Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Yes sotonspike, that agrees exactly with my figure. Of course if the share price changes significantly tomorrow, the yield will change as well!
"Chatroom" still hasn't explained how he/she is getting the figure of 6%, though.
Hi sotonspike,
You say:-
"According to dividendmax this is paying 8.2% at these prices".
I can't see how that can be right. The (target) full year dividend for the current year is 10p (4 quarterly dividends each of 2.5p). The share price is currently about 142.2p. Divide 10 by 142.2 and you get about 7.03%.
Hi Chatroom,
No, it's a bit more fundamental than which stock exchange the shares are listed on. Basically what the 11% have voted for is that the company (UKW) should cease to exist in its present form and be restructured or even wound up, so all assets (ie the various wind farms) would be sold off, and UKW would just be a pile of cash that then gets distributed to all the shareholders in proportion to how many shares they own. The company's Articles of Association basically require that such a vote takes place in any financial year in which the share price is at a discount of more than 10% to the Net Asset Value. If you want any more detail, probably best you go on the UKW website, find the recent Notice of AGM, and read the resolution in full rather than risking me misquoting any of it.
It seems to me a bit worrying that, at the recent AGM, there were so many votes (some 11%) for discontinuation of UKW as a company! I wonder how many of them didn't read the resolution properly before voting. Whilst the discount to NAV is still significant, UKW is far from alone in that amongst infrastructure/renewables investment trusts. I've seen continuation votes in AGMs of some of my other IT holdings, and there certainly weren't votes for discontinuation that were anything like as high as this!
Hi traxxas,
Yes, OVO did take on SSE's residential customers - I was one of them. I don't know about commercial customers.
Although taken over by OVO, it was still branded as SSE for quite a long time before it eventually was re-branded as OVO so the appearance of the bills, etc changed.
I was somewhat puzzled by Special666's comments, given the numbers being quoted.
Hi Grezzz,
It looks like sloppy reporting to me.
I'd have thought that it would be subject to "due diligence" on both sides, shareholders on both sides voting in favour, regulatory approvals (if required), etc etc, which is why an extension to the deadline was asked for and agreed. As well as this being an all-share deal, so the "acquirer" doesn't need to take on a load of extra debt, the other main difference from most other "takeovers" that I've seen is that in effect SMDS management are recommending it to their shareholders rather than saying "shareholders are advised to take no action because we're going to negotiate a better offer".
All the best, Mike.
Hi Trouts,
"We're actually at 346p. What does this suggest?"
To me it suggests 2 things. One that the market is factoring-in a possibility (if not a probability) that this won't actually happen. There could be sufficient shareholders on either side (SMDS, or MNDI) that vote against it to stop it happening - SMDS because the "deal" isn't high enough, and MNDI because it's giving too much of a premium to SMDS. The other is the "time value of money" - this whole process could take several weeks if not months. But there again, what do I know?
Whatever happens, ATB!
Mike.
Dear all,
The relevant key sentence in yesterday's "joint" MNDI/SMDS RNS announcement seems pretty clear:-
"Based on Mondi's closing share price of 1,381 pence per share on 7 February 2024 (being the day prior to the commencement of the offer period), the terms of the Combination would represent an implied value of 373 pence per DS Smith share and a premium of 33 per cent. to DS Smith's closing share price of 281 pence per share on 7 February 2024 (being the day prior to the commencement of the offer period)".
So the SMDS price is now linked to the MNDI price, rather than to any cash figure.
Given that the MNDI price was about 1,344p when I started to type this, that puts SMDS at about 363p.
(373p x (1344/1381)).
However, the MNDI price has now risen a bit, to about 1,352p, which would put SMDS at about 365p.
I'm guessing that SMDS management would have consulted with a number of large shareholders before "agreeing in principle" the construct of the offer, and therefore MNDI don't have any incentive to increase the offer, unless another bidder comes in.
The MNDI share price would have to go above 1381p for the "implied value" of SMDS shares to go higher than 373p - what's the chance of that happening?
ATB, Mike.
Okay all, thanks for the views and knowledge re Mondi. The bottom line is that the important deadline is 5:00pm, not 3:00pm. The current price action of SMDS doesn't seem to be giving much away as to what may happen (or not happen!) by the deadline!
Hi stewart1964,
I really can't see anything specific to TRIG that hasn't also affected other renewables Investment Trusts (although we've got their next results due imminently). The share prices of many others have been falling again quite heavily in a similar pattern over the last few weeks - UKW, SEIT, GSF, ORIT and EGL to name a few. They're all now trading at a large discount to their stated NAVs. TRIG's latest quarterly NAV was down quite a lot - from memory about 127p as compared to 131p - but they say their dividend is well-covered - about 1.6x. I can see that continued high savings interest rates make high-yielding shares seem less attractive, but in my experience savings interest rates have actually typically been falling quite a lot over the last couple of months. I decided late this afternoon to do a small top-up of my TRIG holding, and bought at a price just below 100p. Things weren't helped by this site apparently not showing any RNS announcements today, but as we now know the date of TRIG's forthcoming results, and they've recently announced their latest NAV and the dividend target for their next financial year, I doubt anything major's been missed.
Hi Clued,
"5% div is hardly extortionate.".
Don't forget, though, that the SSE dividend is being rebased for the year we're now in, to 60p total for the year.
At the current share price of about £17-30, that's a yield of just c 3.46%.
All the best, Mike.
Niklol,
You ask:-
"Please may I ask where one finds these brokers views so quickly?"
A quick way is just to press the "DNLM Share News" icon near the top of the page, and read the new media articles.
What you won't get from those, though, is the broker's / analyst's detailed analysis leading to their recommendation - you'd have to pay for that.
What needs to be borne in mind though, is the context of the current share price in relation to their "target price". If their recommendation was "Sell" with a target price of £10, and the current market price was only £6, I might give serious consideration to buying!
I hope that helps, and sorry if I'm just stating the obvious.
Mike.
Hi Ross / Follow,
Thanks for the feedback and the further research / info on what the figures here on "LSE" seem to mean.
I initially thought that the "intangibles" figure for SMDS looked very high. It's interesting to compare the big balance sheet numbers of SMDS with those of SKG, a similarly-sized company which I believe is in broadly the same line of business (although I don't have a holding in SKG and don't follow it at all closely).
For SMDS, Intangibles (£2,938m) as a percentage of NAV (£4,087m) is about 71.8%, so NTAV would be about 28.2% of NAV.
For SKG, Intangibles (£2,672m) as a percentage of NAV (£5,038m) is about 53.0%, so NTAV would be about 47.0% of NAV.
Quite a big difference. Although, as I said, I don't know much about SKG, I seem to vaguely remember that it came about through a merger of 2 large companies, rather than just through acquisitions, which might go some way to explaining the difference.
Putting that aside, SMDS share price now seems to be sliding even lower today... And so is SKG - their share prices generally seem to behave very similarly.
All the best, Mike.
Hi gwilliams71,
I can't see anything specific to just ORIT. All the infrastructure investment trusts, and maybe particularly those focused on "renewables", seem to be going the same way. To name just a few, look also at 3IN, EGL, GSF, TRIG and UKW today and over the last few days. There's evidently something systemic going on, and whether it's just the high interest rates going on for much longer than originally hoped/expected, or whether it's something else as well, who knows?
Whatever, all the best, and let's hope the pain doesn't go on for too much longer!
Mike.
Hi Follow,
Sorry, I've only just seen your posting, but with such a big difference I think it's a really important comment/question.
Whilst this "LSE" site is a very useful place to find lots of information quickly, particularly when one has holdings in lots of different companies, as I do, I tend not to rely solely on the figures shown in it, as some are out of date, and some seem to be just plain wrong. Best to go straight to the company's last Annual Report or similar, even though that can take a lot longer.
I've just seen a possible explanation for the huge difference in figures.
They state that NAV is £4,087m, and that there are 1,377.45m shares, which would be about £2-96 per share.
However, if from the "assets" figure you take off the figure for "Intangibles", £2,938m, you are left with £1,149m. If you then divide that figure by the number of shares, you get 83.415p per share - remarkably close to their figure of 83.42p per share, and possibly too close to be a coincidence!
In that case, their "NAV per share" figure of 83.42p is not actually NAV per share, but NTAV per share, so it's wrongly labelled. NTAV is Net Tangible Asset Value.
I hope that this might be of some help, and doesn't just lead people astray - please note that I am *not* a formally-trained accountant.
All the best,
Mike.
PS: "Intangibles" includes things such as assessed value of brands, "goodwill" (where they've bought another company and paid in excess of the "book value" of that company), etc etc.
Hi Krusty,
"All the others have been at a discount, why would this one be any different?".
Are you talking about discount to market price at the time, or to NAV per share?
I have several "infrastructure" and "clean energy" ITs, and have partaken in several fundraisings. They have (of course) usually been at a discount to market value, but have usually been at a premium to NAV. The most recent stated NAV per share for GSF that I have seen, for end of December 2022, was 111.1p, and the market price is currently shown as 106p, so any fund-raise now would be at a noticeable discount to NAV. There may even be something in "the rules" that says they can't do this.
Regarding this acquisition itself, I need to read it more thoroughly but in the context that it comes shortly after another large one.
I'm still part-way through reading GSF's latest half-year report, but other things keep getting in the way... Obviously I'm mindful that it will be years before some of these acquisitions start contributing to revenue and cash coverage of the dividends.
I continue to hold, but only a relatively small holding.
All the best, Mike.