Page 2 of 2

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 12:30 pm
by Dod101
Itsallaguess wrote:[
I own both BATS and IMB, and surely for a long time now, the elephant in the room regarding both companies is likely to be some risk of large-scale litigation, either from employees or customers, either current or historical?

Both BATS and IMB form a relatively small part of my overall income portfolio, but I see the potential litigation risks as really quite high, and stories such as the above seem to confirm this...


I have resolved not to buy any more tobacco shares partly because of the risk of litigation (although unlike Itsallaguess, I do not see it as any bigger than it has ever been and besides tobacco companies are past masters at defending themselves) and partly because of the continuing downward trend in the number of people smoking, which I think is a long term bigger threat.

I might even have sold some but not at current prices. Having taken a hit I might as well hang on now and see what transpires, but I cannot close my eyes to the capital loss of the last few years, even although just as it was a paper gain, it is now a paper loss. I am still well in the money having bought both tobacco shares more than 20 years ago, but it is disappointing to see the gains of two or three years ago just disappear in a puff of smoke, to coin a phrase.

Dod

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 3:21 pm
by monabri
Dod101 wrote:
monabri wrote:
Dod101 wrote:Thanks Ian. Looks all to be on target, and holders I imagine will just hang in there and hopefully see some continuing recovery of the share price.

Dod


I guess you meant 'longterm'.......


Why?

Dod


Sorry..an off the cuff remark based on the fall today (at one point) of nearly 6%.

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 3:47 pm
by Dod101
monabri

I was not aware of the price fall so your comment did not mean much. I see it is now down about 4.5% in a weak market. My thoughts were outlined in an earlier post and I will just leave the tobaccos alone.

Dod

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 12th, 2019, 5:22 pm
by idpickering
Dod101 wrote:Thanks Ian. Looks all to be on target, and holders I imagine will just hang in there and hopefully see some continuing recovery of the share price.

Dod


You're welcome Dod. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do intend topping up my BATS holdings this month (next Thursday) and that'll be it, for a long term hold. I'm not fazed by the downward trend in the SP, and view it as a buying opportunity.

Ian.

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 14th, 2019, 9:37 am
by StepOne
Itsallaguess wrote:I own both BATS and IMB, and surely for a long time now, the elephant in the room regarding both companies is likely to be some risk of large-scale litigation, either from employees or customers, either current or historical?


No, the risk of litigation is reducing all the time. There was an argument for people who smoked in the 50s and 60s they they were being lied to, but there can hardly be a smoker alive today who wasn't aware of the risks, so less reason for them to sue. That's why the tobacco companies have been on such a good run over the last couple of decades. The real risk now is dwindling numbers of smokers.

StepOne

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 26th, 2019, 9:08 am
by monabri
Article in The Telegraph (not locked).

"San Francisco becomes first US city to ban sale of e-cigarettes"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... igarettes/


"Juul said in a statement following the vote that the ban would "drive former adult smokers who successfully switched to vapor products back to deadly cigarettes, deny the opportunity to switch for current adult smokers, and create a thriving black market."

(Juul = company specialising in e-cigs, 35% owned by Altria, BATS & IMB rival).

Re: British American Tobacco (BATS)

Posted: June 26th, 2019, 10:10 am
by Dod101
That sounds draconian to say the least. What is the point if they are not banning 'real' cigarettes? Of course they may have all but banned tem already. Ironically I assume San Francisco is the sort of place where drugs of various forms (as long as they are not tobacco or apparently tobacco substitutes) are readily available.

Dod