor Man said:

I can tell you a story about a now forgotten technology, which was once going to change the world. And still might, in 100 years time. 

Uranium out of the ground comes mixed together as two types: U235 & U238.

The fraction of each being: 0.72% U235, 99.3% U238. 

The small, less than 1% U235 component is fissile, and is the actual nuclear fuel. 

The rest of the uranium, basically, creates no heat in a reactor. 

In the 50s and 60s, there were several of programmes to produce Fast Breeder Reactors. E.g.: Dounreay in Scotland.

These reactors are more efficient in terms of neutron generation/ absorption, and could convert all the non-fissile U238 (99% of natural uranium) into fuel.

Using a combination of Breeder Reactors, and standard reactors, it’s said that there are many millions of years of fuel available. 

A thorium reactor would be of this type, and could be a molten-salt design.

What happened to this technology?

I think they just found more uranium and the whole thing became massively uneconomic. The reactors were a pain to develop too, leaks of sodium and the like. They are probably far more dangerous too. And a non-proliferation risk. 

None of the technology really exists today. France built a large reactor of this type: Superphenix. I think it was so much political hassle that they turned it off.  

Still, there’s millions of years of zero carbon, high energy density fuel, just ready and waiting.

 

India have been plagued with decades of delays with their own development of Fast Breeder Reactors until around 2050. Similarly they envisage they will get 30% of their power by Thorium reactors by 2050 as the most of the planets deposits are located in India. 

https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/governance/fast-breeder-reactors-and-the-slow-progress-of-indias-nuclear-programme.html

This is a report by The International Panel on Fissile Materials  into why Fast Breeder reactors have been so far unsuccessful.

REPORT: UNSUCCESSFUL "FAST BREEDER" IS NO SOLUTION FOR LONGTERM REACTOR WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES


After Over $50 Billion Spent by US, Japan, Russia, UK, India and France, No Commercial Model Found; High Cost, Unreliability, Major Safety Problems and Proliferation Risks All Seen as Major Barriers to Use.

PRINCETON, N.J. - February 17, 2010 - Hopes that the "fast breeder"- a plutonium-fueled nuclear reactor designed to produce more fuel than it consumed -- might serve as a major part of the long-term nuclear waste disposal solution are not merited by the dismal track record to date of such sodium-cooled reactors in France, India, Japan, the Soviet Union/Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, according to a major new study from the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM).

Titled "Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status," the IPFM report concludes: "The problems (with fast breeder reactors) ... make it hard to dispute Admiral Hyman Rickover's summation in 1956, based on his experience with a sodium-cooled reactor developed to power an early U.S. nuclear submarine, that such reactors are 'expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.'"

Plagued by high costs, often multi-year downtime for repairs (including a 15-year reactor restart delay in Japan), multiple safety problems (among them often catastrophic sodium fires triggered simply by contact with oxygen), and unresolved proliferation risks, "fast breeder" reactors already have been the focus of more than $50 billion in development spending, including more than $10 billion each by the U.S., Japan and Russia. As the IPFM report notes: "Yet none of these efforts has produced a reactor that is anywhere near economically competitive with light-water reactors ... After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries."

The new IPFM report is a timely and important addition to the understanding about reactor technology. Today, with increased attention being paid both to so-called "Generation IV" reactors, some of which are based on the fast reactor technology, and a new Obama Administration panel focusing on reprocessing and other waste issues, interest in some quarters has shifted back to fast reactors as a possible means by which to bypass concerns about the longterm storage of nuclear waste.

Frank von Hippel, Ph.D., co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, and professor of Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, said: "The breeder reactor dream is not dead but it has receded far into the future. In the 1970s, breeder advocates were predicting that the world would have thousands of breeder reactors operating by now. Today, they are predicting commercialization by approximately 2050. In the meantime, the world has to deal with the legacy of the dream; approximately 250 tons of separated weapon-usable plutonium and ongoing -- although, in most cases struggling -- reprocessing programs in France, India, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom."

Mycle Schneider, Paris, international consultant on energy and nuclear policy, said: "France built with Superphenix, the only commercial-size plutonium fueled breeder reactor in nuclear history. After an endless series of very costly technical, legal and safety problems it was shut down in 1998 with one of the worst operating records in nuclear history."

Thomas B. Cochran, nuclear physicist and senior scientist in the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "Fast reactor development programs failed in the: 1) United States; 2) France; 3) United Kingdom; 4) Germany; 5) Japan; 6) Italy; 7) Soviet Union/Russia 8) U.S. Navy and 9) the Soviet Navy. The program in India is showing no signs of success and the program in China is only at a very early stage of development. Despite the fact that fast breeder development began in 1944, now some 65 year later, of the 438 operational nuclear power reactors worldwide, only one of these, the BN-600 in Russia, is a commercial-size fast reactor and it hardly qualifies as a successful breeder. The Soviet Union/Russia never closed the fuel cycle and has yet to fuel BN-600 with plutonium."

M.V. Ramana, Ph.D., visiting research scholar, Woodrow Wilson School and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy, Princeton University, said: "Along with Russia, India is one of only two countries that are currently constructing commercial scale breeder reactors. Both the history of the program and the economic and safety features of the reactor suggest, however, that the program will not fulfill the promises with which it was begun and is being pursued. Breeder reactors have always underpinned the DAE's claims about generating large quantities of cheap electricity necessary for development. Today, more than five decades after those plans were announced, that promise is yet to be fulfilled. As elsewhere, breeder reactors are likely to be unsafe and costly, and their contribution to overall electricity generation will be modest at best."

OTHER KEY FINDINGS

The IPFM report also found:

 

  • The rationale for breeder reactors is no longer sound. "The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors -- sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit -- was based on the following key assumptions: 1. Uranium is scarce and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if fission power were deployed on a large scale; 2. Breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with the light-water reactors that dominate nuclear power today; 3. Breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light-water reactors; and, 4. The proliferation risks posed by breeders and their 'closed' fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed. Each of these assumptions has proven to be wrong."
  • Significant safety issues are unresolved. "Sodium's major disadvantage is that it reacts violently with water and burns if exposed to air. The steam generators, in which moltensodium and high-pressure water are separated by thin metal, have proved to be one of the most troublesome features of breeder reactors. Any leak results in a reaction that can rupture the tubes and lead to a major sodium-water fire. .... a large fraction of the liquid-sodiumcooled reactors that have been built have been shut down for long periods by sodium fires. Russia's BN-350 had a huge sodium fire. The follow-on BN-600 reactor was designed with its steam generators in separate bunkers to contain sodium-water fires and with an extra steam generator so a fire-damaged steam generator can be repaired while the reactor continues to operate using the extra steam generator. Between 1980 and 1997, the BN-600 had 27 sodium leaks, 14 of which resulted in sodium fires ... Leaks from pipes into the air have also resulted in serious fires. In 1995, Japan's prototype fast reactor, Monju, experienced a major sodium-air fire. Restart has been repeatedly delayed, and, as of the end of 2009, the reactor was still shut down. France's Rapsodie, Phenix and Superphenix breeder reactors and the UK's Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) and Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) all suffered significant sodium leaks, some of which resulted in serious fires."
  • Downtime makes the breeder reactor unreliable. "... a large fraction of sodium-cooled demonstration reactors have been shut down most of the time that they should have been generating electric power. A significant part of the problem has been the difficulty of maintaining and repairing the reactor hardware that is immersed in sodium. The requirement to keep air from coming into contact with sodium makes refueling and repairs inside the reactor vessel more complicated and lengthy than for water-cooled reactors. During repairs, the fuel has to be removed, the sodium drained and the entire system flushed carefully to remove residual sodium without causing an explosion. Such preparations can take months or years.
  • Proliferation risks have not been addressed. "All reactors produce plutonium in their fuel but breeder reactors require plutonium recycle, the separation of plutonium from the ferociously radioactive fission products in the spent fuel. This makes the plutonium more accessible to would-be nuclear-weapon makers. Breeder reactors -- and separation of plutonium from the spent fuel of ordinary reactors to provide startup fuel for breeder reactors -- therefore create proliferation problems. This fact became dramatically clear in 1974, when India used the first plutonium separated for its breeder reactor program to make a 'peaceful nuclear explosion.' Breeders themselves have also been used to produce plutonium for weapons. France used its Phenix breeder reactor to make weapon-grade plutonium in its blanket. India, by refusing to place its breeder reactors under international safeguards as part of the U.S.-India nuclear deal, has raised concerns that it might do the same."
  • Most breeder reactors are being shut down. "Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States have abandoned their breeder reactor development programs. Despite the arguments by France's nuclear conglomerate Areva, that fast-neutron reactors will ultimately fission all the plutonium building up in France's light-water reactor spent fuel, France's only operating fast-neutron reactor, Phenix, was disconnected from the grid in March 2009 and scheduled for permanent shutdown by the end of that year. The Superphenix, the world's first commercial-sized breeder reactor, was abandoned in 1998 and is being decommissioned. There is no follow-on breeder reactor planned in France for at least a decade." For the full text of the IPFM study, go to http://www.fissilematerials.org on the Web.
  • Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
planit

Lightscribe, that has a lot of good information in it but I notice a tone of trying to advocate against this technology. As if the authors have a vested interest in stopping them being developed, perhaps they are already invested in current French reactors or something.

It really pisses me off how much politics is in energy and environmental science. In fact  a lot of the time it is all politics and no science.

The Thorium breeder reactors produce less long term waste than current reactions and can be designed in the future to consume previous waste. Long term they are the only current option we have for future energy/CO2 requirements so we should be getting on with overcoming the problems.

Transistor man, everything I have read on gen IV molten salt reactors promotes them as safer than the existing plants, mainly because there is no water kept at high pressures. Although this water won't attack its containment metal as much as molten salt would, if there is depressurisation it is catastrophic hence the need for all the concrete containment and other safeguards.

 

We need to solve the proliferation worries, I like the proposed design that floats the reactors to where they are needed and swaps them out when the fuel is spent.

https://thorconpower.com/

its "walkaway safe" so it doesn't need active cooling if it shuts down/overheats for any reason 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hancock
1 hour ago, Cattle Prod said:

As discussed here. The US has woken up to the fact it's going to have to go back to the Middle East for oil. They wouldn't be signalling this if they thought they could produce it domestically. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/53580ff1-670b-43ba-b7a6-b7bccc6c191f

US signals it still depends on cheap oil from abroad

 

Lots of oil off the Florida coast, but due to NIMBYS its akin to to sticking oil rigs off the south coast of England.  Much better to gift trillions to Muslims than be self sufficient.

US On-shore Drilling Rig Locations (by Shale Play), Jan-Feb 2014 | Drilling  rig, Oil and gas, Rigs

Link to post
Share on other sites
MrXxxx
12 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

Its not far off.Its in a lined A4 sized book from Boyes.I need lined paper xD.Iv also got a large cork board that used to have a model railway on that i got from a jumble sale.High tech stuff.

Think its about time to go long on Eli:Cor before the rest of Dosbods does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cattle Prod
13 minutes ago, Hancock said:

of oil off the Florida coast, but due to NIMBYS its akin to to sticking oil rigs off the south coast of England.  Much better to gift trillions to Muslims than be self sufficient.

Not really much, but I take your point. It all helps. What the USA really needs was more pipelines from Alberta, that place has the scale. And funny enough there are lots of oil rigs on the south coast of England, you just wouldn't notice as they supress the noise and hide the derricks with trees. The biggest on shore oil field in Europe, Wytch Farm, runs under the millionaire houses at Sandbanks.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hancock
16 minutes ago, Cattle Prod said:

Not really much, but I take your point. It all helps. What the USA really needs was more pipelines from Alberta, that place has the scale. And funny enough there are lots of oil rigs on the south coast of England, you just wouldn't notice as they supress the noise and hide the derricks with trees. The biggest on shore oil field in Europe, Wytch Farm, runs under the millionaire houses at Sandbanks.

I've been there, but you can't hide an oil rig in the middle of the sea. (well you can just put it 30 miles out)
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17874321.pilgrimage-protest-oil-drilling-dorset/

I'd imagine Wytch Farm wouldn't have got the go ahead in C21, same with Fawley (edge of New Forest) where @Popuplights worked until recently.

Edited by Hancock
Link to post
Share on other sites
RWJ

Inflation.

I'm having a new fence put up. Cost of materials(wood) only, no labour :-

Pre April 1st price -  £430

Price now - £600

>25%

Holy fuck.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
JMD
4 hours ago, planit said:

Lightscribe, that has a lot of good information in it but I notice a tone of trying to advocate against this technology. As if the authors have a vested interest in stopping them being developed, perhaps they are already invested in current French reactors or something.

It really pisses me off how much politics is in energy and environmental science. In fact  a lot of the time it is all politics and no science.

The Thorium breeder reactors produce less long term waste than current reactions and can be designed in the future to consume previous waste. Long term they are the only current option we have for future energy/CO2 requirements so we should be getting on with overcoming the problems.

Transistor man, everything I have read on gen IV molten salt reactors promotes them as safer than the existing plants, mainly because there is no water kept at high pressures. Although this water won't attack its containment metal as much as molten salt would, if there is depressurisation it is catastrophic hence the need for all the concrete containment and other safeguards.

 

We need to solve the proliferation worries, I like the proposed design that floats the reactors to where they are needed and swaps them out when the fuel is spent.

https://thorconpower.com/

its "walkaway safe" so it doesn't need active cooling if it shuts down/overheats for any reason 

(excuse rambling post?) But just to say I always enjoy the nuclear tech discussions on the thread. The different reactor types that are still in development phase by various different governments shows just how far off we must be from having commercial fusion reactors. I agree that much of the delay, leading to 50 years of tragically wasted time and effort (for both fission and fusion), must be political by the energy companies. But also we have all been pretty much 'spoiled by oil', it has been so cheap and energy intensive, that looking for alternatives has been easily and repeatedly put off for another day.                                                                              So I do fear that the true cost of enjoying all that cheap oil will now be decades of tension, conflict and proxy war (hopefully nothing more existential). The thread has also discussed this topic and it looks like things in regard regional politics are beginning to play out as CP and DB and others said they would...                                                                                                                                                                                                            Anyway cutting to the chase, the recent Madness of Cro-Covid!!, subsequent Government controls, etc, have reminded me to finally finish reading the book I downloaded: 'The New Total War of the 21st Century' by Copley (recommended by DurhamBorn). In terms of investment decisions i'm thinking more and more that the discussions on this thread about decomplexity, supply chain risk, commodities, industrialization, basic industries, companies which have got their financial fundamentals(truth/reality specs on?) - is all this coda for 'war'? Ok perhaps that is a rather too obvious/trite conclusion to make? However I think that is the main theme of Copley's book.                                                                                        I know that many here, including myself, are already ultra cynical of government policy and intentions. However using a 'war footing', investment focus is useful I think. I need to look again in more detail at my portfolio choices. But for example it has made me question the timing premise of when/how a monetary collapse might happen - after all why wouldn't 'the powers that be' simply decide to bring the chaos forward to say next year? Sounds extreme but the West has been treading water for over a year now already, what I wonder are the real plans for emerging from lockdown? ...is this thinking just 'tin-foil hat' type hokum? What do others think?                                                                                                                                                                         After all, looking around us, the paucity of our politicians is really quite shocking. Are they capable of navigating us toward an acceptable set of solutions? Seems to me they have no real grasp of reality to start with. Today we have President Biden looking backward and forward, in terms of US commercial realities and in also in trying to appeal to his own base.... Let's see him try to politically 'triangulate' his way out of that one! A favourite tactic of Clinton/Blair, but triangulation relies on the political ploy of successfully selling a credible set of ideas to the voting majority, whilst outflanking your political opponents. Today no such middle ground exists, instead we have the 48/52 problem, casually refered to as the Brexit-result, but more accurately interpreted as what we see happening in the US, ie real risk of civil war. Depressing stuff to think about I know, and I could be completely wrong, so am  happy to be contradicted.

Edited by JMD
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cattle Prod
3 hours ago, Hancock said:

I've been there, but you can't hide an oil rig in the middle of the sea. (well you can just put it 30 miles out)

Many fields are produced from subsea templates, it's all do able. But there just isnt much there, and will only be accessed when the price is high enough. US has always been content to burn other peoples oil sold cheaply paid for with dollars they control: they did the strategic deal with Saudis in the 40s when the US produced 70% of the world's oil. They didn't want to use it all up. Same now.

  • Informative 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Harley
18 hours ago, MrXxxx said:

Quick question on this and WHT. It the shares are only on LSE then I assume tax is paid in UK so no WHT, but if they are on several markets including LSE is this still the case? I.e Yamana above or Wharton?

Interesting one. 

My guesses.....

I think, regardless of dual listings, etc, the tax treatment is based on the country of domicile of the company.  I think yields are normally quoted gross of any taxes. 

A UK domiciled company would pay the full div but no tax as we don't have a div tax.  The recipient would separately pay whatever is their tax liabiity.  The matter might be more complicated for overseas companies as there may be both a div tax the company must withhold for everyone and/or a WHT for foreigners, with adjustments for any double tax treaties the UK may have. 

When in the EU, there was an evolving regime to ensure all EU citizens suffered the same tax (ie. no preferential treatment for local residents).  Who knows now and then there is the rest of the world.

Bottom line, a case by case basis, and I produced my own list of what I thought I was liable for in each country and grossed up my yield requirements (a base 3% net) accordingly to create a level playing field/comparison between stocks. 

I don't allow for any tax reclaims as they look too much a PITA but put US companies in my SIPP to hopefully get 100% WHT relief at source (less in an ISA, even with a W8 form). 

Edited by Harley
  • Agree 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DurhamBorn
5 minutes ago, Harley said:

Interesting one. 

My guesses.....

I think, regardless of dual listings, etc, the tax treatment is based on the country of residence of the company.  I think yields are normally quoted gross of any taxes. 

A UK domiciled company would pay the full div but no tax as we don't have a div tax.  The recipient would separately pay whatever is their tax liabiity.  The matter might be more complicated for overseas companies as there may be both a div tax the company must withhold for everyone and/or a WHT for foreigners, with adjustments for any double tax treaties the UK may have. 

When in the EU, there was an evolving regime to ensure all EU citizens suffered the same tax (ie. no preferential treatment for local residents).  Who knows now and then there is the rest of the world.

Bottom line, a case by case basis, and I produced my own list of what I thought I was liable for in each country and gross up my yield requirements (a base 3% net) accordingly to create a level playing field/comparison.

Harley do you have a list of worldwide withholding tax.I think Brazil is 0%

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harley
4 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

Harley do you have a list of worldwide withholding tax.I think Brazil is 0%

I have that Delloite list/link, like the one you once posted.  I don't have direct access to Brazil so haven't looked.  I'll look this evening though once allowed back in MY office!

Edited by Harley
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Knickerless Turgid
1 hour ago, RWJ said:

Inflation.

I'm having a new fence put up. Cost of materials(wood) only, no labour :-

Pre April 1st price -  £430

Price now - £600

>25%

Holy fuck.

It's worse than that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
DurhamBorn
24 minutes ago, Majorpain said:

 

First miner has broken ranks, for those who hold Endeavor they are keeping hold of 0.5M oz of AG as a bet prices are going to go higher.  Another nail in the coffin of the Comex.

My top rubber band stock did us proud on here.They have really strong prospects as well to explore.They do right holding back the silver,sell enough to operate and build the next mine and keep the rest.Better for shareholders.

  • Agree 4
  • Informative 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Castlevania
17 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

Its not far off.Its in a lined A4 sized book from Boyes.I need lined paper xD.Iv also got a large cork board that used to have a model railway on that i got from a jumble sale.High tech stuff.

 

 

FB427312-DA17-446A-90A7-C9C57FEAE6FE.jpeg

Edited by Castlevania
  • Lol 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
Castlevania
1 hour ago, Harley said:

Interesting one. 

My guesses.....

I think, regardless of dual listings, etc, the tax treatment is based on the country of domicile of the company.  I think yields are normally quoted gross of any taxes. 

A UK domiciled company would pay the full div but no tax as we don't have a div tax.  The recipient would separately pay whatever is their tax liabiity.  The matter might be more complicated for overseas companies as there may be both a div tax the company must withhold for everyone and/or a WHT for foreigners, with adjustments for any double tax treaties the UK may have. 

When in the EU, there was an evolving regime to ensure all EU citizens suffered the same tax (ie. no preferential treatment for local residents).  Who knows now and then there is the rest of the world.

Bottom line, a case by case basis, and I produced my own list of what I thought I was liable for in each country and grossed up my yield requirements (a base 3% net) accordingly to create a level playing field/comparison between stocks. 

I don't allow for any tax reclaims as they look too much a PITA but put US companies in my SIPP to hopefully get 100% WHT relief at source (less in an ISA, even with a W8 form). 

This ties with my understanding. It’s worth noting that if you hold any foreign companies subject to withholding taxes outside of a tax wrapper, you can offset some of the withholding tax paid against your U.K. dividend taxation.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking Monkey
3 hours ago, JMD said:

(excuse rambling post?) But just to say I always enjoy the nuclear tech discussions on the thread. The different reactor types that are still in development phase by various different governments shows just how far off we must be from having commercial fusion reactors. I agree that much of the delay, leading to 50 years of tragically wasted time and effort (for both fission and fusion), must be political by the energy companies. But also we have all been pretty much 'spoiled by oil', it has been so cheap and energy intensive, that looking for alternatives has been easily and repeatedly put off for another day.                                                                              So I do fear that the true cost of enjoying all that cheap oil will now be decades of tension, conflict and proxy war (hopefully nothing more existential). The thread has also discussed this topic and it looks like things in regard regional politics are beginning to play out as CP and DB and others said they would...                                                                                                                                                                                                            Anyway cutting to the chase, the recent Madness of Cro-Covid!!, subsequent Government controls, etc, have reminded me to finally finish reading the book I downloaded: 'The New Total War of the 21st Century' by Copley (recommended by DurhamBorn). In terms of investment decisions i'm thinking more and more that the discussions on this thread about decomplexity, supply chain risk, commodities, industrialization, basic industries, companies which have got their financial fundamentals(truth/reality specs on?) - is all this coda for 'war'? Ok perhaps that is a rather too obvious/trite conclusion to make? However I think that is the main theme of Copley's book.                                                                                        I know that many here, including myself, are already ultra cynical of government policy and intentions. However using a 'war footing', investment focus is useful I think. I need to look again in more detail at my portfolio choices. But for example it has made me question the timing premise of when/how a monetary collapse might happen - after all why wouldn't 'the powers that be' simply decide to bring the chaos forward to say next year? Sounds extreme but the West has been treading water for over a year now already, what I wonder are the real plans for emerging from lockdown? ...is this thinking just 'tin-foil hat' type hokum? What do others think?                                                                                                                                                                         After all, looking around us, the paucity of our politicians is really quite shocking. Are they capable of navigating us toward an acceptable set of solutions? Seems to me they have no real grasp of reality to start with. Today we have President Biden looking backward and forward, in terms of US commercial realities and in also in trying to appeal to his own base.... Let's see him try to politically 'triangulate' his way out of that one! A favourite tactic of Clinton/Blair, but triangulation relies on the political ploy of successfully selling a credible set of ideas to the voting majority, whilst outflanking your political opponents. Today no such middle ground exists, instead we have the 48/52 problem, casually refered to as the Brexit-result, but more accurately interpreted as what we see happening in the US, ie real risk of civil war. Depressing stuff to think about I know, and I could be completely wrong, so am  happy to be contradicted.

I can't see how in the nuclear age we get anything other than proxy wars. No way can the big boys face off against each other, too risky it accidentally escalates to a nuclear exchange.

I never thought about a bring forward of currency collapse and to deliberately collapse it rather than it collapsing naturally. Looking at the past year it looks a plausible scenario with a non trivial probability.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   6 members

    • Animal Spirits
    • jamtomorrow
    • Nomad
    • sancho panza
    • Bricormortis
    • StrugglingMillennial

×
×
  • Create New...