Member Info for MattTheBrave

Thanks Mike. When I get a chance this week, I'll give this some more thought and get back to you.

...but do we see some green shoots hiding amongst the weeds? New products launched, cash flow positive, and potential for the dividend to be re-started. Is it simply a case of getting the suppliers back into shape? I haven't bee invested here for a few years, but one to watch perhaps?

Good to hear from you HOTS - sorry to have missed you en le cueva. Thanks for the biccies, and see you for a cuppa soon!

Simple thesis - Left to it's own devices, the company would probably go bust, and the debt holders would sell the assets on. However, there's always a chance that an acquirer decides they don't want to wait an extra 6 months, and are prepared to pay an extra �20m or �30m to get the assets earlier. Now, I don't know whether the RNS means this is what is happening, but if it does, I could quite easily see an acquirer paying 15p to 20p now. If it doesn't happen, stock goes back to 7p. That's a reasonable risk reward trade in my book for a small position. I generally have 1-2% of my portfolio in 'punts' and this fits the bill nicely. If it doesn't work out then no problem

I sold at 85p - I bought back at 9p. Maybe you could explain where I've gone wrong you tool.

I don't , but it's fun anyway cas.

...I just picked up a few hundred quid's worth at 9p on a punt. Yep, I am now a holder again after selling at 85p back in May 2016. Let's see where this goes......What fun!!

Ziggy - in the case of Worldpay, they expressly talked about change of ownership clause. No such mention here - rather it seems to be focused on being able to bring out the accounts and a future tranche of funding. We'll see.......

...can anyone tell us exactly what this RNS actually means?

Saw exact same post on ADVFN - thought it was rubbish and still do. Comparing strong growth companies with history is irrelevant. Your comments on competition are absolute garbage - you do not understand the diagnostics business - there are huge barriers to entry. Finally it is absolutely nothing like Right Move.

Mike, thanks for your thoughtful response. Firstly, I get your point on ISA investment, but this simply means that from a tax standpoint you are agnostic between CG and income, rather than being the other way around from me. Aside from tax treatment, the key difference between dividend and buyback is the flexibility for the investor to choose what to do with the returned capital. With the dividend you can obviously choose to reinvest back into the shares or invest elsewhere. With a buyback, the returned capital is effectively reinvested back into the Company automatically. The key here is that (ignoring tax) a buyback is economically the same as receiving the dividend and then reinvesting it. Numerical example: Assume you own �1,000 of stock in a �10,000 company (ie you own 10%). Then assume that the Company wishes to return �1,000 to shareholders. - If they pay a dividend, the Company is now worth �9,000, whilst you receive a dividend of �100, leaving you with a holding of �900, and �100 in cash - so you hold �900 in a �9,000 company, so you still have 10% as you would expect. Now, let's assume that you reinvest your dividend, you now have �1,000 in a �9,000 company so you own 11.1%. - If they do a buy back and cancel the shares then they are now a �9,000 company, and provided you don't participate in the buyback, you now still have �1,000 ie you own 11.1%) So, buyback is economically equivalent to a dividend where you reinvest it back in the share, ie you own the same amount of the same sized company in both cases, which also means that your long-term return is the same. So, I don't agree with your compounding argument. A smaller number of shares/higher eps also compound the return over time For me, the loss of flexibility is offset by the tax argument, and hence I'm happy with the buyback. I also think you might have got yourself too caught up in the'conspracy theory' stuff. For me, a buyback is just another way to return capital to shareholders. Anyway, an enjoyable discussion - always good to come across other thoughtful investors who enjoys thoughtful debate without arguments!

Couldn't agree more. Try telling Charty that though....

HITS - I agree with your post in all respects bar one - that is that you imply GCC has undertaken some 'analysis and valuation'. There is simply no evidence of this - I have asked for it on numerous occasions and he has steadfastly refused to respond.

Do you honestly believe the rubbish you post? However, if you really think me and others are posting under multiple monikers, report it to the site as it's against the rules. However, you'll be very disappointed with the results!

Definitely coming back to strong buy territory here. If it gets below �41, I'd be buying more!!

What are you talking about? What heading? Stop posting useless rubbish and answer my question please - where did I distort the truth?

Did spot hylas misspelling and I think you'll find it's 'inflection point' not 'inflextion point' as well you genius, but I took pity on you for some reason. I think we are no where near this point as well. Please provide your analysis which shows it is passed. GCC, please point to where I have distorted the truth? I've called you a numbskull on this Board, but I defy anyone to argue with that based on your ridiculous posts here. Where's your investment thesis which I asked for a month ago?

Indeed!! Only problem with that is that I'll then have to make a difficult decision!! - nice problem to have though.

Thanks Mike for enlightening me - let me return the favour. GCP invests in infrastructure debt, predominantly PFI. Whilst default risk is low (largely government-backed), regulatory and political risk are extremely high - note Corbyn's comments recently. Also, the terms are subject to govt change at any time - this has more risk than you think. A buyback LITERALLY is a return of value to shareholders. Tey actually use cash to buy shares from shareholders!! The key here is that by reducing the number of shares they increase EPS providing that the return on capital is in excess of the return they would generate on the cash had they held onto it (which is the case with S&N) I care not a jot that the management is driven to do this because they're incentivized to grow EPS, because as a shareholder, that is exactly what I want as well!! Finally, on the dividend vs share buyback, I am taxed on dividends at 45%, but pay only 20% on Capital gains, and even then , only if they exceed the allowance of �11.3k or so. Hence for me, and any higher rate tax payers, a buyback is a far more efficient use of excess cash than a dividend. So thanks for your help. but I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the situation here, and have simply arrived at a different view than yourself. Good luck though.

Thanks Dave. I confess to not being huge fan of AH, but that is a very well written article which summarizes the position well. I note from this morning's' RNS that Mark Slater has reduced his position below 3%. This shouldn't concern anyone - Mark limits an individual position to 10% of his portfolio, and having hit this barrier a few years ago, is now forced to reduce his position into significant strength. I understand that he remains very positive on the story.