Member Info for damofarl

retired banker; thanks your views. I am a shareholder in both, and whilst my views are on the Ince page, i bought Arden post Ince announcement, that announcement making me aware for the first tome of Arden, and actually liking Arden, believing (like Ince) it was a lot underrated and a bit misunderstood. I take a value approach, and with that im happy to be patient, and wait for a rerate; at that time of Arden purchase, i viewed the conversion rate as being a better deal for Ince, and feeling Ince itself undervalued/unloved, felt it was a cheap way of getting more Ince.

i love your positivity and don't disagree with your reasoning that earnings will rise, that both firms are undervalued. But i disagree that the market cap to revenue ratio supports value or an increase towards £1 for the enlarged Ince; it is undoubtedly undervalued, and it will rise some, but i am happy to be wrong (these 2 holdings being my current 2 worst investments by a yard). And here is why i think so:

The increase in partners to Ince announced in the last 12 months, with their 'specialist expertise/experience/market knowldege', has not translated correspondingly into an increase of income/awareness/industry standing - from a low point. Which begs the question, what are they adding to the business?

For a firm whose primary offering is centred on attention to detail, to seemingly be unaware of the detail, requirement for non conflict, listing requirements is more than an oversight, it is incompetence. How can you sell professional services, based on attention to detail, whilst acting in an incompetent way? It's not an oversight, an inconvenience, it has devalued the brand offering, raising doubt over professionalism to potential clients when it needn't have.

The actions (inactions) on this takeover only confirm concerns i raised on the Ince page, that Ince was basically being run as an old style PriceWaterhouse partners business, whereby the partners are renummerated richly as they are the owners, whilst utilising a stock market listing for credibility whilst ignoring the shareholders (the increase in partners but negligble increase in profits reinforces this concern).

Frankly, i shouldn't write this, because it's truism doesn't help a recovery in the Ince/Arden share price/valuation, and won't help to recoup my losses. But sometimes you have to say what you see, add to the viewpoint to (hopefully) inform people's investments. I hope you right, and will be delighted to be wrong, until then i'm holding to sell as SOON as i break even, having frankly written off this combined investment to zero. Because i still believe this company will continue to value 'partners' at the expense of shareholders.

AJBELL categorically stated they could not be held, and having contacted Evraz's IR team, they advised their is no intention (desire) for a UK listing/dual listing.

This may be because they feel that a pure coal play will suffer in a western obsessed ESG market; the reason Gazprom is quoted, and available to buy/hold is it has a parallel tracking ADR(UK) listing to the main Moscow listing.
For me it's a shame this ADR option isn't offered, as RASP's dividend in itself is considerable, and i note their share price continues to rise of late...

and slowly but surely it keeps inching up. To mind mind as along term holder this is highly unusual. It always inches on the annual dividend announcement, but it is a bit early for that, so i do wonder if something is afoot here,

mick2020; I've never been a fan of largesse to mgmt/boards, and only countenance such when the trajectory of the company (profits), and the largesse to shareholders equals and justifies such; on current form i agree with you mgmt are creaming it (from shareholders). And your comment on the board size is to me valid, unless there is something to warrant it; the current operation doesn't, so i hope your suggestion re M&A is prescient.

i do think accumulate posts negative/positive on boards like this (especially low volume stocks) can disproportionately impact the SP - i for one reading this thread often check myself and think, have i made the right investment. I think there is much value in both positive/negative comments where they include info that adds/check one's own viewpoint; where the posts are more to do with personalities than the Company, they lose such value.

I actually quite like slow and boring, steady as she goes companies and i think many investors/followers of WEN are more disenfranchised because its not a swift "5 bagger" etc etc rather than the Company failing; failing to meet exaggerated expectations maybe, but failing no. Neither do i think it's dynamic, i do think it should crack on and develop/acquire/merge assets to extend beyond the 7/8 depletion highlighted here; and whilst your point about running the well dry by paying out divis over that period will merely result in the SP reducing 50% is fair comment, i find that quite reassuring, as to my mind that means without notable progress, the combination of those divis (covered by earnings) and the cash at hand (returned at shutdown) would equal the value of my investment, hence my view that there is no downside and only (possible) upside; i'm a patient guy and i like those odds.

The CEO is corporate competent rather than dynamic/entrepreneurial.

I'm no fan of debt, and don't understand why so many gas/oil companies that are throwing off cash routinely revolve such, and like the cash pile here; beyond showing fiscal constraint/solidity i believe it also gives headwind to plan long term rather than be beholden to wildly fluctuating commodity prices.

That said, it's excessive and they could easily return £10 mill as a special dividend with the current/lifespan production cashflows easily sufficient for current operations.

I do wonder noting the top heavy mgmt team, whether this cash is for M&A either to purchase/diversify debt free or as collateral to garner preferential rates for a debt raise for a substantial purchase. It's current existance has no purpose/reason.

Anyone got any views why this has been slowly but surely creeping up in the last couple of months? Can't see any news to validate the rise.

hopalong; agree with the one asset thing.......you wouldn't have one company in your pension/investment portfolio, so not sure how it works here.

Surely you take the cash throw off and use to diversify your opportunity/risk - its what i do with my pension portfolio, and I'm just a man that serves tea and coffee for a living...if i can see it, you can see it........

jamesgardeneriti: - "i was not suggesting First were dynamic".......nor was i!

As for a possible aid, not sure it would help with drivers, as the goahead/first area crossover isn't significant

hamesgardeniti: yes you could have a point there. Not on the basis that FGP are 'dynamic', just that relative to their sector, they look boringly 'competent'. So if you want a play in the sector, they look attractive as the best of the worst...

pyeuk; good question!

per my previous posts, i think, the mgmt contracts on rail (no capital risk only KPI achievement related upside payments, removed ringfenced franchise bonds), mean this has become an 'infrastructure' play, where it's low but predictable/consistent margin are attractive to pension funds/ii's.

The govt trajectory (environmental) supports this - and i note in the recent update they state they are performing well on these KPI's.

nice (and correct) comment MillerJackson.

salmon; i too thank canetoad for his observations; i like the positivity in your comment, but i don't agree with it - and i say that as someone that has felt Ince has long been undervalued.

As for suggesting they wouldn't have agreed to take over Arden if they were struggling, whilst i think Arden itself is a good (also undervalued) company, i think INCE wanted to not for the growth, but for the cash on their balance, to pump up their own lack of progress. And INCE has history having previously 'merged/tookover' because the books weren't good.

As for being a legal firm that will well know how to navigate these technicalities, i would suggest, that if they were so good on the legal front, they would have foreseen/avoided this farce earlier.

I have been a strong and long believer that this was undervalued, but when the last progress report came out, i posted here that i felt this was an old style 'partners' club dressed up in the probity of a stock listing, syphoning out profits as fees so profits shareholders never see.. Subsequent events have only reinforced this view.

I hope your right and i'm wrong. but frankly i've written my investment here off, as they will take it private, devalue, and phoenix again, to keep taking their fees, shareholders funds, and the ****.

longterminvestor; ordinarily i would agree - high yield suggests concern at business model/profits/sustainability, but i disagree totally on DEC, because i think there is a different dynamic here - namely it is seen as dirty oil, not green, not flavour of the month/year ESG, and it is that this is causing it to be unloved by ESG proclaiming pension funds, large institutional mainstream investors etc.

Personally i am so green in my lifestyle (get yourself an Ecoegg for your washing for Christmas), but i'm not green washed, by hippies or ESG proclaiming hypocritical headline grabbig big investors; i think their business model IS sustainable for 10 years (the minimum needed for greener energy to bridge the gap in energy need, in which time the dividends have repaid your investment and one is enjoying a free ride.

I think the Bloomberg piece was a boon for DEC - it's (correct) raising of environmental concerns raised awareness to a wider pool of investors, and i DO think it raised DEC's attitude to the issue; in that i think the response was, frankly, brilliant.

'we are required to do 5, we do 6 and tomorrow we will do 7'. And yes we could say (as Bloomberg highlighted), this is a business where leakage is damaging the environment and in these ESG/wanting to be greener times; DEC can argue - i do, that whilst they are not green, they are dirty oil, if it wasn't them, it would be even dirtier oil. In that grey area, i believe there is opportunity AND sustainability of business model/profit/dividends.

the high dividend yield isn't so much a red flag that you intimate - just look at the generally low yielding US, contrasted by the pipeline companies, at least 5 majority part owned by oil majors that yield over 10%. Within the dirty oil/ESG dynamic, there are sustainable yield profit opportunities (for at least 10 years). I'm happy to ignore the fashion, follow the immediate energy need, feel guilty on my dirty profits, whilst countenance that by saving 20 plastic bottles and their chemical contents a year; balance is what is required. My balance is that DEC is (the needed) better than the alternative. And in that, i feel they are dynamic

Did anyone else read the detail of the 'Bonus pool' announcement of 22/11? And more specifically the one of bonus payments not mentioned in the title but tucked at the bottom of the announcement?

Am i the only one thinking both the bonus pool and the one off bonus payments are disproportionate and extortionate?

gavster: you are not alone - ive been here for 2 years now! Pros are the dividend yield which has been consistent, and predictable; the con is, this isn't really a share popular with private investors, trade regularity can be sparse, and the spread has to be factored in on buying/selling. Because of those 2 factors, it's not a profit from trading type of share - it is definitely a hold for the long term take the dividends kind of share - to example this, my original investment has lost 10% of it's purchase cost in 2 years, but i have received 13% each year; i took the view, because the share doesn't really move/is hard to trade, that the first year covered the headline loss, and here on in i'm earning 13%.

I don't think the huge discount to NAV is because it invests/profits in debt, (see BGLF which is in similar territory but at a lesser discount) i just think small (and even professional) investors don't understand what it does so are wary. I'll be honest, i don't totally, the complexity of their instruments, but i'd boil it down to this - they borrow money at 5% and lend it at 8% and the difference is the divi. The risk is that the underlying borrower defaults, but their excellent factsheets, detail the spread of loans, and the considered debt risk rating attributed to them; this mix withstood the covid drop, without default.

The company seems well run, and risk averse in a risky sphere, with no obvious syphoning out (excessive mgmt costs/freebie share options etc). I'm a big fan, though i don't see the share price moving at all really in 5 years (so if it's capital gains i don't think this is the share), i do see it reliably paying that divi for 5 years. I do often think what will be the catalyst to grow the share price/reduce the NAV discount, and one of the reports alludes to their awareness of that. i think that (crazy i know!), an increased divi or special divi could be that catalyst - and whilst they are company dealing/profiting from debt, they actually have cash in the bank to do so.

I do note the VERY large trades that went through to day; there are often chunky £50k buy/sells, but in my 2 years here, those today were not representative, and for me, definitely stand out. Hope this helps - views mine

darkaches; agree. The large controlling stake will prevent a takeover, as it would have to be a blockbuster price for them to sell up. They are not going to give up a cash cow lightly...

itsalottery; great header, "not a hare"! However, like the tortoise, it's a winner. File under the boring and forget, only remembering when the exciting divis keep flowing....i know some are concerned that it is not growing market share - frankly whilst they keep paying sustainable 8%+ divis they can stagnate and be boring forever. There are only 3 ways for this share, in a growing economy; stagnation, growth or being taken out. All 3 are amiable to me, albeit i prefer the first.

astrol; i couldn't agree with you more. It's fair comment, and helpful to inform the debate, investors understanding, but if you are so so concerned about it's way of working just sell and move on.

For me, nothing materially has changed here. As someone astutely put it earlier, the cash flow generated dividends will pay your purchase price and more eben if nothing is done and resource is depleted. Any actions beyond nothing can only be a bonus.

pers; as for the directors stating they won't be selling, i think that's a positive...indicative that they see gravy coming down the line. If anyone is in a position to know where FGP is heading its them, not you or I.

As for being one sided, from a post not far down - " [albeit i dont think the mgmt have the skillset to do themselves whilst enjoying the gravy train]". I've no tunnel vision - all the puns intended!

retired banker; i agree with every iota of your post. I found it interesting there wasn't a single post on the Arden BB!

As a INCE holder, i actually bought Arden today, having done the sums and seeing it as a (cheaper) way to add to INCE.

My view on Ince has changed on this deal, today; i am a contrarian investor, and will hold for the long term; but on top of my previous concerns partners seeing profit and not shareholders, with this acquisition, its looking more like an Enron, buying growth to deflect the lack of it, whilst syphoning 'awards' out the side.

Consequentialy, i've gone from a long term hold viewpoint to a trading sell out of it. To answer your question, and if you are not a nervous type, i'd hold your Arden into Ince, as it gyrates wildly, and not withstanding it's questionable 'progress', you WILL get an out higher than if you sold your Arden now - and you'll get it before Christmas. Ho, ho, ho.

pers; I don't have any dislike for the 'free' 41p offer, only a dislike to the perception it is free - it's not. it's merely part of the value/assets reflected in the SP. As for the commitment to shareholders, one could argue they have delivered; the 41p statement didn't say it was a return of 41p, but a return of value of £500 million - ("The Board intends to increase the proposed return of value to shareholders to £500m (equivalent to c.41p per share) from £365m."). The 'return' is in the share price, which is considerably higher than it was pre sale announcement(s). I agree that you can't blame any investor for buying (more) shares thinking they are on a winner (i added to pre announcement shares), but if it looks too good to be true it usually is, and i've no stock for people crying foul because they didn't look under the bonnet before driving their buys through. You call that good financial practice, i call that gambling, when one selectively focuses on the bit they want showing scant disregard to related factors.
" Yes I was interested in the business thats why I had shares to start with"; great. So if you've bought post sale announcement, youve made a few quid, pre owned maybe are clawing back losses, either way that 'commitment' has fortunesd you. I owed shares prior to the initial announcement, purchased and sold further throughtout the last 6 months, and still own shares, albeit it a residual amount as i sold today. I sold today, because many i bought were on the back of the 30p announcement. At the time that equated to about 40% of the prevelant SP, and i took the decision, AT PURCHASE, based on experience of previous 'cash returns/special divis' etc, that ultimately the SP would rise into the date, and drop back by an amount equal/greater than the return/divi, and set a 20% increase on purchase.

I don't defend/champion FGP blindly, indeed at all. I think the 'return' has been cack handed, but with a mind to avoiding 'bumper payout' headlines from unions/politicians. The fact that you/many are asking, wheres the 41p suggests they have acheived that. I merely questioning the surprise. To give a recent example, Tesco on the sale of their Asian business returned a special dividend to shareholders, in February. The share price has yet to recover to the pre payment SP 8 months later. (i own TSCO shares). Because, as with FGP, that return was within the SP at the point of payment. Anyone surprised/disappointed only has themselves to look to, for not understanding the politics inherent in this share, the mechanics of shares rising into a payout/dividend then dropping by a concomitant amount, and the cackhanded corporate mgmt inherent here. I have no flag for FGP, i'm just questioning disappointment naivety.