Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Thanks for the link Hintza, what a great day for shareholders here. I think Zulch's last point about credibility is key, especially given Bluerill's points about the failure, in that regard, of other companies in the wider sector. This deal is reputation-enhancing and ensures our place at the forefront of the next product wave. We still have to deliver, and Gamesa can cancel if milestones are not met, but if they believe in our tech, after a long hard look, we certainly should - more than ever!

Theoretically financial companies "generally benefit from higher interest rates" (Investopedia)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/052814/these-sectors-benefit-rising-interest-rates.asp. "

It remains to be seen whether interest rates are really going to have a sustained rise this time, after many false starts, but post-pandemic Inflation seems real enough. More favourable trading conditions would certainly be a relief after the last few months.

Apologies, I managed to read the FT article, so assumed anyone could, but now it is behind a paywall. It doesn't mention any particular company wanting to take over, just says that M&G could be attractive to private equity firms generally, who might seek to break them up and sell off the parts. It also mentions Foley's publicity-shyness and the many challenges he faces, including poor fund performance, outflows of funds under management and reputational damage due to the long property fund closure. It still managed to seemed fairly upbeat about long term prospects though!

"Ft suggested a few weeks back that PE would buy this"
https://www.ft.com/content/2ce8359f-6c5e-424a-bcf7-43ca7439a3eb

(Thanks Batterseafish)

Apparently Black Rock's Throgmorton investment trust uses CFDs: "In addition to holding long positions in securities, the Company is permitted to employ leverage up to 30% of net assets, which it does primarily through the use of contracts for difference (CFDs) and/or comparable equity derivatives, rather than borrowings".

Not sure if this is a new development, or if they use it in other investment trusts, never noticed it before. Seems more like gambling than investment, with a fancy name like "derivative instrument" masking a sharp increase in risk.

I think you are correct AAS, they seem to have swapped some equity for CFDs. This seems counterproductive in the short term, since selling effectively lowers the share price whereas CFDs are an off-market side bet which have no effect on the SP. It seems to be a pure gamble on the SP rising, which shows confidence, I guess!

Regarding this mornings blip, I haven't heard any takeover rumours. I assume it was just market makers having a temporary shortage. Seems strange if Black Rock have just released a few, presumably they got snapped up.

After the recent outage, the PRU share graphs seem to be showing historic prices without M&G stripped out. The latest part of the graphs DO have M&G stripped out though, so not sure how they have stitched it together, possibly recovered older prices from a very old backup?

Can anyone shed light on the last two RNSs? First one suggested a slight decrease in Black Rock's holdings, but todays looks like they have opened a CFD (Contract for difference - i.e. spread betting?). Not sure if this is an overall decrease, increase, or just a reshuffling of their position. Also, aren't instruments like CFDs unusual for institutions like Black Rock?

They've now concentrated shares by 1.5% at a cost of £102m, averaging £6.165 per share (all figures approximate) and still buying

I may be mistaken Blubay, but you don't seem to be distinguishing between "debt" and "debt facility", using them interchangeably? The new facility does not actually "replace" the debt itself, it is is really a replacement for the old borrowing arrangement. A smaller debt facility than before means a reduction in flexibility. If the new facility IS used to "replace" the maturing debt (i.e. by paying it off), then it will only cover part of that repayment (because it is smaller), and will not be available for anything else (thereby eliminating any flexibility). Like I said, the maturing debt will probably be paid from other resources, and the smaller new debt facility will be used for future needs, as and when required.

It does mean they aim to borrow less in future, which could either mean they are over-geared and need to restructure, or that they are generating so much cash, the need for borrowing has reduced.

That was popular, but makes no sense. If the new loan is to "replace" current debt then that is not reducing it, it is merely transferring it. It cannot be used "as and when" if it has already been used to "replace" current debt - you can do one or the other, not both. If it is a smaller loan facility than the current debt, then ALL of it would be necessary to "replace" only SOME of the current debt in or, leaving zero flexibility, and still leaving more current debt to pay off.

More likely, they plan to pay down current debt by some other means, probably from cashflow or reserves, and leave the new facility flexible and available for future opportunities. No doubt they will discuss this in the upcoming results.

Good to see a Nigerian stepping up. Good luck to Segun Ogunsanya, hope he powers on and his success inspires many on the continent.

That site shows yields based on the trailing 12 months, moneybox007, which could include dividends from previous or future company years, depending on payment dates, or changes in reporting schedules. It is relatively accurate though, showing M&G in second place behind Imperial Brands (good div, but long-term declining SP, and their product kills people).

The point was, a lot of financial journalists don't seem to check their facts, don't seem to really understand them, and articles about 'top yielding stocks' are very often misleading. To my mind any sensible article on the subject should be recommending M&G on it's merits - not just 'cos they are virtually the best payer, but because their dividend coverage is also better than most, and the SP is relatively cheap by most measures. They could point out that no dividend is guaranteed etc., but even on that issue, they should point out that M&G continued paying when others cut.

"Judge Mazzant found even if the patent board ruling was not new evidence Samsung's conduct at trial justified the enhanced award."
Another example backing the conclusion that Samsung are not just another run-of-the-mill law-bending international conglomerate, they really stand out as a special case with a unique attitude. INTENTIONAL infringement, yet again: just business as usual for them.

"Looks as if this is Singapore sovereign wealth fund (GIC PTE) offloading 50 m of its 112m stake to generate some cash ."

Today the other Singaporean sovereign wealth fund, Temasek, reduced their position too.

Given Samsung's criminal record, the UK patent board should treat any applications from them with suspicion: there must be some likelihood that they stole it. The UK government should also consider intervening since Samsung appropriated British technology without paying for it, effectively sabotaging the nascent UK QD industry. Level playing field in both countries or neither.

Looks like a complementary bolt-on, accelerating a successful strategy. Sensible move which seems to immediately improve the quality and scope of the business. Well done management team, growth in sync with the season.

Hello densteph. Yes, shareholders are voting now on releasing capital from the share premium account to allow a spin-off. If the vote is positive they will go to court to ask permission to do this, and if successful they will then be able to launch a new company based on some of the non-core assets, and when that happens ORPH holders will receive shares in this new company. So a few ifs, and full details not yet known, but the process is underway. Further spinoffs of other non-core assets may follow later.

Actually, that's not a terrible article by MFs low standards. He doesn't make it clear why he doesn't want the spin-off shares (too much risk, too different from the core?), and closes with an unfathomable connection between his timing of a top-up and the lock-in period (lack of funds?), but for the uninitiated it's a reasonable overview and cautiously positive. Maybe he got edited? I've seen worse ( :

This looks like a good example of financial illiteracy. In this II article, they claim M&Gs yield is 6.5%. Clearly wrong, I cannot fathom how they arrive at that figure, and they don't say. If you look at the stock they claim has the highest yield on the FTSE100 - Abramovich's steel companty, Evraz (EVR), you find that it only paid out 50 cents last year (about 36p). With a current price of about 618p that equates to a yield around 5.8%, yet they claim it is almost double that.
https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/dogs-footsie-2021-line-highest-yielding-shares-ii515088

Casey? That article was published in the Investors Chronicle, Vladimir, and a link to it was posted on here a couple of weeks ago. It's nice to read about M&G's assets being undervalued though, and bears repeating.

It tends to highlight again the glaring hike in the Chair's pay - massive piles of extra money for what? - he hasn't launched any new initiatives or products, or generated new revenue streams, he's basically riding a cash cow. A young maths graduate could probably turn a profit here: it's not rocket science or vaccine creation.

Meanwhile the SP is down, funds are underperforming, and some investors in the property fund had their assets frozen for the entire year. Some might say that deserves a pay cut, not a massive raise plus bonus upon bonus, it seems completely out of whack with all other stakeholders and you have to question what the remuneration committee have been smoking.