Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
I don't think people underestimate the seriousness. However, the value is now really quite low and so it is increasingly more like an option play. Huge risk of losing everything but, if he company gets through this, huge upside. So big risk for potentially big reward. Feels logical to me but you wouldn't want too much in it.
Vague on profits for next year and resumption of dividends but very clear on expenditure. There is clearly some reason for the hesitation on the likely level of shareholder returns but, notwithstanding that, I still think this is significantly undervalued. Pity the CEO doesn't seem too keen on the shares.
I think issue is whether the government want to effectively requisition the company for nothing. Freezing bank accounts is a way of potentially putting it out of business. The 58k is irrelevant - it's the existential threat that is the concern. The state prosecutor has been claiming amounts which are ludicrous on any analysis, freezing bank accounts and behaving in a manner which, at best, seems inconsistent with the rule of law. I don't think it's isolated behaviour either.
'We are pleased by these contract wins and have a strong pipeline of opportunities. This new business has been secured with good pricing discipline and demonstrates the attractiveness of Speedy's customer offering'. This suggests new business rather than just the same again so if it is just a rolling of existing contracts they would be putting out a misleading release.
Knowbodyyouknow - I hope you're right about the Barker buys negating any concerns about the CEO's low holdings. I am, unfortunately, a long way under on my holding here - as no doubt quite a few others are - and perhaps I have become overly pessimistic. The rushed refi on what looked pretty harsh terms didn't help my feelings but a good update would more than make up for it. Let's hope we get it.
The CEO's holding is derisory which suggests he hasn't seen any compelling reasons to buy. I expect he'd be filling his boots if this had turned a corner. I'm not optimistic for the next set of figures.
I think a lot of that was exercise by staff of options under share save schemes. But it is a good point you make. Barclays should be satisfying share awards to employees from shares it buys in the market which it is entitled to do. It gets tax relief when shares are issued to employees based on the actual value of the shares over the amounts paid for the shares by employees and also reflects that difference in its profits. I don't know why it doesn't do this other perhaps that it allows it to exaggerate the amount of its buyback because clearly only the net reduction in shares overall is relevant to shareholders.
I think that the share buy-backs should be stated net of any shares being issued under various share schemes. Lloyds includes the cost of those share issues (the value of the shares less employee contributions) as a tax deductible expense in computing its profits. By not paying out an equivalent amount of cash, it is effectively raising capital. It really should satisfy those share awards by buying equivalent shares in the market as it is entitled to do. I think a lot of companies avoid doing that to create the impression that they are giving more back to shareholders than they actually are. Still, it is undeniable that the shares in issue have decreased by a material amount and will continue to do so at a time when the dividend is also decent. Should be reflected in the share price at some point.
Agree FCA are shocking. The car finance issue is at their door but they will blame the banks - easy target with the money. Brokers/dealers were clearly only offering their clients the loans which paid the highest commissions rather than the ones which were best for the clients. The banks had to offer those commissions or they wouldn't have got the loans. It seems that their mistake was to offer a choice of rates presumably something they had to do as they had no idea what the sweet spot was to get the loan. They were also under pressure to lend s they are and certainty were awash with cash in their ring fenced businesses - another FCA creation. Any profiteering is by the brokers who patently did not look for the best deal for their customers but I guess they have trousered the money and won't pay it back. Having said that, if the banks were better managed, they should have approached the FCA to alert them to the practice so that it could have been binned earlier because it was clearly not getting customers the best deal.
If they can make progress with Venkat's objectives, the share price should rerate. Approx £6bn splashed on buybacks at current price would reduce share count to around 11.5bn. If profits are rising at the same time, the share price ought to track quite a bit higher. As others have said, a lot can go wrong. If the financials are good over the next 12 months, that might be enough to convince the doubters. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.
I'm struggling to see the cost savings that Venkat's restructuring is supposed to bring factored into any of these figures which suggest analysts think the whole exercise to be a waste of shareholders' money.
I'm not blaming the board for SVB Solomon merely trying to make the point that this is a market where the strong players seem to get stronger and Barclays, which could be a strong player, never gets a proper grip on its business or how to deploy its capital. Barclays net tangible assets are more than 50% higher than Lloyds and yet its market cap is well below. Tinkering around with the likes of Tesco and Kensington is not fixing anything.
HSBC got SVB UK for nothing and booked a $1.5bn profit on it. Barclays seems to be fiddling with these small acquisitions which chip away at its capital reducing payouts to investors but only add to the sense that it is clueless and drifting. If this is Venkat's idea of doing something, it is pretty underwhelming.
I hope you're right silverhorse. It would make a pleasant change. If Venkat sounds less than optimistic about the year ahead, I fear the reverse might happen. Time for him to show some confidence in the business or get out.
Something meaningful is needed but shareholders are being badly failed here. The shares in issue has increased by 120m since the last buy back significantly undermining any value creation for shareholders. There is clearly the potential for a good bank here with the amount of capital and a number of successful business areas like the credit cards but the utter ineptitude of management is staggering. I think investors are happy to stay on the sidelines because they are confident that a game changing level of payouts to investors to reflect the claimed profits is just not going to happen under this board which are probably arbitraging everything for their own benefit and in particular maximising the number of awards to themselves at very low prices. Personally I think that if the plans announced on the 20th are badly received, the board should go. Clearly, the market and those normally in the know are expecting something very underwhelming or else the share price would not be at these levels.