Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

wildtiger - sounds impressive, until you realise it's "only" worth about £20K - & sinking (currently).

The results do say "These results are .... in line with current market expectations". Whilst the general outlook remains highly positive, there is reference to "supply chain pressures, higher utility bills and in particular, wage inflation". Also, pledge impairments are higher (revenue less impairment grew by almost 37%, whereas the pledge book grew by >50%), with an overall net debt position of £2.8m (2021 cash balance: £17.6m). None of these things concern me unduly, as management has traditionally kept a tight rein on costs. But they might explain why the share price hasn't raced ahead. Yet!

I guess there might be a small re-rating once the press analyses today's results. But everyone already knew they'd be good. So as I've said previously, this was largely priced in. Dividend is likely to be increased if this year continues as it's started. So worth holding just for the yield (and the low risk of any significant short term share price drop IMHO).

maidit308 - you say that every time it drops.

nolupus - I agree with you, which is why I said "Still, this COULD be significant. But it's way off generating any potential revenues ... at this stage".

oldbutnowisa - the RNS actually says: "Orano has paid a small undisclosed amount to ImmuPharma". So probably only enough to cover a day's sarnies for Tim.

stockraiser - really? Only if you take anything Tim says remotely seriously. I'd prescribe a large pinch of salt myself. Still, this COULD be significant. But it's way off generating any potential revenues - let alone profit - at this stage. And as we know to our cost with IMM, there's many a slip twixt cup & lip.

Investorjohn5 - not sure who you're addressing. But if it was me, I'm NOT invested here. I just look in from time to time as an interested bystander, having previously been a business customer of this shower of a company.

Petralva1 - whilst RT003 may give you reasons, surely that's completely irrelevant anyway. Royal Mail have charged for a service, so they need to fulfil it. Clearly in this case they've been too incompetent to do that. Which doesn't surprise me one iota.

Royal Mail's answer to everything is to increase prices. They don't seem to understand that's partly WHY letter volumes have fallen from around 20 billion to 8 billion since 2005. What they should actually have been doing is modernising more rapidly, sacking some of their more militant workers & replacing them with state-of-the-art mechanisation. But the unions probably didn't let them. This company's a basket case frankly.

baf3 - but IPOs haven't exactly helped TEK shareholders to date. Both BELL & LUCY have had IPOs (BELL almost two years ago), yet TEK's share price remains near its 12 month low.

TopCatz - except we've surely established by now that a "beefy RNS" does little to improve TEK's long term share price at the moment. And that's because investors aren't currently being given any consistent guidance on how/when any of TEK's holdings will be monetised, with at least part of the proceeds handed back to shareholders.

in4themoney - you're welcome! Glad you found the link useful. SMT's performance since Nov 21 has certainly been poor. No fund manager is ever going to shout that from the rooftops though. So I don't think you can single SMT out in that regard. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and the managers might well have reduced some of their high-flying holdings more drastically post-pandemic, had it been obvious then that the Covid-effect would wear off. But it wasn't. We've already established that SMT isn't primarily a tech fund, so using IITU as the benchmark doesn't make much sense. That said, using ANY index as a benchmark for SMT over the past 18 months would show it up in a bad light. I guess the $6M question is whether this really matters in the bigger scheme of things. And that may depend on an individual's investment timeframe as much as it does the managers' ability to turn things round longer term. This IT is always marketed as a long term investment. So obsessing too much on short term under- or indeed out- performance may lead investors to the wrong conclusion.

MaximusD - unfortunately it seems you either haven’t read my posts properly or didn’t fully understand them. Never mind, you stick to your “potentially huge” dream world and I’ll stick to the facts. Fact 1: Clifford has repeatedly talked of special dividend payouts, sometimes mentioning relatively imminent timeframes. Fact 2: Despite the endless hype on these boards & the momentary excitement over each new RNS, TEK’s share price languishes close to its year low. And less than half what it was last August, despite a 2nd IPO having taken place in the interim. So how exactly are TEK shareholders ever going to see the benefits at this rate? It’s not like we haven’t already been waiting patiently for some time. You can only say “more time & patience is required” for so long, before investors simply run out of both & move on. That’s what’s starting to happen currently, which is why the share price is where it is.

TopCatz - Agreed. I quite like Clifford and he's clearly very smart. Whether I fully trust everything he comes out with in his investor presentations is more questionable. Although it's probably more the things he glosses over that concern me! Anyhow, good luck all LTHs.

tivman - "Getting it away at $7.5 gave them the funds to grow the business" - I AGREE "the fact its dropped since then isn’t tek fault and beyond there control" - I DISAGREE. The float could have been structured so that TEK cashed in some (not all) of its chips on day 1. Sure, that might have meant they couldn't get LUCY away at $7.50 and that LUCY would therefore have raised less dosh. But it would also almost certaintly have meant TEK realising more for the stake it sold than it's now likely to any time soon. The latter interests me more than the former, though they're obviously interlinked to a degree. Hopefully we'll both be facing a more positive scenario in a year or two's time.

in4themoney - depends how you define tech I guess. The FT's sector weighting begs to differ with you: hTTps://markets.ft.com/data/investment-trust/tearsheet/holdings?s=SMT:LSE

Tivman - hope you’re right about the value of any eventual payout. Time will tell! Academic whether they got LUCY away at $7.50, given how quickly & dramatically its share price (& therefore the value of TEK’s stake) has dropped since. Which is kinda my whole point. Anyhow, good luck with your holding (assuming you have one too). We’re basically on the same side - just with slightly different perspectives!

Evening Tivman - Belluscura IPO’d almost 2 years ago. Even with an initial lock-in period, they could easily have structured a float to reduce their holding sufficiently by now to release value. Otherwise, what exactly’s the point of TEK? Sure, it may nurture businesses which have the laudable intention of improving other peoples’ lives. But from a shareholder’s perspective, the way things stand there’s no value being created here. Quite the opposite in fact. Sadly an increase in NAV doesn’t pay the bills. Unless there’s a corresponding increase in the share price. And that will only come if investors start seeing TEK as a rewarding place to park their capital.

TopCatz - why SHOULDN’T investors expect an AIM listed company to pay a dividend? That’s just bonkers IMHO. Take a look at H&T Pawnbrokers. AIM listed, consistently growing revenues, good share price growth in recent years AND a decent yield. There are plenty of other AIM examples like this. The exchange a company chooses to list on really shouldn’t have much influence over dividend policy. I also think some posters here are wrongly associating dividend payments with plodding “value” stocks only. The whole sales pitch with TEK is that it identifies & nurtures new disruptive businesses that potentially offer huge revenue & profit growth. It then takes them through IPO / trade sale stage, thereby releasing some value for shareholders. Unlike a conventional regular annual dividend, special dividends are appropriate for businesses like TEK which should periodically be generating exceptional gains. Problem is, TEK. has now IPO’d two of its four holdings. Yet so far, no value has been released to shareholders, either in the form of share price growth (quite the reverse in fact) or via any special dividend paybacks. Some will argue value HAS been created via NAV growth. But that’s of little consolation to investors if it simply leads to a greater share price discount to NAV. Particularly when the company’s already making noises that part of the proceeds from any future divestment will be ploughed straight back into new opportunities. Followers of Dragons Den know one of the first questions investors ask is how soon they’ll get their original money back and what the longer term returns are likely to be, with timescales. Think they’d all take one look at TEK at the moment and say”I’m out”. Had there been an earlier special dividend payment (using part proceeds of one of the two IPOs), I firmly believe TEK’s share price would have been higher by now, as investors would have confidence in further rewards to come. So win win. As things stand, lose lose, though I’m still hopeful value will EVENTUALLY be created & released. Just far later than it should have been if they’d really wanted to keep most of their investors on board & the share price buoyant.