Bae Systems Share Discussion Threads

[domtheone] 14/5/2013 23:46

3rd time lucky at 400p..

[miata] 07/5/2013 13:48

Interesting to ponder the extent to which the shareprice of a high-tech company depends on the security of its intellectual property.

[waldron] 01/5/2013 19:04

i believe one should accept any information availalble
even from analysts

there are many out there who do know whats going on
even if they want to push information to customers and to the general public

its for the investors to either research further and or add or discard
what they consider not really relevant

ANALYSTS although in main intelligent don't always have
individual investors interests at heart

However,if they do set a target they want it to be achieved no matter what nationality

EDIT i am watching for merger news, dare i say more

NAH just wishful thinking

[wad collector] 01/5/2013 16:30

I bow to both of you.
My geography of Iberia is hazy at best.
I share your scepticism about brokers ; it amuses me to quote them sometimes.But whatever we think of the validity of their guesses , they do have a certain influence on the market and therefore I think it is worth being aware of them.

[anhar] 01/5/2013 08:51

A minor quibble but Banco Espirito Santo is actually a Portuguese bank. The name sounds rather silly to us for a bank, translates as "Holy Spirit", as if they regard themselves as having some sort of divine qualities in addition to the crude commercial realities of banking. However to be fair to them their name is derived from the founder's name, part of which was Espirito Santo.

My main point though is who cares what brokers think? Even those with names suggesting some sort of supernatural powers. I'll never understand why readers here constantly repeat broker notes as if they are worth something. They are not reliable at all.

Part of the explanation is Confirmation Bias. That illogical pyschological weakness of seeking out only such information which confirms an existing position and disregarding that which opposes it, even though it is equally valid. But that doesn't fully explain the obsession round ADVFN and probably other sites too of endlessly repeating broker recs. Brokers themselves and every pro knows these comments are worthless. The real reason they do it is merely for publicity. By repeating that stuff here, you are playing their game.

My target exit price right now is 556p based on the 12m rolling dividend of 19.5p and my assumption that BA. should yield the same as the FTSE100, currently 3.51%. That's above the current price so I continue to hold for income. My exit price fluctuates constantly with the index yield and the share's dividends.

Unlike the brokers, my target is not a prediction but just the price that would cause me to sell and boost my income by reinvesting in a new high yielder.

[fangorn2] 01/5/2013 00:11

Espirito santo Wad?

[wad collector] 30/4/2013 23:57

I see it was given a 450p target by that Spanish sounding broker whose name I cannot recall at this time of night.

[miata] 11/4/2013 15:59

BAE Systems will go ex-dividend on Wednesday with respect to its final dividend of 11.7p per share, as announced on 21 February. Although underlying earnings per share fell a little, to 38.9p from the previous year's 39.7p, the firm lifted its total payment by 4% to 19.5p per share, and reiterated its policy of maintaining future dividends at a sustainable cover of around two times underlying earnings.
The total dividend of 19.5p per share represents a yield of 4.9% on the current share price of 396p, with the final payment alone providing 3%.

[miata] 11/4/2013 15:57

BAE Systems reports its APKWS laser-guided rocket, mounted on a US Navy helicopter, has been used for the first time against maritime targets.

In testing, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System rocket was fired 10 times and scored 10 direct hits on single and multiple maritime targets -- stationary and moving small boats -- using inert warheads from a distance of 1.2 miles to 2.5 miles.

The US Navy intends to integrate the system onto its Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters and other Navy and Marine Corps aircraft.

[miata] 11/4/2013 15:49

BAE Systems announced that it transferred 23,794 shares held in treasury to a participant in its Executive Share Option Plan at a transfer price of 264p per share.

Ian King, exercised options over 132,757 ordinary shares under the BAE Systems Performance Share Plan at nil consideration and disposed of 72,656 at 393p per share.

[wad collector] 11/4/2013 12:44

Sorry to butt in chaps , but I just wanted to celebrate a new 4 yr high.

[fangorn2] 10/4/2013 15:35

I'm sure your attention would be better focused Roger at those companies that are both being run for the benefit of their BoD, and that have never made a profit or made anything that can be termed as positive returns to their shareholders.

A trawl of Aim should yield plenty to get your teeth into.

eg RRR, RGM, and company where Lenigas is involved.


BAe has been both profitable, is the bastion of British engineering, employs thousands of people, maintains Britain's position at the forefront of Military engineering,and returns money to shareholders.

And all with a Board that you seem to have issue with.

Zero point wasting your time on such large companies such as BAe in my opinion.

[roger-lawson] 05/4/2013 16:48

You have not studied the complexities of voting is all I can say, and not all companies/registrars have systems to support electronic voting. It should certainly be possible to design and implement a simple, international electronic share registration and voting system but nobody has had the will to do it.

[deanforester] 05/4/2013 16:35

With electronic communications, and the ability to vote on-line, I can't see any problem with 14 days.

Perhaps we should ask for quill pens and vellum to respond.

[roger-lawson] 05/4/2013 08:51

Rohirrm: Neither I nor ShareSoc has ever argued for "removing the entire management structure" of BAE or any other company. We are not that daft. As regards "self-interest" are you arguing that shareholders in companies should not put forward their views because they have a "self-interest"? Not clear what other "self-interest" I might have. But I can assure you that I am a relatively small shareholder in BAE and that it's actually an insignificant part of my personal portfolio, and hardly therefore me worth spending time on. Indeed, in relation to the time I have spent on BAE to promote the interests of the Members of ShareSoc and the shareholders in general,it would not have been justifiable. Some people are motivated by other than "self-interest" of course.

Yogi: the 14 days versus 21 days issue is particularly prejudicial to private shareholders who we represent. Private shareholders are often retired, frequently take long holidays and might miss a vote if only 14 days notice is given. It also incidentally causes difficulties for foreign institutions who often take time to vote because of the long chain of intermediaries, and this is a particular problem in some European countries. That's why the EU decided it should be adopted as policy for all European countries to have 21 days notice of all General Meetings, and the UK agreed by implementing that into company law in the 2006 Companies Act. Unfortunately many companies have decided that they know better and wish to revert to the previous 14 days standard - whether this is a poke at the wisdom of EU policy making or simple cussidness I do not know. But I have never seen a good argument as to why 14 days would be useful rather than 21.

Sturichardson: I don't run an empire and only monitor some boards for companies in which we have a particular interest.

[rohirrim] 05/4/2013 00:18

Dear Roger, I have read your discussions with Fangorn2 with what I can only describe as a very small amount of interest. Your comment.....

"But at the end of the day, if you don't vote then you are failing in your obligations to other investors and to the company to act responsibly as an investor and part owner of the business."

...does seem to be rather tarnished by your own self interest. You clearly have an agenda in which you believe and that's fine. But at the end of the day, I am very happy with my investment and am looking forward to my next dividend.
I don't see removing the entire management structure because you don't like them is going to help me much......

Regards, Rohirrim

[yogi] 04/4/2013 20:39

Why is the issue of 14 days vs 21 days notice of a general meeting so important to sharesoc?

[sturichardson] 04/4/2013 10:00

How do you find the time to spend all day on ADVFN when you're running such an empire?

[roger-lawson] 04/4/2013 09:54

You are definitely wrong in assuming that all institutional shareholders will vote the same way. They frequently do not. There are some bodies that give recommended voting directions to institutions, but even they are often not unanimous in their recommendations and not all instututions follow them anyway.

So on remuneration votes for example, it's rarely you get over 90% now in some companies and the votes of private investors could have a significant impact on the outcome. Even a small percentage can swing the vote on some contentious issues (such as delistings) so it is important that everyone votes. If private shareholders don't vote because they think their vote won't count, then you only have yourselves to blame if company directors and institional investors ignore your views.

Obviously if private investors wish to win a vote then it is probably necessary to also get the support of some institutional investors (and their advising bodies) but that is quite practical if the stance being taken is sensible and justifiable.

Likewise institutions often look to obtain the support of private shareholders when there are going to be close run votes because they know they can have an influence on the outcome. That is the reality from my experience of working with institutions.

But at the end of the day, if you don't vote then you are failing in your obligations to other investors and to the company to act responsibly as an investor and part owner of the business.

This is of course an issue that my organisation (ShareSoc) has taken very seriously, as has the Government and all other responsible bodies involved in the financial sector of late. Engagement is the name of the game!

[anhar] 04/4/2013 09:02

That's rather like saying that one need not bother voting at a General Election because your vote won't be influential on the result...

I'm surprised you liken a general election to company voting. They're very different because elections are one man, one vote.

In complete contrast, company voting as you know is based on the number of shares held by each shareholder, not on the number of shareholders. So it's nothing like an election.


...In reality there are enough private shareholders in most public companies (up to 30% if you look behind all the nominees) that if they all voted they would have a significant impact on the outcome of many of the votes...

Using your figure, even if there are up to 30%, (and "up to" is a misleading way of putting it because if it's true, it means that the average private holding will be well below) that's still a minority compared with the 70% held by institutions. And it's probably a lot higher than 70% on average, for the same reason above that the private holdings must on average be a lot less than your 30% figure.

Therefore if those institutions all vote together to support the resolutions which is what nearly always happens, the private holders can do nothing about defeating them. And that's even in the ideal situation where all PSs vote against, but many, probably most, don't bother voting at all.

I therefore maintain that it is impossible for PSs alone to defeat a resolution that is supported by institutional shareholders. It's a waste of time even trying to convince PSs without IS support. The only practical way this is possible is to get enough IS votes on side.

[roger-lawson] 03/4/2013 16:41

That's rather like saying that one need not bother voting at a General Election because your vote won't be influential on the result. In reality there are enough private shareholders in most public companies (up to 30% if you look behind all the nominees) that if they all voted they would have a significant impact on the outcome of many of the votes.

Of course companies and institutions might encourage you not to bother voting because they will say you are of no account, but that view should be ignored.

[anhar] 02/4/2013 13:25

Well after all that, it might be worth pointing out perhaps that private shareholder votes on AGM or other resolutions are too few to matter in the slightest here. That's because most of the capital of large companies like BA. is held by the institutions.

Small private investors are all but irrelevant, even if they do vote which large numbers do not. Consequently it is only the institutions who can have any worthwhile influence on the vote and it follows that it is not possible to successfully oppose a motion without their votes.