Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.


Silver Premium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback

  • Country

    United Kingdom

Bullionaire last won the day on September 23 2018

Bullionaire had the most liked content!


About Bullionaire

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    North of the Watford Gap
  • Stacker/Collector

Recent Profile Visitors

1,547 profile views
  1. They had these on the other day and sold out. Must have found a few more down the side of the sofa...
  2. I would say a bigger sin is borrowing to pay a dividend. The whole point of a dividend is supposed to be that it's excess money that the company doesnt think it's worth reinvesting in itself. I haven't used it myself, but I've heard various people (mainly US based) use simply safe dividends to see how safe a dividend is. They have a 14 day free trial if you wanted to check it out: https://www.simplysafedividends.com/
  3. Pretty much what Martlet said. There are always exceptions though - Some companies like Amazon have perpetually high PE's. But seem to continue to grow in price at some rate. This growth may or may not stop at some point soon. It's a useful metric, but you shouldn't invest solely based on the PE. Because The PE is made up of two metrics (the price of the share and the earnings per share) the PE ratio can be low for two reasons, either the price you pay for a share has gone down, or the earnings has gone up (Or a combination of the two). Also remember, the PE looks backwards (with regards to the earnings). It uses today's price with the previous years earnings. So they won't take into account any hits to earnings from Covid19 I don't think. You can look at the future PE ratio, which is the price of the share divided by people's estimates of what the earnings will be over the future year. But these are just estimates and may or may not have taken covid into account
  4. Certainly not a bad company. PE ratio bit high for my liking though at ~22 for a company that I wouldn't have thought would grow a huge amount in terms of profit or revenue in future
  5. If you are buying dividend stocks and looking for long term growth, it's sensible to reinvest your dividends, rather than taking them as cash. Reinvesting will get your money compounding far better. Also. Be very careful going after very high divi shares (e.g 8% +). They're often high divi because they're about to go t**s up and your capital loss will far outstrip your dividend gains. When you've built up a big portfolio, then you could live off the dividends in retirement if you wanted. E.g if you had £500,000 portfolio paying a 4% divi (as the ftse all share does currently), that would give you £20k a year to live off
  6. The royal mint bullion website does it, so I'm guessing not
  7. Probably more effective at stopping the coronavirus as well
  8. I was just going from here for the reference ranges and 'insufficiency' label. https://www.gloshospitals.nhs.uk/our-services/services-we-offer/pathology/tests-and-investigations/25-hydroxyvitamin-d/ There are obviously a few different 'normal ranges' though depending on what country/institution have produced the ranges. Regardless though, it needs to be upped! I will keep the thread updated. Did you have your Vit D tested again when you were feeling better? What level did you get up to with the spray?
  9. I've just had the results back from my first thriva test (very impressed with them BTW. Great communication and results ready in 24 hours from time of posting - especially impressive in these covid times were living). I got checked for iron, b12, folate and vitamin D. All results were fine apart from vitamin D which was 32nmol/L. Not super deficient, but insufficient apparently. I've started on a 4000iu +k2 tablet, but may try the spray you recommend at some point! Hopefully I'm a bit less tired soon.
  10. It's used pretty regularly as a diagnostic tool (the BAL, not the feacal) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274523/
  11. It's more a case of where the samples are taken from, than the test itself being unreliable. In the following study, they took different samples from patients who had covid19. E.g. they took blood, lung wash, lung biopsy etc. And looked at whether they found the virus in each sample. Only a relatively small sample size of 200 patients, but it's the best we've got at the minute. As you can see from the results below, if you take samples as a nasal swab or a lung biopsy, you only have a ~50% chance of positively identifying the virus. Whereas if you use lung wash, you get a much higher sensitivity of over 90%. "Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens showed the highest positive rates (14 of 15; 93%), followed by sputum (72 of 104; 72%), nasal swabs (5 of 8; 63%), fibrobronchoscope brush biopsy (6 of 13; 46%), pharyngeal swabs (126 of 398; 32%), feces (44 of 153; 29%), and blood (3 of 307; 1%). None of the 72 urine specimens tested positive" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762997 The above tests are to see if you have the virus currently. The tests for seeing if you have HAD the illness (the 15 minute test being talked about in the media) are RAPID tests which usually have >95% sensitivity. They have a specific protein stuck on a plate. You put your blood sample (because the antibody you will have developed will be in the blood, even if the virus isn't) on the plate and it'll give you a line (like in a pregnancy test) if it finds the correct antibody in your blood. If it does, it's a good indication that you'll be immune to covid 19 after that point.
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use