Member Info for Beo1

You do know, that the physical payment of the dividend shouldn't effect the SP. Its the Ex Div date that creates the liability. EG the point it goes as a credit on the VOD balance sheet in the current liabilities. The payment just credits bank and debits this already created liability. In fact the payment could theoretically increase the payment as a decent amount of people will buy more shares.

The point is. ITV reported a decline in Advertising revenue last results. Since then our nearest like for like competitor in the UK has reported they have seen further declines in their business. So in the absence of anything to the contrary the market has determined that ITV advertising is also likely to have deteriorated further.

How did that link get so mess up :-)

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/1039560/itv-shares-fall-as-channel-4-axes-jobs-and-ad-revenue-dries-up-1039560.html

Yes, looks like we are guilty by association

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/1039532/chill-brands-comments-on-uk-disposable-vape-ban-1039532.html

I'll go for 68.1p please

What inputs you put in?

Adjusted EPS of 0.0945 (being the euro value / 1.2) with zero growth and 11% returns a SP of 87p.

Also the DCF models use free cash flow, and those parts of the business they are disposing off are free cash flow decretive. So disposing of them theoretically creates more free cash flow.

My dad is invested in CPX despite my warnings. But yes, they have a high R&D cost that is killing there profit / cash burn, even though they get a government rebate back its still a net drag on performance, and they can't even protect there patents, losing a case in the US (nearly 25% of there demand). So if this guy is in there then we can take his advice with a pinch of salt

Did you read what he wrote, as it doesn't look like you did

He's not advocating investors borrowing money to invest in VOD shares. He's saying the debt VOD has is effectively cheap debt so should keep paying money to investors, but he's wrong in that aspect. VOD cannot achieve a return in excess of there cost of capital, but the debt element of that capital is cheap, whereas the cost of equity would be high (in part due to the higher dividend yield (although some use a government bond yield beta to get to a cost of equity). So the question isn't about trading debt vs dividend, its about using the cash to make a good ROCE or return the money to shareholders, and at the moment they are saying they can't do that.

God I wish you would drop fast and hard, from a 50 story building. So Tiresome!

Good value for VOD shareholders that is

So we currently have 4.6b euros revenue per annum, vs combined newco of 5.8b, so we are being bought out of market share in italy for 29% (to take us to 50/50 in newco) for 8.5b Euros (for losing 1.7b revenue, approx 0.5b EBITDAaL) so a EBITDA multiple of x18. Seems good value, but will obviously reduce earnings until synergies of a combined business can come in, although not sure how much synergies a newco can get when its a starting 79/21 split?

I'll go for 67.5p please, unfortunately any rise on a back of strategic news hardly ever sticks

So this is a business account? I'm the treasurer for the local football team and I've been having the warnings for months, sent them the forms, still had warnings, rang them up got sent more forms, re-sent them, the warnings stopped until last week where it came back up, saying X days until we freeze the activity. Rang them up, gave them the extra information, warnings gone again. Moral of the story is if its the same "we need more info" warning on the business account then someone has been ignoring them. I was getting messages everytime i logged on, emails to the linked email address. All telling me if i don't provide the information they will close it. And yes all the info i gave was in relation to governance, wanting to know who the decision makers were etc

72.4 for me please

Not really, they will provide for it in the accounts upon announcement. When it's actually paid doesn't come into it.

Just noticed the Balance sheet indicates EZJ have already banked £1.5b of next years Turnover. So nearly 20% of the way to last years Sales already. This element will mostly like be the seat fee's, so add on the ancillary revenue associated with those pre-sold seats and your looking at 20% of the years numbers already, before the year has even begun.

Also, if you consider that 4% of the cost base is at £0 revenue, that's an £80m headwind in Q1, and yet despite that they are messaging YoY loss for the Qtr will be flat.

You've got 4% of the EZJ capacity sat effectively doing nothing and yet Profit YoY is flat. Not great but shows underlying strength in the other 96%. Also we got brought down on Jet2 announcement of bookings being down in the new year, so market was expecting a similar thing here I reckon and we aren't, hence the positive SP movement. IMO

I should add Time value of money is very important in appraising a finance CapEx investment. as the out years are normally discounted at nearly 9-10% per year, depending on the companies cost of capital. so being able to bank cash earlier is a huge win for Asset intensive companies.

I wasn't trying to say the tax change wasn't good, but correctly people who think it means the actual tax paid changes. as I said you pay the same tax just pay it later and that is still a big deal for Vodafone

Its time value of money. Paying £1b less in tax now costs a lot less than paying £1b less over an asset life of 10 years

Also, if you are constantly growing (through capital investment) then effectively you keep pushing the tax can down the road so to speak. EG if I spend £10m now I can tax deduct all of that in year 1, as opposed to £1m per year over 10 years, if I then spend £20m in year 2 then i get to tax deduct all of the £20m in year 1 (of 2 years in this example) but I am no longer getting the £1m from the first years £10m so the net change is £19m. if your replacement cycle is linear then once you catch up (eg go through a whole asset life cycle) then effectively it becomes the same amount (EG previously I would expense to years of capex a year at 1m per capex (eg 1/10th of £10m) x 10 years of capex). Now you expense each capex in year 1 for tax purposes, so now I'm get 1/1th of £10m x 1 year) - you see how on a flat capex its the same value?