Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come.

[Bricks & Mortar]

A-plant,  I presume.

I don't know for sure, but a quick look at their website suggests they're into a good bit more than just the housebuilder sector. 
Housebuilders don't need most of the things on A-Plants product list.
The housebuilder I worked at, had exclusive deals with 2 other plant hire companies, one for small tools, and one for bigger stuff like diggers and cabins.   In both cases, the price was screwed right down, by negotiating a company-wide deal at director level, helped by always building the same shit on different sites, that always needed the same list of tools.  I followed the website of the big stuff company for a few years after the crash, as they were always trying to sell off diggers and telehandlers. 
Places I 'think' I've seen their gear - A McCarthy & Stone retirement build.  The new Forth Road Bridge.  The V&A museum in Dundee.  Major roadworks.    I tend not to visit housebuilder sites though.

I think they'd be great in a reflation.  If they can get there.

[leonardratso]

12 minutes ago, ashestoashes said:

guess it's something called backup supply for when the wind is blowing the other way at night.

think windfarms in uk have been idle for a week due to lack of wind. Sounds stupid to me, im full of gas all the time and can blow a gale with 20 seconds notice.

[A_P]

13 minutes ago, macca said:

According to a report on Keiser Report:

How much electricity costs to produce.

Onshore wind $40 per MWH
Solar $50 per MWH
Offshore wind $60 per MWH
Gas $60 per MWH
Coal $102 per MWH
Nuclear $148 per MWH

So why have the CONservatives given contracts for a new Nuclear plant and rights to drill to Fracking companies? When it’s cheaper and cleaner to make electricity using natural resources. 

Are they corrupt, stupid or both?

 

Because they don't want us plebs to have free/cheap energy

 

 

[Thorn]

6 hours ago, Yellow_Reduced_Sticker said:

ALL joking aside...DON'T let the date of this book put YOU off - because the trading psychology in this book is EVERGREEN...human nature NEVER changes! AS WE ARE ABOUT TO SEE with the housing market!

 

Back over a decade ago when i was into the spread betting I had ALL (hard copy) of any books on Livermore, bought them all up of flebay! Still have 'em to this day.

 

Jesse Livermore was a legendary stock trader, he was famed for making and losing several multimillion-dollar fortunes and short selling during the stock market crashes in 1907 and 1929. Sadly Livermore suffered from depression, and committed suicide in 1940.

Great YouTube video on Jesse Livermore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVGr68RzkY0

Really interesting stuff this I never heard of this person and it’s some story of human nature affecting judgement.

many thanks Yellow_Reduced_Sticker

[XswampyX]

1 hour ago, Bricks & Mortar said:

A-plant,  I presume.

I don't know for sure, but a quick look at their website suggests they're into a good bit more than just the housebuilder sector. 
Housebuilders don't need most of the things on A-Plants product list.
The housebuilder I worked at, had exclusive deals with 2 other plant hire companies, one for small tools, and one for bigger stuff like diggers and cabins.   In both cases, the price was screwed right down, by negotiating a company-wide deal at director level, helped by always building the same shit on different sites, that always needed the same list of tools.  I followed the website of the big stuff company for a few years after the crash, as they were always trying to sell off diggers and telehandlers. 
Places I 'think' I've seen their gear - A McCarthy & Stone retirement build.  The new Forth Road Bridge.  The V&A museum in Dundee.  Major roadworks.    I tend not to visit housebuilder sites though.

I think they'd be great in a reflation.  If they can get there.

The average ROI on small hire equipment is 10 weeks. £500 item = £50 per wk. After 3 years sell it for half the new price. It's a gold mine if you don't run up loads of debt.

Here :- http://www.ashtead-group.com/lib/docs/080035-ashtead-group-ara-2017.pdf

 

[Bricks & Mortar]

I'm not a shares guy.  The Ebitda ratio seems good? 

A debt deflation event might see those numbers changing rapidly.  I'm not sure exactly how it'll go, but expect private housebuilding to cease completely, and huge swathes of construction projects cancelled or put on ice for credit reasons.  They'd likely get a lot of their gear stacked up in their yards, and no chance of renting it out.  Bottom drops out of the used plant market, AND the export market at the same time.  And the bank needs their money real bad at this time.
 

[Solzhenitsyn]

On 05/06/2018 at 12:45, Frank Hovis said:

I'm thinking a new normal for homes with the current 40+ generation being the last to expect to own their homes, and for then the vast persistence of low interest rates means that a lot now have no mortgage so are immune from rate rises and (if not in their own minds) from house price falls.

The gig job / zero hours / minimum wage people have been thoroughly priced out and lottery wins aside will be renting forever; falls are unlikely to be big enough to bring them to affordable levels.

Then you get the smaller number if under forties, it say under thirty fives, that can just about afford to buy.  They are the ones who will be hammered by rate rises and price falls but they are now a minority even within their own generation.

Their houses will be the ones coming onto the market and it won't be many as not many have been able to buy; enough to depress prices but not crash them as there are a lot if the older generation who have done so well from all this just looking for a buying opportunity to add a BTL to their investment portfolio.

Frank, the issue I take with this is, who will actually be buying houses in the future to set the high prices? 

If like you say, millennials are all priced out and will be renters (implying their salaries will be too low to buy), who is going to buying and selling to make the market? 

Sustaining high prices relative to salaries would mean that yields will be kept very low (sub-5% gross). Do you really see property yield of 5% as viable over the long term? Considering you can already get ~3% yield on us treasuries right now, I don’t think they are.

14 hours ago, Yellow_Reduced_Sticker said:

ALL joking aside...DON'T let the date of this book put YOU off - because the trading psychology in this book is EVERGREEN...human nature NEVER changes! AS WE ARE ABOUT TO SEE with the housing market!

 

Back over a decade ago when i was into the spread betting I had ALL (hard copy) of any books on Livermore, bought them all up of flebay! Still have 'em to this day.

 

Jesse Livermore was a legendary stock trader, he was famed for making and losing several multimillion-dollar fortunes and short selling during the stock market crashes in 1907 and 1929. Sadly Livermore suffered from depression, and committed suicide in 1940.

Great YouTube video on Jesse Livermore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVGr68RzkY0

This is an excellent book and would recommend any investor to read it. Gives a real insight into the mentality of successful traders.

[Solzhenitsyn]

9 hours ago, Admiral Pepe said:

Because they don't want us plebs to have free/cheap energy

 

 

Introduction of wind/solar energy doesn’t necessarily result in cheap energy for the consumer. Cost savings could just as easily go to improving energy providers margins 

interesting to see that Statoil has been rebranded Equinor and is getting more and more into renewables. There’s really no conspiracy. The big guys see themselves as energy providers first and foremost. They are not wedded to hydrocarbons.

[Frank Hovis]

24 minutes ago, Solzhenitsyn said:

Frank, the issue I take with this is, who will actually be buying houses in the future to set the high prices? 

If like you say, millennials are all priced out and will be renters (implying their salaries will be too low to buy), who is going to buying and selling to make the market? 

Sustaining high prices relative to salaries would mean that yields will be kept very low (sub-5% gross). Do you really see property yield of 5% as viable over the long term? Considering you can already get ~3% yield on us treasuries right now, I don’t think they are.

This is an excellent book and would recommend any investor to read it. Gives a real insight into the mentality of successful traders.

IME (meaning seeing property shows on the telly!) people getting into debt to buy BTLs are happy to take yields, and particularly gross yields (ignore voids and maintenance), that an experienced investor would see as unacceptable.  When any have the temerity to suggest this the professional adviser confidently opines "Well you're really in it for the capital gains".

I think that so much easy money has been made in property that for many people the receipt of a windfall such as in inheritance is the cue, if they already own their own homes, to get into BTL.  Just check the regular "What would you do with £100k?" threads on Mumsnet.

With property people will buy into a falling market - quick, don't miss the boat! - because the property = riches mantra is so fundamentally ingrained it will take another massive crash to rid people of those thoughts and get it back to the days when I recall somebody telling me that they viewed their house in Islington as "a liability".

In the long term I entirely agree with you, stupidly invested money dwindles and the queue of numpties wanting to get into BTL will fall with the attrition of money lost on previous BTLs.

But there is serious momentum behind this in people's minds that will keep it running when any sensible investor would throw their hands up in horror.  And governments know that despite commonsense there are votes in maintaining the appearance (i.e. nominal if not real rises) of rising house prices.

So this long term could be very long indeed before either a correction or real terms losses re-establishing the link with salaries.  Five years, ten, twenty?

I decided long ago that whilst a crash was inevitable there was such huge pressure for it not to happen that it would be delayed and delayed so it would be foolish to put my life on hold awaiting it and bought.

I would still be delighted with a crash both for wider social and for personal reasons (I'd buy something really nice) but I have made myself unreliant upon it.

[DurhamBorn]

27 minutes ago, Solzhenitsyn said:

Introduction of wind/solar energy doesn’t necessarily result in cheap energy for the consumer. Cost savings could just as easily go to improving energy providers margins 

interesting to see that Statoil has been rebranded Equinor and is getting more and more into renewables. There’s really no conspiracy. The big guys see themselves as energy providers first and foremost. They are not wedded to hydrocarbons.

Agree,and once big oil runs down investment in new projects they will probably have around 15 years of massive free cash flow.During that stage there will be a rush from them to buy electric producing and network assets.A lot of value will surface during the next cycle for the companies that become the link and storage between all the producers scattered everywhere and the buyers.

Im actually a bit miffed today.I was going to buy some Inmarsat at £3.50 the other week and a bid has come in.It was the last telco i was going to add and i left it until last.A 33% return in a couple of weeks missed.My dad was going to buy some as well so he wont be happy £700 missed he could of spent on booze during the world cup 

 

[A_P]

45 minutes ago, Solzhenitsyn said:

Introduction of wind/solar energy doesn’t necessarily result in cheap energy for the consumer. Cost savings could just as easily go to improving energy providers margins 

interesting to see that Statoil has been rebranded Equinor and is getting more and more into renewables. There’s really no conspiracy. The big guys see themselves as energy providers first and foremost. They are not wedded to hydrocarbons.

One would have to be quite nieve to think otherwise. A lot of the environmentalist movement can be traced back to big oil. Nonetheless a great opportunity jump on the bangwagon ourselves to join in with the profits. Which inturn go to pay our higher energy costs

[Castlevania]

10 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

Agree,and once big oil runs down investment in new projects they will probably have around 15 years of massive free cash flow.During that stage there will be a rush from them to buy electric producing and network assets.A lot of value will surface during the next cycle for the companies that become the link and storage between all the producers scattered everywhere and the buyers.

Im actually a bit miffed today.I was going to buy some Inmarsat at £3.50 the other week and a bid has come in.It was the last telco i was going to add and i left it until last.A 33% return in a couple of weeks missed.My dad was going to buy some as well so he wont be happy £700 missed he could of spent on booze during the world cup 

 

Same. It’s been on my to buy list for a good few months, and for whatever reason I didn’t pull the trigger. Ah well.

[DurhamBorn]

13 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

IME (meaning seeing property shows on the telly!) people getting into debt to buy BTLs are happy to take yields, and particularly gross yields (ignore voids and maintenance), that an experienced investor would see as unacceptable.  When any have the temerity to suggest this the professional adviser confidently opines "Well you're really in it for the capital gains".

I think that so much easy money has been made in property that for many people the receipt of a windfall such as in inheritance is the cue, if they already own their own homes, to get into BTL.  Just check the regular "What would you do with £100k?" threads on Mumsnet.

With property people will buy into a falling market - quick, don't miss the boat! - because the property = riches mantra is so fundamentally ingrained it will take another massive crash to rid people of those thoughts and get it back to the days when I recall somebody telling me that they viewed their house in Islington as "a liability".

In the long term I entirely agree with you, stupidly invested money dwindles and the queue of numpties wanting to get into BTL will fall with the attrition of money lost on previous BTLs.

But there is serious momentum behind this in people's minds that will keep it running when any sensible investor would throw their hands up in horror.  And governments know that despite commonsense there are votes in maintaining the appearance (i.e. nominal if not real rises) of rising house prices.

So this long term could be very long indeed before either a correction or real terms losses re-establishing the link with salaries.  Five years, ten, twenty?

I decided long ago that whilst a crash was inevitable there was such huge pressure for it not to happen that it would be delayed and delayed so it would be foolish to put my life on hold awaiting it and bought.

I would still be delighted with a crash both for wider social and for personal reasons (I'd buy something really nice) but I have made myself unreliant upon it.

All markets end up by hurting the most amount of people possible. BTL (and housing in general) is at that stage now.

From what i see BTL will prove a disaster of an investment from here in for most.Anyone buying now will be looking at a 50%/70% real terms loss by 2025 and interest rates up 300%+ on a SVR.The government will be throwing money into social housing during the next cycle as well.The people buying with cash will be simply making a bad investment.The people with leverage will see a good chunk of them kissing the family home goodbye as well.

1000 oz of silver might buy an average house by 2025.

 

 

[Lavalas]

19 hours ago, sancho panza said:

I think solar is the future but it's too early to pick the winners-could be another epic .com bubble.

Some producers are down 95% off peak already.

Is solar one of the reasons you're bullish on silver?

'

Bit in bold is the key.

If you want to win big in life,you sometimes need to take a risk.I've had some huge risky wins for us over the years and some wopping losses.I've learned from them all.Looking at that Barrick chart you'd run a lot more risk buying Next at £60...........DYOR obviously.

 

Thanks SP. Aside from the deposit fund with our lass I started from a very low base practically at the start of this (or the other) thread. So whilst protecting a small amount now could be sensible I’m just trying to ride a wave to increase my power in the down turn/next cycle. If it goes well then we know the possible benefits (eg DH’s 1k oz of silver pays for the house) if it goes wrong then I learn and start again sharpish with deposit funds intact. I’m pretty obsessed really and I value people’s input into this thread so much.

19 hours ago, DurhamBorn said:

Yes solar is one of the reasons im bullish on silver.Its going to be massive just as investment demand is increasing as well.I think there is going to be a .com style bubble in the miners.Barrick is a great buy for anyone who wants a real blue chip gold miner.

Solar is going to also need a lot of battery storage and also companies who can control/measure who produces what ,store it and then sell it with a block chain type ledger in real time.Centrica own the best company in the world at this (not many people know that).Another possible bubble area in the next cycle is energy companies with this sort of technology.Big oil might start to buy up the space though before the big profits can come through.

Industrial silver use is apparently on the increase vis solar and semi-conductors...

http://www.northernminer.com/news/facts-n-figures-silver-industrial-demand-rebounded-in-2017/1003796829/#.WxsEXsxWVa0.twitter

[macca]

12 hours ago, Admiral Pepe said:

Because they don't want us plebs to have free/cheap energy

 

 

The new nuclear plant ties us into some really expensive contracts, our KWh rate will be stuck up in the gods why other governments increase cheap renewables.. 

Its like PFI all over again but with energy this time.. 

How much were CON mps paid this time to screw the public.. 

£92.50

Price to be paid (in 2012 money) for each MWh unit of electricity - more than double the current market price of power.. contract to increase each year with inflation, opening 2027.. 

they are completely stupid corrupt,, pieces of shit! 

[Majorpain]

11 minutes ago, macca said:

The new nuclear plant ties us into some really expensive contracts, our KWh rate will be stuck up in the gods why other governments increase cheap renewables.. 

Its like PFI all over again but with energy this time.. 

How much were CON mps paid this time to screw the public.. 

£92.50

Price to be paid (in 2012 money) for each MWh unit of electricity - more than double the current market price of power.. contract to increase each year with inflation, opening 2027.. 

they are completely stupid corrupt,, pieces of shit!  

The money for Hinkley point was borrowed at commercial rates by EDF, the government should have funded it with QE for peanuts.

I dont think that it will happen however, at least not until EDF get the problems with that particular reactor sorted out (see flamanville)

Quote

The delays of Unit 3 of Flamanville received additional attention when in December 2016 The Economist reported that the British loan guarantees for Hinkley Point C require Unit 3 to be operational by 2020, that the regulator will rule on the future of Unit 3 mid-2017 and that one possible outcome of this ruling can delay its opening far beyond 2018, thus jeopardizing the British loan guarantees thereby preventing EDF from building the EPRs at Hinkley Point.[18] In February 2017 renewed delays in the construction of the EPR-reactors at Taishan Nuclear Power Plant prompted EDF to state that Flamanville 3 remains on schedule to start operations by the end of 2018, assuming it receives regulator approval.[19] In June 2017 the French regulator issued a provisional ruling that Flamanville 3 is safe to start.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[A_P]

7 minutes ago, macca said:

The new nuclear plant ties us into some really expensive contracts, our KWh rate will be stuck up in the gods why other governments increase cheap renewables.. 

Its like PFI all over again but with energy this time.. 

How much were CON mps paid this time to screw the public.. 

£92.50

Price to be paid (in 2012 money) for each MWh unit of electricity - more than double the current market price of power.. contract to increase each year with inflation, opening 2027.. 

they are completely stupid corrupt,, pieces of shit! 

Yeah nuclear is bit of a disater really. The video I linked talks about the massive government ineptitude (and that's in the 70s) in regards to nuclear power. So imagine it now, it really doesn't stand a chance especially given the overall hate for nuclear. But the corruptness isn't just in nuclear, it's across the political and business sphere. Renewables are only where they are because pockets are being lined.

[UnconventionalWisdom]

3 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

IME (meaning seeing property shows on the telly!) people getting into debt to buy BTLs are happy to take yields, and particularly gross yields (ignore voids and maintenance), that an experienced investor would see as unacceptable.  When any have the temerity to suggest this the professional adviser confidently opines "Well you're really in it for the capital gains".

I think that so much easy money has been made in property that for many people the receipt of a windfall such as in inheritance is the cue, if they already own their own homes, to get into BTL.  Just check the regular "What would you do with £100k?" threads on Mumsnet.

Whilst you are right that herd mentality is keeping the Btl plates spinning and subsequently increasing HPs, I'm wondering if there has ever been an investment that's done well after people were lent money to invest in it. I'm thinking South Sea bubble- everyone got involved and then to make matters worst, they would lend money to people to buy shares. They sold it to the masses as, "the share price will only go up, so borrow now, reap the gains, and you can pay off the loan when you sell". Sound familiar? 

[eek]

13 hours ago, macca said:

According to a report on Keiser Report:

How much electricity costs to produce.

Onshore wind $40 per MWH
Solar $50 per MWH
Offshore wind $60 per MWH
Gas $60 per MWH
Coal $102 per MWH
Nuclear $148 per MWH

So why have the CONservatives given contracts for a new Nuclear plant and rights to drill to Fracking companies? When it’s cheaper and cleaner to make electricity using natural resources. 

Are they corrupt, stupid or both?

 

It's because you need a core of Nuclear and gas for the middle of the night when the sun isn't shining and it's not windy. Now with battery reserve options we probably need less than we used to but we will still need some. 

For reference Nuclear would be always on, gas sits unused and is turned on and off as the market makes it profitable to run.

[Solzhenitsyn]

The mother of all cup and handle pattern appears to be setting up nicely in silver prices. Could drift a little lower in the near term but looking at another rate rise this month as a potential trigger to get the handle underway. Cups with a longer and more u shaped bottom tend to provide the strongest signal and this baby has been forming over 30 odd years! 🤩

[Frank Hovis]

48 minutes ago, UnconventionalWisdom said:

Whilst you are right that herd mentality is keeping the Btl plates spinning and subsequently increasing HP, I'm wondering if there has ever been an investment that's done well after people were lent money to invest in it. I'm thinking South Sea bubble- everyone got involved and then to make matters worst, they would lend money to people to buy shares. They sold it to the masses as, "the share price will only go up, so borrow now, reap the gains, and you can pay off the loan when you sell". Sound familiar? 

Yes, 'tis the Magic Money Tokens (MMTs).  From South Sea shares to Bitcoin to Tulip Bulbs to the Dotcom bubble to Houses to Gold (70s bubble) there are these can't lose "investments" that have all the people who know nothing about investing piling in, and piling in with what they can't afford - borrowed money.

The argument as to why "houses are different" usually runs that they have some inherent value, well so do tulip bulbs and gold.  But on top of that inherent value is a wild bubble of speculation pushing the price higher and a queue of greater fools just waiting to snap up their next one.

So in answer to your question my response would be pretty much "no"; non-investors borrowing money to chase further gains on something that has already risen far more than its long term norms is a clear sign that a MMT is into speculative bubble territory.

The presence of inflation and rental markets does however allow people to shield their eyes from their losses by refusing to liquidate them until sheer time has eliminated them.  By which I mean if my house drops in value 60% tomorrow I can obstinately say "I refuse to sell until its value has risen back to what I paid!" and, if I wait thirty years it will do whilst continuing to live in it or rent it out.  In nominal terms they are of course right through the simple effect of inflation; meanwhile baked beans will also have gone up in price 2.5x.

This last "stickiness" does, I admit, represent a "houses are different" caveat as big falls tend to mean withdrawal of stock from the market rather than the dumping of it. Meaning that crashes become slow motion with the 1988 crash finally bottoming out in about 2006.  They still crash but for several years people can pretend that it isn't happening by not selling.

[Solzhenitsyn]

5 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

“BTLs are happy to take yields, and particularly gross yields (ignore voids and maintenance), that an experienced investor would see as unacceptable.“

I don’t disagree with you there. But in London gross yields are now around 3.5% taking into account rental prices if you are buying property today. While individual BTLrs seem willing to take that kind of yield, it is very quickly getting to the point where the maths no longer adds up.

if your BTL mortgage interest rate is 2.5% then a 3.5% gross yield (before any expenses) is probably about as far as you can go. It’s unlikely in the medium to long term mortgage rates will be falling. A 1% rise in rates will send most property purchased for BTL over the past 12-24 months into negative cash flow. This is without factoring in S24 and the new minimum rental cover ratios.

for London at least, mortgaged BTL is dead. 

Owner occupiers are limited to 4.5x salary less regular outgoings. Given median salaries in London are somewhere around £35k, property prices have a long way to fall before meeting effective demand.

take a couple with combined income of £70k. At most a bank will lend them is £315k. And that’s being generous as I’ve not bothered to strip out regular outgoings from their income.

average price of a 2-bed flat is currently around £450k. So they’ll be needing a £135k deposit, plus expenses. Not a lot of first time buyers with that kind of cash at hand.

if we look to wanting to buy a simple 3 bed terrace in SW London, you’re looking at £850k. Not a hope in hell without massive equity gains from a prior property. But you can only realise those gains if someone can afford to buy from you. Which the above working shows not many can.

without material falls the whole thing grinds to a halt. Which is what we are seeing in London. 

Either wages need to rise materially to support further growth, or prices must fall. 

Or of course government could introduce fresh props. Unlikely. 

 

[Frank Hovis]

I agree with all of that @Solzhenitsyn except fresh props being unlikely.

I think they're highly likely.

Remember MIRAS?  And ehat about bringing back by- borrower MIRAS to support "hard working families" and we don't want to "trash their dreams of home ownership".

The words of David Cameron when bringing in a previous prop; Help to Buy probably.

[MrXxx]

Hi All,

quick newbie question as I am reading this (and around other financial sites) in the background and want to confirm that my understanding is correct.

So with the (inevitable?) change that we are about to go into (as the world correct from the effect of massive QE) with interest rates rising, if passive investing:-

1. Would it make sense to rebalance a portfolio from a shares 'bias' to a more gilts 'bias' (i.e. decrease your % in shares whatever it is and increase your % in gilts whatever it is)...My rationale/thinking is as follows yes, I think this would be the case as 1. govts will be needing money for development (and so having to pay more for it) , and b) some shares/companies will drop as they either go bust or customers buy less....note I said passive, as active investors would manage this in a different way by trading in/out of shares I assume?.

2. If 1 above is correct, I can't get my head around when to buy gilts, as with increasing inflation every time you buy you would be better waiting until the next time (as the coupon offered would be increasing between these two time periods).

Thanks,

MrXxx

note, I would start my own post/teread for newbies like myself but then the people we need to answer the questions i.e. you folks, probably wouldn't see them as you wouldn't be visiting the post with it being so basic. 

[Castlevania]

19 hours ago, sancho panza said:

Do you know much about Ashstead bricks?

They hire out construction kit.Is that mainly to housebuilders or CRE-any idea,to save me researching it?

There was an article about the CEO in yesterday’s Evening Standard, which was a most enjoyable read.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/business/business-interview-ashtead-chief-geoff-drabble-on-beating-the-odds-to-become-a-city-giant-a3858726.html%3famp

Edit: Probably a sell indicator when you have the CEO bigging himself up. Seemed like a genuine chap, though.