Member Info for Couerdelion

This article is from over a week away.

Solomon, while management and the Board will obviously have an eye to the SP, their primary responsibility is to the company and its future. But shares trade at the margin between buyers and sellers so will only be a limited guide to whether shareholders believe they are doing a good job. In this case, they decided that investment was the better use of capital for the business, and that this would bring better long term returns for shareholders. I believe this to have been the correct decision. Let's also be clear here that Jet2 are not replenishing their fleet, they are increasing it.

Unfortunately, this may not be the view of all the shareholders but surely this is where the markets come into play. Those who don't buy into the strategy will sell, while those who do, buy.

Now the yield is low because the SP is factoring in future growth. But the multiple is problematic, though not usually for airline stocks. In my view, and that of many others, it is because the market is not yet reflecting the true value of the company.

I hope it won't turn into a big mistake. From a business perspective, you can correct these sorts of errors because feedback is fairly rapid - they know what they don't sell.

Let's see what happens. The adverts of Tom preparing beef cheeks in dumplings may well be due to run for some time yet. I'm probably happier that I will get back to a little home cooking if the butcher in Smithfields gets those lamb's kidneys in tomorrow.

I think I would be buying well before it got to 3.6p.

The poor reception of the GNIP IPO is obviously not helping but I pointed out earlier that the market appears to have simply transferred value from TEK and GNIP and will now wait for results to decide which of them holds the value. Perhaps there is also a link, by association, to the other investments - though LUCY and BELL should be well insulated now.

All we know is that 39p was judged too rich for the market for GNIP. I'm inclined to think that the market hasn't recognised how profitable this part of the business may be.

Hulvard, you said it far more succinctly that I did

You're approaching the question from two different angles. Seis is trying to assess the value of the stock and argues that the current price doesn't reflect this. You arguing that the price has not performed and that the supposed value is based on some future deliveries that your experience leads you to believe is intangible to the point of being valueless.

From a cursory glance at the results we have $0.021 EPS for a P/E ratio of 3x. For me that is a valuation of a company with declining profitability which might also be consistent with your view. But more fundamentally, I think your issue here is one of lack of trust in management which can explain Seis' suggestion that you sell.

I wouldn't suggest selling at this point - I'm more incline to buy personally - but as for views of management, I've not held it long enough to reach any strong views on this but feel this long priced into the stock. And given we know there is a persistent seller in the stock, I believe we are now close to the bottom of the market which is as clear a buy signal as I could ask for

Add together the MCap of TEK and GNIP and you more or less get to where we were at the start of the week plus the new money in GNIP.

The fish was average at best and not as good as the old range (which included chips and cost less). The fish was not all that different from the standard frozen battered haddock - which I also don't really like.

So far the new range is living down to my low expectations.

Back to ex-div and the yield is now back over 10%. Whether you want income or accumulation, you can get that here with prices at these levels.

Agreed, the valuation of GNIP is closely tethered to that of TEK and probably won't diverge until they are recognisably different businesses. That might not happen until their first trading update.

SALT is also, presumably, moving in line with TEK today. And a poor IPO is never going to look good for a VC investment company.

BDC,

You're fixating on the wording in the RNS which provides pertinent information to shareholders in compliance of stockmarket rules. You might complain about the lack of precision in the wording used but it isn't a legal contract and will follow common usage. In the event of there being a negative FID, CHAR won't challenge it because they would be laughed out of court if the lawyers were willing to support them that far.

By all means show me the legal wording that obligates a $15m payment purely on a decision and a framework that obligates that the decision has to be made within a certain timescale, but I think you are clutching at straws here.

The timing for the ASX listing is a lot more positive than other messaging which talks about completing this by the end of the year.

It'll be in the contract.

But if for some bizarre reason ENOG would be liable to pay in the event of a "No", they will simply avoid trigger the FID condition at all.

They won't get the $15m unless ENOG go ahead with the investment.

In general it is risky to try to try to arbitrage the dividend payment by selling before the ex-div date to buy back after. Even if you have a tax benefit from taking profits through gains rather than dividend, trading costs will take a large chunk of that (on a 5% dividend, 0.5% stamp duty alone represents 10%) and this is before factoring in market fluctuations that can work against you. Outside a tax-efficient wrapper, I prefer to view PHNX as a bond proxy paying 5.7% net of tax and just take the cash.

Of course with stocks like this, most PIs hold them within tax-exempt wrappers and here the passive option of reinvesting dividends is usually the cheapest way to accumulate value.

OK, that's my confusion. Yes, the trading update upset the market but that "corrected" the interim results prediction and while we can be annoyed at that, the market has already given it's view and done it far more effectively.

If I surmise correctly, we are both upset about the reliability of previous company estimates - and can rightly be cynical about the current ones - but that's it's all historic and there's not something more worrying that the market has yet to price.

So it's a no-brainer to sell but a re-visit after ex-div date on Thursday?

I'd buy that argument for holdings in a taxable environment but even that is a little risky given that there are different types of buyers for whom the compelling argument here is the trajectory of interest rates.

Not that I would deny a little profit taking. But in this case, you're selling a stock that pays nearly 10% dividend and is more resilient that others in the sector to market shocks.

Nothing here in the results to worry me. I've only got a small holding here but I don't have any doubt that the SP will cover in time once the Autumn Budget it out of the way.

The cash position would be worrying were it not for the £40m facility they have available that can manage any liquidity concerns. I see this stock as one that could continue to be undervalued but one that will see multiple re-ratings over the next 2-4 years which would justify the consensus 12-mth target price (and more to come).

Not one for the traders.

I will admit that I was a big fan of the Gastropub deal. Some very nice meals and the meal for two (Main + Side + Starter or Dessert) was very good value at £12.50. It's possible that the margins here were too low.

Cue the new range - same offer but for £15. But look closer and the servings are smaller and, while the range is wider, they are not the "safe" options I've been used to and some of the meals require the purchase of a side to complement the meal so there's a hidden inflation in being obliged to buy that side dish - even in a meal deal I can't pay for mashed potato in a supermarket. And lentil gravy is NOT what you expect with sausage.

Anecdotal it may be but the range will be across lots of store and they look overpriced. Label it as "Tom's" and you're also flagging it as paying for a name rather than a product (you'd think he's paid enough for the adverts). There's a disconnect with this new offering which doesn't fit with where I thought the company was going.

I'll try a few more of the new offerings over time - tonight's is the fish and chips (without the chips) - and I might be pleasantly surprised with the quality. But I think Tom would have done a better job attracting the customers through the adverts rather than creating a prosaic menu that existing customers will avoid and where new customers will baulk at the price.