Member Info for damofarl

i've never been a fan of buybacks. if you dont have an investment case for deploying free cash to create more profits, its a lazy way to look better. a mirage. if you have excess capital return it to shareholders. a dividend yielder covered easily by cash draws in more investors, drives the virtous circle. Buybacks inevitably just drive 'performance' share options.

I don't think there is anything behind the scenes that caused Tuesdays rise. This share drops like a rock then climbs like a firework, in days, and days apart. It always seems out of kilter with similar oil stocks, always seems out of kilter with the oil price. Thats been my observation in the last 2 years since i first bought. But whilst i do see their is governmental/political uncertainty, and they don't seem on good terms, i have always believed in the opportunity (for profits).

The drop was overdone, i also think, without diversifying, the opportunity is overstated. I do wish they would use the cashflow to diversify their income. I'm quite positive of the management and their skillset, and frankly even if the KRG keep playing their games (moving payment out a week every month so their will only be 11 payments for the year), depending on your entry point, you will still make money - i just think its not the 4 baggers that are rare, of dreamers. If you forget the gyrations, this will pay more than money in the bank, irrespective of the KRG

Cainetoad: i hope your right totally, and i'm slightly wrong! I think the idea of the company is superb, and if it works, agree, massively undervalued. I don't see a single broker as its main problem, indeed, don't see it as a problem at all. I've never took more than cursory glance at number/recommendations of brokers. I believe if your proposition/profits/probity are valid, people wil see the value irrespective of the presence or lack of brokers. Without searching out an example, off the top of my head, i dont believe (but happy to be corrected!) that STCM which i am also invested in, doesn't have a single broker, but you can see its proposition, you can see its profits, and you can see its distributions to shareholders.

That said, i do think they could be more proactive, more informative, and more positive in RNS's.

I too think it will make a fantastic amount of money; i only differ in whether that will end up with shareholders.....

pyuek; spot on.

daimler; spot on that; particularly with regard to the top heavy management - you didn't mention the duplication, particularly in their rail franchisees. This is predominantly because of the structure of the rail franchising system, which requires that each franchise is run at arms length - which means each of GWR, Avanti and Transpennine ALL have their own chief executive, chief financial officer, HR departements, recruitment departments etc. Whilst the contracts restrict their ability to centralise, garner economies of scale, i do think they could do more; on a more positive note, the 2 franchises in my area they run are at near pre pandemic levels. I can't speak for the buses, but train wise, the new govt contracts have reduced all the risk, and only left upside; the new franchise Avanti (previously Virgin/Stagecoach), made £50 million in the last year of its previous franchisee, who was adept at 'financial engineering', so i don't think the target meeting performance potential of this franchise is currently factored into the FGP price.

andy144; spot on that to my mind

oldtramp; thanks for the argus link; very interesting.

ghhgdd; thanks for that link - "it's more of a revenue share that partners are given in lieu of pay"; i get your point, but that doesn't change mine, on the simple basis that revenue isn't profit.

For simplicity let's say Partner A brings in £1 million of business and his revenue share is 20% and profit margin is 25%; that's a lot of business and a lot of profit - but not after the Partners revenue share; crumbs are left to placate shareholders.
There is a lot of water between the 2 that can be muddied in the Partners' favour.

contrarian; agree with your observation, which i find a little worrying; was attracted to this initially because i thought there was value in their way of bringing in partners to broaden expertise, be a one stop centre of excellence, gain mandates whilst gaining economies of scale. Didn't expect an quick fireworks, just a steady and sure building of business, hence profits (ergo dividends). They seem to be building the partners, but that doesn't seem to be translating into noticeably rising mandates, income, profit. And i'm a bit nervous as to why, a nervousness which is centred on whether this is basically an old style partners club, which instead of sharing profits to ALL shareholders, is paying it to 'partners' through salary/bonuses, and merely utilising the stock market listing for credibility, which mean if income does catapult upwards on the growth in partners and areas of expertise, shareholders will never reap that uplift.

not inpatient, but quite disappointed as progress seems lack lustre, not steady and sure.

I'm no fan at all of short sellers. to take serious someone with less than 1% doesn't generallyu suggest to me conviction. And ordinarily i would dismiss the noise, the ebb and flow, and carry on.

Hiowever, i've held this share for about 2 years, beieving in its modus operandi, not only for my pension, but for society, and having read 'the letter', i have to say they have a point.

I was already aware of the housing regulators dissent that CSH 'rebuffed' on the technicality that the housing association wasn't big enough to come under formal action, a rebuff in which CSH didn't mention thier ownership of said dissenter.

The issue that rents aren't 100% covered is bull****, they are; they suggestion they are vulnerable to govt policy is fluff (policy will only change to support). The issue on deals outwith CSH that benefitted the bods privately isn't fluff.

It DOES raise questions over compliance with regulation both housing association and REIT rules wise, that i believe are both valid, and worrying. worrying in that in the lack of transparency, what else hasn't been disclosed, what else is being siphoned away from shareholders.

Personally, as someone who was homeless, i invested because i know the value of secure 'social' housing, and thought i saw a company that was profiting from providing better quality secure tenure homes, rather than just profiting from selling them. I can't tell you my disappointment that rather than being a company setup to make a profit by doing good (or at least not bad) for society, that is set up as a laundering operation for a few, that would never need, or appreciate their stated purpose of operation and profit. The idea was great for investors, great for society - a win win for all. They had to taint it with greed.

just a quick note to say how refreshing this board is. Notable both for the questions and the supportive/educating/detailed answers, and the lack of irrelevant chitter chatter about one's Portuguese villa, ramping/deramping and vitriol towards others who may have different views.

Personally i invest from an unemotional, predominantly contrarian approach; yes, i might spot an oppurtunistic quick buck, but generally i'm a buy and hold, forget the ebb and flow investor. I don't care if the company is a Mongolese pipe manufacturer, or a Turkish garment company - i look at the numbers and disregard noise; i invested in DOG about a year ago, not quite believing the numbers - how good they were, compared to what the 'market' was saying. Yes, i chase dividends, and i chase value - when, as i believe is the case here, you find both in the same company, you've found a rare beast indeed. The thing that strikes me most about this company, is their buy, integrate, buy, integrate modus operandi in a measured cash flow/debt cost covered manner, and in a value enhancing never rushed, deal for a deal's sake manner. The hedging supports that steady but sure building of an empire, ensuring long term profits rather than chasing quick bucks, albeit i do think they hedge too much too soon. I'd like to see better analysis/focus/balance by DOG on this. Fix the minimum amount at the minimum price to cover costs/dividends, and roll the dice on the rest.

Keep up the great posts chaps and chappesses. I REALLY appreciate them.

yes rover it will. But i think the question really should be, will it rise 17p from now before ex divi. I think it will. Once the divi hits the div searcher websites, which it doesn't seem to have yet, divvi traders will look at it an push it up, and others longer termers will look at GKP that hadn't before, thinking the to be received/recent divvis, balance/support the risk of 'governance' of being invested. so £215 for divi day, £1.95 after. My view, if you buy today, there's 8% be had either way.

Really pleased with these results. Unexciting, unspectacular whilst solid. My view is that is not a x5 burner that the spivs love, but a solid bedrock within one's portfolio, for the holding, which will grow in both share price appreciation and dividend slowly, surely but CRUCIALLY consistently. This is not a high margin business, but with contract constraint will grow profits on the back of reputation for delivery and stability, which amongst the littered gutter of failed construction/infrastructure companies is crucial. Many, including myself, question the cash balance greater than market value, and seemingly growing, but such reserves/financial strength actually helps position them to procure contracts. The question for me is, at what point, do those cash balances, for a business showing contract bidding constraint, and an excellent forward looking order book translate in an increased dividend/special dividend return of cash, or a private equity takeover on the basis of winding down/completing contracts and pocketing the difference. One of those 2 will happen, as there has to be an inflection point if that cash balance maibntains/increases.

loofer - thoughtful post. I think a £1 would be the price; and i do think whether they hold in treasury or cancel is of importance.

pyueck - i do think itll be that sort of premium, which in the scale of long term holders isnt really a premium (!); if as you suggest everyone sold and then rebought, one could argue that the company had returned the money in an efficient way surely?

tomjerry - i think itll be a £1, and agree most PI's will take. I also agree that institutions will hold, but not for the reason you state. they will hold, because they see more coming down the line for a beaten up company that is now in a sweet spot of government desire to green us all. I don't think for a minute this will get taken out, because unlike say water, where the govt (controls) regulates service/price levels, without any financial input, but within doing such provides a long term fixed price framework that is attractive for institutional investors, the new management contracts of their rail franchises doesn't provide such guarentee/certainty over a 5 or 10 year time frame, certainty of earnings. because water is not discretionary, rail travel is (don't travel/ coach/car/fly).

Generally - as someone who doesn't drive, i have noticed the near normalising of public transport usage in the last couple of weeks. Today, my local train was at near normal (read overcrowded) and the Avanti west coast service was as busy as pre covid; my local buses are similarly as busy as pre covid. I don't know/understand the bus operations, but i can speak on the rail franchises. The rolling out, under the Great British Railways Shapps plan, of management contracts has a crucial impact on First. Whist potential it caps/limits profits, basically paying a mgmt fee with a potenital upside (profit lift) for reaching customer service/delivery KPI's, it also removes the risk. The astute amongst you (or just those with nothing better to do!) will have noticed in the accounts, that the return of capital, is intended to be increased, to reflect lower (already accounted) contingencies for service level failures/failures to meet franchise commitments. To put this into context, (pre current mgmt contract regime) each of the franchisees required a RINGFENCED 'bond' to cover the franchise length, bonds that across all First train franchises is pretty much equal to its current market value. potentially the mgmt contracts whilst limiting upside, also reduce the amount of dead money held against these franchises going forward. Also, the new HS2/Avanti franchise, despite reports in the height of covid of only 20% usual customers, they declared a £13 million profit for this covid year. In the last year of the previous franchisee, Virgin declared a £50 million profit. well, to my mind, in an industry where there is high fixed costs (every additional sale feeds through to the bottom line), to declare such a profit on such low customer numbers is quite astounding. This will fly.

canetoad - looking at those results, a snorkel rather than an airship definitely seems the order of the day. Uninspiring, unexciting. This has to be one for the ultra patient. Which I am, but even im wondering which will come first - the airship or the coffin!

Hi Rogue, just watched your youtube bit.....good info on the suspension in Madagascar - well tracked down. I think small investors really should consider your comments regarding both how the rights were awarded, how potential land owners weren't consulted, and the road through a sensitive area. I think it will illuminate whether one should buy/hold/sell.

I do think that whilst, on the face of it, that would make progression there highly unlikely, the very reasons why it might not progress, are also the very reasons why it could. if BASE do the right thing. if they share the wealth it could generate, involve local landowners, build infrastructure not just for the extraction (of profits) but for the benefits of the local inhabitants/economy, build a road out a longer less direct, but less impactful on the environment route, they could take concerns, objections and make them into opportunities. by investing in the locals, they mat reduce the rights lifetime profits from 500 mill to 300 mill, but surely 300 mill is worth giving up 200 mill for?

to my mind, if you discount, i.e. write off Madagascar, the profits (dividends), over the remaining 3 years of Kwale plus the cash in hand are equal to its current valuation. So to me, if your not trying to turn a quick buck, at worst, you will break even, with the 'free' possibility of a Madagascan windfall. I make that low risk overall.

paultheman/jaffajimo: paul - yes there is tie in periods to both BAYE and SAYE, but these relate to the tax benefits/eligibility (i.e. tax free/potentially discounted) of buying as an employee; the SAYE as you say, you have to hold for the minimum period and then make an election, choose either the accrued cash or the shares at the predetermined price; I made the presumption (possibly wrongly) that jaffajimo was a long term employee so had previous years that had reached the 5 year (or whatever First Groups requirement is) and had 'vested' (choose) to take the shares - i.e. if you have been in the SAYE for 7 years, you would have 2 years worth of shares you had made a choice on- which would receive the dividend. The 5 years worth, waiting to 'vest' aren't. The BAYE ARE eligble from the month they are bought - they just need to remain held (unsold) by you to maintain the tax free benefit you receive.

Jaffajimo; your buy as you earn (BAYE) and save as you earn (SAYE) schemes work in slightly different ways; one BAYE accrues (buys) , month by month with your salary sacrifice contributions, so all of these monthly contributions, upto whatever First Group deem as the 'eligible' date, will be eligible for the dividend; the other scheme SAYE normally gives you the option to take the cash or buy shares at a predetermined price, normally on a 5 year basis. All contributions under SAYE that you have previously elected to buy shares with will also be eligble, but those that you have option for on this year may not depending on when your annual (take as cash or buy shares) decision day is. Hope this helps. Stay safe.