Member Info for TerryM1

"if dec could get loans at 4% they’d take those in preference to 9.75% - they obviously couldn’t!”"

And that is one of the many points due to the crazy "buy as much as you can at any price policy" DEC does not have very good rating otherwise as you say the interest rate will be a lot less than the ridiculous 9.75% and they would not have needed the fire sale fund raise (when no one would lend to them) which is the latest cause of the SP stuck in the gutter.

Financial madness as I said probably why the CFO did a runner.

“4 weeks or so til h1 results and we can compare q1to q2- that’ll be done factual evidence of progress or not rather than subjective ranting!”

My points are all based on simple arithmetic and pure facts nothing in the H1 results will change them, trashed dividends, huge debt, BBs at much higher priced than the shares were issued at just a few months back, etc. Perhaps SP may recover a little but that is not a fact just a hope.

as you have no valid arguments you call it “subjective ranting”.

JIM800

“debt is not holding back the dividend policy. the dividend was set for 3 years a year ago during the strategy change. this was clearly communicated (unlike lots of other stuff).”

Where did I say debt is holding back the dividend policy but a simple fact for you if you have to pay money to service debt it cannot be used to pay dividends.

“the bbs (which you have been shouting for for years) are not purely funded by the 300mn loan. we don’t know how they are funded at present - h1 results should tell us. even if they were, bbs have to take place at market prices, those who bought / were given shares at below this price will make a profit - capitalism at work. i’d assume lots of bbs have got shares from people who paid more - what’s the difference?”

You need to read my posts on this as I know you have as you replied to them so it makes no sense to be selective in what I have said and quote it out of context. I will repeat again for the third time. The BBs were the best place to use cash when the dividend yield was 3 times what it is now, i.e. clearly accretive but I have told you at least 2 times it makes no sense when borrowing at 9.75% to reduce dividends of around 8.3% defiantly not accretive, the only function it does now is to try to stop the SP falling caused but Trusty Rusty so partly to save face.

Since the BBs are less than the $300m loan and no doubt will be for a very long time it can be seen from anyone who understands simple arithmetic that if there was not these BBs then the $300m loan could have been a lot smaller. Therefore the only logical conclusion is these BBs are at a cost of 9.75% pa to DEC, again simple arithmetic.

As can be seen from JC01 analysis it is very clear these BBs are soaking up the East Texas deal shares which were issued at $11.74 therefore the profit you speak of is coming from us the DEC shareholders, BBs now at $14.35 so we have lost $2.61 per share or over 22% in a very short time you say “capitalism at work”, I say stupidity.

“even if you borrow at 9.75% for a year or 2 and save 8% dividend for the rest of eternity is that bad or good?”

Defiantly BAD, Do the simple arithmetic you are out by 1,75% pa compounded as the loan does not disappear just by paying the interest. By the way I think this loan is for something like 9 years.

“to replace resources acquisitions were necessary. these can be funded by debt or equity - dec have used both. how else would you like them to fund acquisitions? i’d assume if dec could get loans at 4% they’d take those in preference to 9.75% - they obviously couldn’t!”

Again there is serious error in your statement, only a tiny amount of acquisitions replaced resources, the vast % were to grow the company at the expense of huge high priced long term fixed rate debt, trashing the dividends, diluting the shareholders and trashing the SP.

Should have added that the BBs to soak up some of the share dilutions are being funded by a $300m loan at 9.75%.

So we have the companies that took these shares making a lot of cash from the BBs which is financed from high rate debt so the owners of the debt also making a lot of cash and you can add in the companies, underwriters etc that run the fund raise which was totally unnecessary if more due diligence was performed all financed by DEC shareholders who have nothing to show for all of this except large losses . No wonder the CFO did a runner. Another great win for the Trust Rusty cowboy approach to running a business into the ground and shareholders into the poor house.

A little advice to Rusty, if it any broke don't fix it, in fact do nothing and as shareholders we will all be better off.

JC01

Great analysis and explains why DEC is now unloved on both sides of the Atlantic and requires large BBs just to maintain a very low SP, also the debt taken on because of the acquisitions is playing a huge part in holding back the SP along with the dividend policy.

For me the test is have these deals increased shareholder returns or not, well we all know the answer and before anyone says it will take a time to feed through this has been going on for over 2 years.

Worya

Good question, for me too much going on to keep track of all of it, also there is the before (leaked) and just after SP on each acquisition obviously the after price is always lower.

For the Maverick acquisition it was around £14.22 before and around £13 after, when the fund raise announced/fire sale of shares dropped to around then fund raise price and dropped to £8.03 after.

The new Carlyle tie up seems to have little effect, gone down a little since then but many other factors in play like HH, ME etc. I guess until more details emerge and/or the first deal stuck will have little effect as no real information available on how it will work and how much DEC stands to make on it.

This is a breakdown of the trades from yesterday (apologies for format but you can't get these to line up as multiple spaces are converted to one space when message is posted).

Aggregate number of ordinary shares acquired Daily volume weighted average price paid Daily highest price paid per share Daily lowest price per share Trading Venue

1980 $14.32 $14.35 $14.26 ARCX

5345 $14.33 $14.35 $14.23 ASPN

1365 $14.32 $14.35 $14.28 BAML

500 $14.28 $14.30 $14.27 BARX

1,234 $14.3115 $14.35 $14.28 BATS

1,918 $14.3297 $14.35 $14.23 BATY

100 $14.3200 $14.32 $14.32 BIDS

1,200 $14.3325 $14.35 $14.30 EDGA

2,081 $14.2787 $14.34 $14.23 EDGX

400 $14.2700 $14.27 $14.27 HRTF

1,000 $14.2933 $14.32 $14.28 ICBX

43,744 $14.3217 $14.35 $14.23 IEXG

100 $14.3000 $14.30 $14.30 ITGI

500 $14.3110 $14.34 $14.27 JPMX

2,546 $14.3200 $14.34 $14.27 JSJX

300 $14.2850 $14.30 $14.28 LEVL

2,169 $14.3117 $14.34 $14.27 MEMX

100 $14.2600 $14.26 $14.26 MSPL

4,492 $14.3299 $14.35 $14.29 SGMT

2,882 $14.3179 $14.35 $14.23 UBSA

110 $14.2750 $14.28 $14.27 VFMI

904 $14.3195 $14.35 $14.31 XBOS

300 $14.3000 $14.33 $14.24 XCIS

10,689 $14.3182 $14.35 $14.23 XNAS

6,365 $14.3308 $14.35 $14.28 XNYS

Trading venue Currency Volume Weighted Average Price Aggregated volume

NYSE USD $14.3202 92,324

There are many exchanges in the list and IEXG with the largest number of trades of 43,744 (also largest for yesterday but not for all days), must admit I do not know what all these different exchanges are, would be good if someone who does could explain what all this means. IEGX is the The Investors Exchange.

Just sold out my buys from the last 2 days at $10.60, bought between £10.38 and £10.43.

Sorry should be

buy now pay latter

Bonnc

Who knows, one thing we do know as shareholders are we are the last to know. They have spent quite a lot of cash and could not keep the SP from dropping below $14.50 so set a new target of $14.35. The end result the SP spends a lot of it's time below $14.35 and does not go much above for long. This is probably due to the share overhang and there potently will be an awful lot of shares to soak up and the question is will DEC have/allocate enough cash for this or will it just let the SP go at some point perhaps back to $14 BB level or non at all, also if this continues why get into this position instead of paying fully cash for the deals, another one of Rusty's cunning plans. I guess the simple answer is there was not enough cash at the time and Rusty could not wait a second more than he had to the buy something, but now pay latter is a more expensive way to buy anything.

As a shareholder I find this is not a comfortable position relying on huge BBs (especially given DECs BB history) to keep the SP at what is historically a very low level, before it is said I know it went down to around £8 recently but been up to £28 in the past.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/INPP/financial-close-ps49m-uk-education-ppp-realisation/17123110

Yesterdays BBs

Shares Purchased: 81,615, Lowest Price $14.211, Highest Price Paid $14.35, Average Price Paid $14.3248.

Around $1.16m spent yesterday, around $3m spend in the last week, looks like determined to stop the price falling below $14.35 at lease for now.

The strange thing is there is a floor being set but many sales below the floor in UK and US, would seem better just to wait and sell out at or above $14.35 or UK equivalent as it will return to this level or higher fairly quickly or do they just believe DEC won't keep these BBs up.

Worya

From the look of the BBs DECs plan is to support the price which as you say are not what BBs are for but to improve the book value however there is not much else to stop the SP from falling no doubt due to the large share overhang. On the upside makes for trading opportunities.

Bismarck

Well done, Just about to hit the sell key at £10.60 as it went down so held on. Still up and that's what counts.

Https://www.tipranks.com/news/company-announcements/glencore-launches-1-billion-share-buy-back-programme

JC01

Yep

Been buying this morning below £10.40, hopefully BBs kick in in US today at $14.35 (around £10.56p) and hold SP up and with a bit of luck cut my overall losses a bit more, long way to go to break even but every step helps.

Get ready for Barclays and HSBC and others to headquarter elsewhere, when I worked at Barclays they spent millions looking at how to move to NY, HSBC were also looking to move, Lloyds and RBS stuck in UK.

More empty boxes from the filtered idiot. Don't know what he is saying don't care, sound of silence is great, soon he will be just talking to himself.

Add in PNN when he was telling everyone on the board the RI was a failure and SP would go below £2.64 and told someone who bought at £3.90

"by all means crack on with buying - PNN will continue to drop for a long while net nonetheless."

Went straight up and now up just below £5 with a nice dividend to boot, he thinks he knows everything and gets it all wrong then jumps uninvited on the smallest of comments, a little weasel who get off on schadenfreude and making out he knows what he is doing.

Savage_KeyboardR

"I took a fair bit of the cash and put it into other stocks,"

Prove it, very easy to say now isn't. Every prediction I have seen from you has been 100% wrong.

In fact just go and post on those boards and leave this one and the rest of us alone as you have not interest in CPI have nothing meaningful to say and I have no interest in your, your politics or cr*p you come out with.