Member Info for greyw

It's funny that everytime the trolling activity increases I take my time to check out $MATD's share price and voilà it's dumping.

Also I've observed a shift from outright deramping (thx is going to zero, thx in for a placing, thx losing money) to concern trolling (it's not hitting 50p but organized traders..., you are exit liquidity, let's see who is right). Maybe running out of deramping ammo?

I somewhat enjoy the trolling and would want to head over to $MATD myself but I know better these days.

That's a pretty neat saving scheme you have!

I didn't say it's realistic I just said it would be the ideal scenario. Then again, some companies like NVR managed to buyback shares for decades before people realized what was happening. I mean we are also looking at a ridiculously, unrealistically cheap company and its real. So weird things happen.

Either way is not too bad for us. Shares get bought back cheaply or the price moves because smarter money moves in. There is probably a bunch of bagholders from old times that need to get bought out and then the price will adjust.

Also I'm swiss so I'm biased towards buybacks as we don't have capital gains taxes so take everything I say with regards to that with a grain of salt.

buybacks ideally are done in a way that doesn't send the share price to the moon. why? simply because they are acting like investors buying shares of a cheap company you wouldn't want to buy expensive shares wouldn't you? you want buybacks to act as long as possible while the share price is in the ****ters.

imagine they would deploy say $70m for buybacks at constant prices (50% of cashflow). this would reduce sharecount by half in a year, doubling our earnings per share by virtue of doubling our shareholding in the company. a nice 100% return in year. fireworks.

Buying back shares when the company is significantly undervalued is one of the most value-enhancing capital allocation decisions a company can make.

If the company is overvalued, buybacks destroys capital. This is clearly not the case here.

Finally, you should only pay dividends if your investment opportunities don't earn at least the cost of capital. Doing dividends is an admission of the company that they can't reinvest the cash they have with satisfying returns.

These are the basic rules of capital allocations to generate the most shareholder returns. Unfortunatly, most EU investors have no clue about what buybacks do and when to use them (see e.g. TenBagTag).

So in the case of $THX, the best move would be to do away with dividends and only do buybacks until we approach fair value. This would give us insane shareholder returns. Unfortunately, in reality it's very rare for CEOs to understand that aspect well enough. I wish they would study Mark Leonard (CSU), Henry Singleton (Teledyne), John Malone (TCI) etc that understands this game of maximizing shareholder returns.

The stock dropping would be a blessing in disguise. Probably one of the last chances to load up. Imagine thinking a company that earns $160m on a $170m market cap no debt has bad fundamentals. Just shows that you have no clue about valuating companies.

I hope use your brain when evaluating your $MATD. Fundamentals always win out in the end. Best of luck. (Though it would be way funnier if $MATD went to 0)

I want to see the company break even in FY2025 as leadership promised last year.

We are talking about the TSX and you quote LSE AIM prices. I'm not surprised you are losing money on $MATD with that level of intelligence you are displaying.

Looks like we open up +8% on the TSX

Why are you lads buying on LSE instead of TSX? Isn't TSX the primary listing?

Would be really funny if some of you guys shorted the stock. I'd love some chaotic price action.