Member Info for Fincent

Sheffieldowls, my shares are held in my ISA so CGT is not a problem for me. That may be the same for the others who have commented.

I wish I was rich enough to have money invested outside my ISA...!

I know from your previous posts that your vote will move the needle more than mine but it all adds up :)

Lordloadsoflolly, I completely understand your point of view and it may be one the institutions share.

My point was that I am a long term investor in the company which seems to be very well run, has paid me well so far, and has grown its share price even without the bid.

We have just had the results presentation telling us how well the business is doing and a plan to open more shops this year. They appeared to be upbeat about the future progress for the company despite an uncertain economic outlook, and the annual growth rate for the company so far is impressive.

The board was keen to tell us that the market was undervaluing our shares, but as soon as someone offers 30% more now, they recommend we sell. How much of the bid reflects the "undervalue" and how much the growth prospects? Clearly first Cash think this is a profitable transaction at this price.

If you are in this company to make a fast profit and move on, that's fine. But if you think the company has considerable room to grow, as I do, then I would rather hold for the long term even if the share price drops back to its pre-bid level or below to start with.

If I am to be persuaded to sell now, the price has got to be better than this.

As to the institutions holding most of the shares, mine are held by an institution, Hargreaves Lansdown, but I am able to vote them as I wish.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I've owned shares in this company since Simon Thompson (in Investors Chronicle) brought it to my attention in 2022.

since then I've had a quarter of my investment back in dividends, and I'm now sitting on a paper profit of 224% on my purchase price.

My opinion is that it is a very well run company which has great growth prospects. I had intended to keep it for the very long term because I expect it to grow its share price and dividends over time, and I think the business is protected to a reasonable degree from recession because of its pawnbroking business. However I acknowledge that the recent growth is largely driven by the increase in the gold price.

At present the business is very profitable and growing through store expansion. If the gold price drops, the profits will fall. Equally if there is recession, I would expect the jewellery and money exchange profits to suffer too. To some extent this should be offset by opening new stores and an increase in pawnbroking. I assume this is also part of the thinking First Cash are applying in making the takeover bid. I ask myself why I should allow them to have the future benefit rather than me?

If First Cash were prepared to take over H&T on a multiple of 10 before the gold price surge, why do the board of RFX think a multiple of 6 is appropriate for their company now? The answer is, in my opinion, not clear from the board announcement recommending the bid. I can only guess it may be because: They know this is the final bid First Cash are going to make because I think there have been 3 previous approaches/offers and there are no other potential bidders; management want to leave the business; they realise that the profits are currently in a huge bubble and the business would worth considerably less if it depended solely or mainly on pawnbroking; and I'm sure there are many other possibilities to.

I'm inclined to reject the bid and expect to benefit from the long-term growth in the company, but I may be wrong. I can see the attraction of a quick profit for some, but this is a company, it appears, owned 88% by individual investors rather than institutions and it may be that many have the same views as me about the long term future of the business.

Just my thoughts...

Repression, it seems you were right. well done!

Wow! What a reaction to an operational update. Not sure what the selling investors were expecting - a huge dividend increase perhaps?

As far as I can see the company is taking the opportunity to invest for the future whilst the gold price is high. It's been an extremely well managed company whilst I've held these shares and intend to hold for the long term.

Yes, it was that frustration that prompted me to ask the question.

I don't see why we have to wait so long to receive what the Company has decided it can easily afford to pay.

Equally, the currency movements don't help this time round.

Can anyone explain to me why this share has such a long delay between going ex-dividend and paying the money to shareholders?

The first payment went ex- div in February but we have to wait until July to get it.

The second payment last year went ex-dividend in August but wasn't payable until November and I assume the same will happen this year.

Lookiloo,

Thanks for the explanation. It improves my knowledge of the steel making industry.

However, your original statement would appear to have overstated the position,. On your explanation, Whitehaven "may" have been able to supply the Sc**thorpe plant rather than "would not".

Lookiloo:

"and no, the coal mine proposal labour stopped would have not been able to supply s****horpe steel plane."

According to my Google research, the proposed Whitehaven mine in Cumbria was forecast to produce 1.78million tons of coking coal a year capable of supplying the UK steel making industry until 2049. So why could it not provide coking coal to the S**nthorpe Steel plant?

Marab, your average share price does not matter, it depends on what you paid for the shares against what you sold them for.

If you bought 100 shares at £1 each and sold them for £2 each you would have made a profit of £200 - £100 = £100.

If you bought 100 shares at £1 each, 100 shares at £2 each and 100 shares at £3 each and sold them all at once for £4 each you would have made a profit £1200 - (£100 + £200 + £300 =£600) = £600.

Similarly, in the above example if you'd bought the second 100 shares for £8 instead of £2 and sold the lot for £4 each you would have made neither a profit nor a loss: £1200 - (£100 + £800 + £300 = £1200) = £0.

Hope this helps.

Grizzle, in a word: No.

The Supreme Court has given Close Brothers permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. This means that the Supreme Court will now hear legal arguments about whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct. The arguments are based on an agreed set of facts. Its now all about the application and interpretation of the law relating to those facts. Who knows what the Supreme Court will decide.

Whilst there is a legal saying "Buyer beware", this has been hugely modified by the Consumer Credit Acts and subsequent legislation. Oversimply, those Acts basically say that unless a Finance company complies with every part of the legislation, it cannot enforce its loan agreement.

This is a Civil case where the court is deciding who is correct in a dispute between two parties and, depending on the outcome, what the remedy (compensation) should be. A conviction occurs in a Criminal case where the State says someone has broken the law and should be punished.

I hope this helps.

Microdasys, Damienmoore's response may well explain why the share price is so disconnected from the current NAV. To that could possibly be added a realisation that the green agenda as currently postulated is not achievable. You will have to decide for yourself whether those factors will drag the share price lower or whether most things are priced in for now. If you are interested, there was a recent shareholder presentation on Investormeet which provides some information on life of assets, reductions in subsidies, the failed investment, and further company investment commitments. Who knows what this investment will look like in 5 years time?

Microdasys, I think the short answer to your question is no, but I may be wrong. There is a term in the companies articles of association which says that if the share price discount to net asset value exceeds a certain percentage (I think I recall 20%) for a certain period of time then there needs to be a continuation vote at the next AGM. We have just had one of those, and the shareholders voted overwhelmingly for the company to continue as it is. What they company are doing at the moment is paying down debt and buying back shares in the market whilst continuing to pay a very healthy dividend in the hope of reducing the discount to NAV in the future. I suppose management could eventually "give up" and propose the company be wound up but I can't see that happening for some time. If they did, we shareholders could expect to get back more than the current value of the shares...

I don't suppose management read messages on this board but, if I was going to make a product available globallly, I would first want to ensure that the website for it was fit for purpose.

Having seen today's RNS, I thought I'd take a look at the Oddsen.nu website. It looks like it was designed when the internet first became a thing. It looks amateurish, tired, and not user friendly. Why is there not a front page proclaiming clearly what it does (and correctly spelled (see "are" instead of "era") with appropriate links to region specific and sport specific content for example.

As it stands, I can't see this website being a great organic growth story. I hope I'm wrong.

Could it be that this royalty company does not pay a dividend?

I own some of these, some Ecora shares, and some Duke shares.

Ecora are at a large discount to NAV but pay a dividend, their share price is now going up - shareholders buying in now are being paid to hold them and making a gain as the NAV closes.

Whilst not in the commodities royalty sector, Duke paid a dividend from the start. Their CEO explained at an early stage that he did not feel the company's growth would be held back by returning some of the trading cash to shareholders. That seems to have held true and shareholders have been rewarded for their investment from the beginning. Despite the rise in interest rates the share price has held up well and the dividend now provides a pretty good yield.

Both these other companies provide possible examples of why a dividend could be important to the share price of a royalty company. Trident only promises a dividend in the future.

It would be very nice if you were right, but if you research why the deal never happened you may decide that Draftkings won't comeback at all.

From what I read and remember from the time (2021), Draftkings approached Entain about a takeover but never made a formal offer. Press sources suggested that the Entain board were unhappy at the very large Draftkings share content to the proposed offer (rather than cash) particularly because Draftkings had reported huge losses. When Draftkings withdrew and said they were not going to make a formal offer, they would not say why they had withdrawn. The reasons for the withdrawal speculated in the press were the largely share based nature of any offer AND, more importantly, that as MGM had a 50% stake in the BetMGM operation which was an exclusive agreement between them and Entain, MGM had to consent to any takeover of Entain and they were unlikely to consent if a major rival was involved. [Source: Global Brands magazine to refresh my memory].

If this latter piece of information is correct, it will be very difficult for any large betting company other than MGM to take over Entain and get involved in the joint BetMGM operation. This, of course still leaves it open to MGM to make a further bid for Entain (which they previously tried for double the current market cap of Entain).

Having just watched today's investors' presentation on Investor Meet, I was hugely impressed by the CEO of Form3, Mike Walters, and impressed by Paul Taylor, the CEO of Thought Machine. If that is the standard of CEO of the companies which Molten Ventures invest in, there is a real chance my investment in GROW will be succesful. (I was less taken with Teo Blidarus, the CEO of Thought Machine largely because he did not explain what his product did in a way I could understand - no doubt his company will be the most succesful...).

Kenj,

My use of the word "gross" in my post was loose. I actually asked HL about them dealing with the double taxation issue with Link. the reply I got was as posted.

This was the reply I got from Hargreaves Lansdown when I asked about getting the dividend paid gross:

"Thank you for contacting Hargreaves Lansdown. Please accept my apologies for the late reply.

The South African tax authorities do not recognise the ISA as a tax wrapper so any dividends paid by South African companies would be paid net of 20% withholding tax (tax would be deducted by the registrar before it was received by our agent).

To reduce rates of with-holding tax Hargreaves Lansdown must declare that all holders of Pan-African shares in our nominee holding are eligible for treaty rates.

Unfortunately, we cannot do this, as we have a number of holders of the Pan African Resources stock within our nominee accounts who are not currently resident in countries which have the required Double Taxation Agreement in place.

However, you can file a claim with the South African tax authorities directly as the beneficial owner of the shares. To support your claim, we can send you a tax voucher and a letter confirming you are the beneficial owner of Pan-African shares. Please be aware that we have never dealt with the South African tax authorities and therefore cannot guarantee a reclaim would be successful.

If you should have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me."

No mention of contacting Link...

Rich, it may well be that many of the small "sells" at 192p were in fact buys. Mine was a buy for exactly the reasons you say. At the time the broker quoted sell price was 185p.