Member Info for Senator1

I never said it did, I calculated the gross free cashflow after tax available to debt and equity holders. You are mixing up cash and accounting profit. I said nothing about accounting profit, you did. You equated accounting profit to the ability to pay DVDs. DVDs are paid with cash, not accounting profit. The accounting profit for BME had made up depr and interest inputted costs on leases. I prefer the cash cost, thanks very much!

Irrelevant, they are just using it as cheap funding knowing the price wont move much until the next presentation. If you can borrow money at stock borrow cost, its worth it for that alone. Its not, imo, a valuation call. Even if it was its irrelevant. They will cover before the next XD date, well before. i think they will maintain the 5.3p interim DVD and if Jersey is completed, announce a buyback of £75M

You expect me to believe a CFO who forgot about freight costs in his gross margin, cashflow numbers dont lie, they are there in black and white, p.105. You wrote a long speel casting doubt on the DVD, based on the revised guidance that we have at the moment, your point is wrong and its wrong by a very wide margin of error! We are talking hundreds of millions, not £30-50M freight costs

They inlude moving £150M to a money market account, that is still liquidity. look at the cashflow statement!

The ord DVDs are very affordable and if they cut back on the £130m PPE, by slowing the UK expansion, very very very affordable or if they come in at £520M and slow PPE by £50M thats £440M of free cashflow. The normal interim and final DVD of 15p only costs £150.7M at todays shares outstanding. What are you talking about re the DVD doubt. You are a million miles out! Its almost 3x covered!

Your post tax free cashflow is also only out by a couple of hundred million! The real number for FY 25 was £544M (675-133 PPE = 542m). I wish people who have no knowledge of the accounts would stop posting rubbish. Your only out by £231M, god help you if thats the level of your understanding! Even if they only achieve the bottom of guidance at 470M and say PPE is 130m they can still make a £300m DVD payment if they choose. They shouldnt of course pay the special & wont, they will use that money to buy back stock but likely maintain the normal DVDs.

The comparable period last year was £274M, your fin analysis is all rubbish! £470-£520M is the adj ebitda guidance for FY26. If you draw your conclusions on a half year cashflow about the FY dividends, rubbish in, rubbish out!

The half year is £191M!!!! NOT FY

It shouldnt go below Nav for following simple maths. If we exclude the jv and development portfolio for now the portfolio rev of last 12 months was £161.8M which is a 16.65% gross return on the portfolio value. If you take off the portfolio costs of £36.7M (most of that Im sure going to bluefield), the net return before financing and tax is 12.88% on the portfolio value. Finance the portfolio value 60:40 at say 7%, thats a 21.7% return on equity. Take off 2% management fees (Bluefield again!) and you are in high teens with a 60:40 leverage structure. Then pay cost for the development pipeline and assume jv partner takes the other half of that as that has about an 8% return (a local authority if I remember right). This will be attractive to the private markets and that is outcome bluefield partners want as they will retain the management (2 sets of fees, easy work). Obviously, the Board are in the pocket of Bluefield so the public shareholders need to ensure they get at least nav or the private market will do really well. LT assets producing returns in high teens should be very attractive, with half the rev backstopped by the UK with CPI indexation. For the public markets this had 2 real issues 1.) too small and therefore no liquidity and 2.) absolutely woeful presentation of the equity return obfuscated by the way the accounts are presented (this was and is shameful, they have no idea how to present the equity return story, abysmal). These assets have attractive equity returns but the investors brought in by Hargreaves, AJ Bell and other platforms have no idea how to work it out so they will get stuffed. Its just a question of how painful that will be and you will be able to determine this by the price relative to nav. anything less than nav and the public shareholders have been stuffed. The Board here is useless as you can independently assess that by the ludicrous IPP idea. The speed at which they got the response to that tells you they are brain dead and totally clueless, so they wont protect the public shareholders. it's such a pity as these are really good LT income shares and the story isnt hard to tell but you do need good accounting knowledge because of the investment co. presentation or you are somewhat in the dark.

Latest nav £1.1656 (June), 35% to play for. The buyer here needs to have finance as the next level of value is in the development pipeline why is why they wanted to go down the IPP route. The other listed entities all trade at a discount so they cant finance the pipeline, maybe FSFL if they sell Australia. However, would FSFL rerate if it was twice as big on a merger. Currently market says no if you look at the discount of other cos in sector at near £1bn market cap, they are all 30% plus. So currently public markets dont want these entities even if they are near £2bn market cap, so they go to the private markets where they can be leveraged more aggressively and will produce 20-25% equity returns and of course Bluefield Capital can retain their mandate. Will be interesting to see what FSFL and NESF do as a mega merger is probably their last chance at staying public but that will be a real bum fight between the managers who will have their own self interest to the fore and so probably not doable. This is a tricky situation, will be interesting to see what happens.

U stop writing about stuff u clearly know nothing about. u go to the top of the leaderboard for the most ridiculous twaddle i have seen for a while. keep looking at your level 2 and your so called patterns of the mms. and your "massive" £7M closing auction trades. £7M in a closing auction is an embarrasment, doesnt merit a mention and says absolutely nada to anyone who actually trades rather than looking at patterns of mms who at the end of day on the UK market are sales traders with tiny overnight position limits. Your whole comment in this area is just ill informed rubbish and I will call it out as such. you are what i will call, at my best behaviour, a waffler/time waster.

I have been a professional trader for 30 years you idiot. Stop guessing you moron and spreading bu...t

At the targeted DVD this has a DVD yield of 14.3%, while 10y treasury is c.4.4%, 20y 5.08%, 30y 5.15%. The market is saying it doesnt want Next Energy managing these assets. The Board now has to examine the approach from First Solar more seriously or they are in grave danger of falling fowl of their shareholder responsibilities. They should be independent from Next Energy and it should not matter that they will lose the investment manager role and the asset management fee. Market is clearly saying it has a strong preference for Foresight Solar. If I were Foresight i would think bigger and include Bluefield as their Board is lost and to be honest if Foresight and Nextenergy merge they will be an irrelevance. These discounts, DVD yields and spread to gilts has gone far enough. The Boards of these entities need to wake up and smell the coffee. Ita a bit like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas though and so nothing will happen as most will lost their comfy board fees and expenses. Im sure they are treated like royalty by the investment managers to keep them onside.

Please stop spreading this nonsense. Barclays havent lent stock, do you know what a total return swap is, the RNS tells you they have bought and sold stock as instrucyured by their counterparty to the TRS. They are doing nothing more than hedging their exposure to the TRS. The position is that of the counterparty. barclays are delta zero and only get a funding spread. Stop with your nonsense, its not fair on those with little knowledge. Fool yourself that you know what you are doing but dont spread this rubbish as to someone like me it is patently obvious you have limited understanding. Mine isnt a view, it is fact.

Fidelity disagrees with your bold statement and they have put their money behind that view which is a lot more compelling than bold statements. WPP is all about data and creativity. AI can certainly help with the data but can it ever be originally creative. I think the creative industries have a defensible moat built around truly original creativity and capturing human emotion in a new and evolving way.

Shows you what co pilot knows. They sold the 60% stake at a total valuation of $4bn and later sold Kantar Media for $1bn leaving $3bn. 40% of $3bn is $1.2bn and thats assuming valuations have remained the same, which they have not. Since Dec 2019 WPP's own share price is down 67%, so if we applied that to Kantar's residual stake, it suggests $400M. Thats very different to the AI genuis that is co pilot. Also, just to hammer home how dangerous it is to rely on anything with the AI label, if you look at the accrual from associates and assume most of this is the Kantar stake, its much more in line with $400-500M rather than the ridiculous $1.6bn to $2.4bn. give co pilot that information and see how that computes.

There is nothing new about shorting. Anyone who thinks something is overvalued has as much right as someone who thinks its undervalued to express that view. The markets would not work if you could only ever express a long view and sit on the sidelines when negative. Shorts are much maligned but are eseential to the workings of the market. In general, they are the smartest and most diligent participants as they pay real money every day to express their view. On this share its all academic as Walleye's residual position is meaningless. The volatility in this share is caused by the retail dividend chasers who are easy to scare and generally clueless. Like our friend staring at the L2 order book and convinced himself that he can profile the sellers. You couldnt make it up!

More twaddle! There is absolutely nothing in the L2 order book or any software, ABSOLUTELY NONE, that lets you identify a long seller from a short seller on individual trades or groups of trades. This is a blatant lie, just total rubbish & people like you who spoot this rubbisk annoy the hell out of me because its blatant lying. Everything in your post is just uneducated waffle. Barclays have told me diddly squat, they are a TRS counterparty and not the organ grinder just the monkey and yes someone at the margin is trading for beer money by selling and buying back but from a long position which you can tell by the Barclays RNS. You give traders a bad name by spreading lies, plain and simple. Anyone who listens to your twaddle deserves to lose a lot.

"A massive 3.9M shares at £1.71"......what are you talking about. Its beer money, not even £7M! All that other twaddle about shorts and whaever else you were waffling about. How do you know they were shorting? Nobody knows, it might have been long sellers for all you know. There is only one disclosed short and they are hardly full of conviction. The likely scenario is it is clueless retail punters who are afraid and listen to some of the "retail experts" who say they are at the risk of extinction from China direct sales or the other lot who focus on the debt and say it is too high and therefore the dividend is vulnerable. the smart shorts have made their money on this name.

Apart from the way the average is calculatec the main difference is inclusion of mortgage interest in RPI. As most of these entities have locked in cheap financing they dont need to be compensated for increased interest costs so change to CPI is fair. This is a stupid over reaction if it is about this proposal. I dont think it is, the market is telling these things they want them bigger and the managers have got to agree and not be driven by their own vested interest. These managers get two sources of income. The management fee for managing the financial side and an asset management fee down at the level of the assets. This latter one is very valuable and less visible as you have to did through the notes to see it. Maybe in a merger situation they could share the asset management fee by splitting the management of different assets. One party however will have to give up the investment management fee as it doesnt make sense to split here. What is getting in the way of shareholder value is the fact that one manager will lose out and so no one agrees. The BSIF proposal is rubbish and so they get hit the hardest as they are off on a tangent. The market wants you to merge and reduce costs. Until management wake up and listen none of these entities will go anywhere. If we limit it to 3 entities for now, NESF, FSFL and BSIF who do you think has the best investment management team. My vote is FSFL with not much between the other 2, so whoever merges, investment management should be FSFL. Of course it wont happen so we will get the bull...it solutions proposed by BSIF which wont work because the market wants bigger, much bigger entities with much better share liquidity.