Member Info for greygeorge

'...They should not have four quarters of dividend cash at hand to give a quarter of out in a lump sum...'

Ok, I can agree with that. But tell me, why buy for, say six (trading) days, then pause for three days, then buy again for one day, pause for seven days, etc. if they're not living day by day, cash-wise ?

'...On the shifts, yep, we have seen shifts up and down that would stop it. It doesnt' take as much as you might think. Flat and then two days of +/-3% will stop the buy backs for a day....'

Pickedpeck, this is EXACTLY why they stipulate '...5% over the average market value of the Shares for the five Business Days immediately preceding the date on which the Company agrees to buy the Shares concerned', based on the share price published in the Daily Official List of the London Stock Exchange plc... It's a FIVE DAY AVERAGE, not a one or two day average.

Did you once claim to have ben a futures trader ?

Pickedpeck, I'm definitely NOT agreeing with you on cashflow. I'm saying they're struggling for cash. You're saying - what - they just bought too many too early into the program ? The share price was higher than they expected, so they spent all their cash early on ? If they were going to stagger their buyback program, as you're contending, then they would have stated that the program would be divided into quarters, or whatever periods they chose, as the IMB (or may have been BATS, or possibly both) buyback RNS clearly stated, their buyback program would be completed in two (?) tranches. They made it clear from the start, and at the end of the first tranche and beginning of the second, exactly what their schedule would be.

Also, pickedpeck, '...We have seen more than 5% shifts up and down in the last couple of weeks which inevitably pause the BB program. Its a tight set of boundaries and I am not sure why its there or what it is meant to achieve...'

Can you show me any 5 day period over the past month where the share price has been '5% over the average market value of the Shares for the five Business Days immediately preceding the date on which the Company agrees to buy the Shares concerned', based on the share price published in the Daily Official List of the London Stock Exchange plc ?

On a cursory glance, I can only see one day (29 April) where the share price exceeded 5% of it's previous 5 day trading range. (1076p - 1160p) since 12 April.

'...The company uses its post-tax distributable reserves to pay for the purchase of its own shares.

If the company doesn’t have sufficient cash available, it cannot proceed with the buyback....'

It looks like DEC is living almost week by week, at best, on free cash flow.

'...Surely if they have given irrevocable authority then they must have handed over the cash at the time too, its not like PH are going to be buying on credit....'

You've answered your own question there, pickedpeck. No company (not even IMB or BATS or SPT, as a few examples of 'kosher' buybacks by reputable companies) has, for example, 10% of it's market cap in 'free cash' that it can hand over at the beginning of a buyback program. BUT it does have to remit enough cash to cover purchases that are to be made in the next day, week, month or whatever period they have cash to cover. Take a look at BATS, you won't see how much cash the broker has received from the company in advance, but you will see regular, structured buybacks on every single day the market is open. Compare that to the DEC piecemeal approach. BATS (and IMB and Spirent, even when Spirent had issued a trading statement reporting much reduced profits and poor outlook that led to a halving of their share price that they still had enough cash on hand to finance their buyback program) has cash, DEC doesn't.

Pickedpeck, these are standard terms and conditions. Once the buyback starts, the company has no say in how the broker carries out the buyback program, (hence significant market moves + or -, price limits, and of course IF the buyback target is achieved before target date). Assuming there's no news that would affect the share price, the company must maintain a hands off relationship with the broker. The only reason for a broker NOT carrying out the buyback per the agreement is a lack of funds forthcoming from the company.

It's a shell game. Can't afford to pay the dividend, due to lack of cash. Therefore declare a share buyback, to cover up massive cut in dividend due to lack of cash. Of course, maybe DEC just aren't very good at the paperwork, or something, as you tried to comfort yourself with as a 'reasonable' excuse, lol.

'...My view is that they have signed a contract to outsource the BB to Peel Hunt and have put terms in kt that are making it misfire...'

pickedpeck, I'm surprised you don't know that the exact opposite to your guess on the mechanics of buybacks is true. In the case of buybacks, the rules are very strict, and there's no room for bespoke contractual terms and conditions between company and broker.

The obvious answer is : Companies need to lodge the cash for buybacks, no cash = no buyback. Compare to a fully funded buyback like BATS, or IMB.

DEC just doesn't have the free cashflow it claims to have.

'...It definitely seems like DEC is now absolutely following the gas spot price despite the vast majority of production and revenue being forward hedged. That means the current price is taking literally zero account of the actual profitability of the company.

I know I shouldn't be surprised when I find market stupidity, but really? You can see why so many CEOs abandon the market in favour of private equity...'

Pickedpeck, to follow on from your question to notrex which he refused to - or was incapable of - answer, if the market is so stupid, and private equity is so smart, does this mean you're a client of a private equity firm, rather than one of the stupid market mugs ?

Woo, a hashtag, lol.

'...Anyway, another great day here and elsewhere !! Long may it continue !!...'

Yep just one more great day of 4% + needed to get DEC back to where it was...just over a week ago !!!! *Giggle*

Notrex - what ?

Notex - what ? Lol.

highhotshot, '... gg, the suggestion that pwc (the auditors of dec) should be viewed in the same way as the criminals to which you allude in the cnbc article is laughable. you need medical help...'

apart from pwc being one of the two '...criminals to which you allude in the cnbc article...' , they've also proved themselves to be quite capable of acting criminally in many other cases over the past few years.

'...pwc hit with $8.9 million penalty for 'serious breaches' on bab**** audits...'

'...pwc has been fined almost £1.8m for failing to properly scrutinise the accounts of telecoms company bt after a £500m accounting fraud had been uncovered at its italian operation...'

'...pricewaterhousecoopers has received penalties totalling £5m for failures in its audit of the construction firms galliford try and kier, in the latest fines imposed on a “big four” accounting firm...'

i could go on, but highhotshot, if you think pwc is an honest broker, it's you who needs medical help, lol.

Honestly, Qlued, if you consider time wasted here as 'valuable' you should re-assess your life choices, lol. I come here when I'm bored and in need of entertainment, I used to think differently, but the past 12 months has made me realise this place is a fun place to hang out when I need a fun distraction.

Qlued, just to be clear, you stated '...Vast majority (99.x%) of Accounting Auditors are honest and truthful and comply with the accounting standards and sovereign law...'

You are100% WRONG !!!

Of the 'Top 4' accounting and audit firms ONE HUNDRED PERCENT have been found guilty of what could generously be called 'failures' to comply with accounting and audit law. Here you go :

'...In the £237 million LCF mini-bond scandal, two of Britain’s largest accountancy firms, PwC and EY, were fined by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). The FRC found that these firms committed failures when auditing LCF’s accounts.

PwC, the auditors for BHS, faced a record fine of £6.5 million.

KPMG, the auditors for Carillion, faced a fine of £14 million for misconduct related to the creation of false documents.

The tribunal which upheld the record £15 million fine against Deloitte and two of its senior partners found against them on nearly all counts and scorned their demands for clemency for “cooperation,” it emerged today.

Deloitte and former partners Richard Knights and Nigel Mercer were fined and severely reprimanded last year over their failures to act with “integrity and objectivity” over the way Autonomy allegedly aggressively accounted for sales in 2009 and 2010...'

Auditors dishonesty is a feature, not a bug. It's what they're paid big money for by companies like DEC.

Qlued, it's just the idiots and morons I have total disdain for. Posters like you, and the majority of clowns on this particular board.

But, go on, carry on, first denying the factual, then defending the indefensible. It's what qweirdoes like you excel at.

'...Greygeorge, there can be a bad apple in every large basket. You might as well mention the Enron Auditors who shredded Enron records to cover up the real Acccounts. Vast majority (99.x%) of Accounting Auditors are honest and truthful and comply with the accounting standards and sovereign law...'

Clued, still clueless. LOL. Take your tin foil hat off, Qlued. Moron.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/audit-giants-fined-over-237m-fraud-that-rocked-city/ar-BB1lXjLB

I'll see your PwC, highhotshot, and raise you an EY. Clown.

'...https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/audit-giants-fined-over-237m-fraud-that-rocked-city/ar-BB1lXjLB...'