Can't help wondering why it's taking two and a half months to produce interim results; are their accountants on a go slow or something? When I was a chief accountant a few years ago we did it in less than a month.
Having another look at the half year results bodes very well for the final dividend IMO.
Trouble is all computer systems have bad days - even the big banks on the odd occasion. From my own experience of many years I can tell you that it's because computers do nothing until a human tells them to do something and there are no perfect humans. In fact I am surprised that it doesn't happen more often considering the number of so called accidents that happen on the roads every day.
Probably because 1. Its hard to tell if recent results will be sustained. 2. Although we have now seen some divs, the yield is quite poor for such a low SP.
barchid
Just had a read as suggested. Now I do not want to pour cold water but I had much first hand experience of "systems" before I retired including watching two go badly wrong. We decided at one stage to buy a copy of SAP as it existed at that time and it was so feindishly inflexible that after three years we gave up and bought Oracle instead. The number of pitfalls which can occur was/is quite amazing to the uninitiated as I believe DLG found out when they originally tried to use IBM a few years ago. What am I saying? - If they have got it right and fully tested this time, it could make a bit of a difference but dont count yer chickens. Oh BTW I included the divs when I did my "conservative" ten year calculation.
@barchid, no worries I ignore all trolling anyway, not that you are a suspect. I know no more than you and their buy back exercise is an as yet unsolved mystery to me. They say that it is "to reduce capital" but in the overall scheme of things it seems a bit miniscule to me.
Hi Bar, As I have said to my bro more than once, this is the point at which you must learn not to panic (he does tend to do that at times). Instead stop and ask yourself two questions: 1. Why did I invest here in the first place? 2. Are the reasons still vaild? We have to remember that a lot of people in the market are incapable of thinking properly or worse still are pure gamblers and cannot think logically at all. May I gave an example: I hold LGEN which regularly pays very acceptable divs yielding presently around 6.5%. At one point last year the SP was around £1.75 which was completely bonkers vs the current £2.70. This utterly lunatic behaviour was caused by a combination of some of the lunatics who do "trading" and some of the less experienced who get into a panic. Of course within a few weeks the price returned to more normal levels and I suspect that a few individuals managed to get themselves a bargain while the lunacy prevailed.
The thing which most people miss about this outfit is that they will probably double your money in around ten years and there are not many investments that will do that without effort.
I doubt if buying back 16m shares will make much of a difference in the total of 1348m; that's about one percent by my reckoning.
Quite right Mala, they can't really be compared when JIM averages 85% ROI vs only 67% at HL. The implication is that JIM is a vastly more efficent outfit than HL but one would have to do some digging or ask board members why this should be. No matter, what it really means as we all know, is that shareholders of JIM have done consistently better than those of HL for the last few years.
The P/E ratio means very little as it can change from one day to the next irrespective of the actual performance of the business and it's future prospects. Yes I know exactly how it is calculated but so what?, it is very vague. Yield is a much better measure IMO so long as the BOD is not borrowing in order to pay big dividends as happened in the case of Carrillion.
@barchid, fair doos but as my mrs says;- "What are you going to do with the money if you sell, you can't just leave it sitting in the bank doing nothing." When I occasionally sell out, I always have somewhere in mind to profitably put the cash even if it's just to buy a new car LOL.
Hey SD235, But it is not an insurance company. It sold the insurance business nearly two years ago and today does pensions, investment management and life assurance which is not really insurance but a long term savings system.
@nuri: NAV is largely meaningless my friend, it's earning ability that really matters. I have a holding of shares with SP of £3.40 but only 15p NAV; largely meaningless because they have been paying yields around 7% for the last five years which is why I have them. DYOR.
"Bushveld Minerals is committed to delivering attractive returns to its shareholders. It applies a consistent and disciplined approach towards capital allocation to manage the Group’s growth initiatives." Best joke I have heard today.