Member Info for TheTrotsky

coolbean, It seems to depend on your broker and whether or not they have opted to receive the funds in USD or GBP. I have some shares in a SIPP with AJ Bell and some in an ISA with Interactive Investor. AJ Bell seems to have opted to receive the funds in GBP (converted at the DEC dividend exchange rate) whereas Interactive Investor seems to have opted to receive the funds in USD (coverted at the exchange rate on the day of receipt). So, depending on the exchange rate movement in the intervening period, I always tend to receive slightly more or less from Interactive Investor than I expect (this dividend was slightly less, whereas the three previous dividends have been slightly more). When I've spoken to Interactive Investor about it they've just told me that it's their policy and that it applies to all of their customers. Hope that helps.

RB40, The MOU does not make reference to up front costs (it talks about royalties, which would be on sales). Of course there will be development costs but I don't see this as a distraction. It's all well and good being able to detect pathogens at water treatment works etc. but this device would allow investigators to track down the source (which may only be one property). It would compliment DV's existing offering. Also, if DV does not develop this product, somebody else has to and that would not be desirable.

Bubble, Bizarre as it may seem, an argument can actually be made that the return of capital should not have any impact on the market capitalisation of AV because this surplus cash isn't factored into the current share price (instead, it forms part of the premium that a potential purchaser might have to pay if they wanted to try and acquire AV). If you think about it, terms like earnings per share (eps), dividends per share (dps), price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) take absolutely no account of what assets and liabilities sit in the balance sheet. The reality is AV does not currently anticipate that there should be any impact on its future expected earnings or dividends as a result of them handing back this surplus cash to shareholders and, from a discounted cash flow (DCF) perspective, any cash currently on the balance sheet has virtually zero future value (because it's never normally expected to be repaid). Obviously, since AV announced that they were planning to return the surplus cash, analysts have been re-running their DCF calcuations and this, in part, could explain why the share price has risen since the announcement. Using this logic, if we take the closing share price on 01 March (406.60p), the day before the announcement, and deduct the final dividend (14.70p) then an argument could be made that after the surplus cash has been distributed the new shares ought to be worth about 522.50p (assuming that there is no change in the valuation parameters and/or external price shocks). There should also be one additional consequence of this argument, namely that the share price could rise to around 506.60p (or 491.90p ex-dividend) prior to the return of capital and reorganisation (which have yet to be approved by the shareholders). It's an interesting theory, at least ;-)

AllAtSea, The return of £1 a share is being accompanied by a reduction in the number of shares. So, for example, lets say a company has 5 shares in issue and is valued at £100 (valuing the company at £20 per share) and the company decides to return £20 cash and reduce the number of shares in issue from 5 to 4. Although the value of the company has fallen because it's returned £20 but the value per share hasn't changed because there are now only 4 shares in issue rather than 5 (80/4 = £20 per share). Obviously this assumes that all other external factors that may affect the share price remain constant. That said, if the company was generating a profit after tax of (say) £20 and paying dividends of £5 before the transaction and remains able to generate the same level of profits and dividends after the transaction then the eps and dps will rise which, in principle, the share price of the new shares rising above share price of the old shares (because the enterprise value should not change). That's the theory anyway.

Warthog, Allowing for the fact the fact that the share reorganisation will occur after the shares go ex-dividend, if we take the current SP of (say) £4.40 and deduct the final dividend of 14.7p then the shares currently have an ex-dividend value of (say) £4.23. The current proposal is to give you three new shares plus four B shares (worth £1 each). So, all other things being equal, each new share should be worth about £4.31 after the share reorganisation. However, the expectation is that the price of each new share will in fact be higher because both the eps and dps will be approximately 33% higher than each of the current shares. Obviously there may be other factors between now and then that will affect the value of the shares e.g. a further escalation of the war in Ukraine and/or other external factors beyond the company's direct control. Nothing is guarateed but this is not a "normal" consolidation (it's not being affected to make the shares more tradable)

All companies can cut dividends and it would be irresponsible of the BoD to commit the company to paying a fixed dividend in all eventualities. It's just a normal caveat, nothing more.

Rocket, Just ignore Muggins & Gwoods. They'll disappear soon enough. We're in an information vacuum so that the likes of them can make it up as they go. Muggins has even stated that there are "no new orders"; obviously he's unable to read or understand the RNS on 11 March. They obviously subscribe to the TW school of economics i.e. that sales and money hang on trees and that a manufacturing company can simply ramp up its sales ad infinitum without any upfront investment in capital expenditure, staffing or working capital. They're living in cloud cuckoo land. It's a fact that fast growing companies always need more cash to keep growing because, as they grow, more and more of their cash gets tied up in working capital. The real risk is that a fast growing company will over trade and run out of liquidity, and it does somewhat concern me that GB may be pressing ahead on too many fronts at once. However, until we get more detailed information, it's very difficult to discern quite where the company is at just at the moment and GB should be pulling his finger out to provide shareholders with better financial information in a more timely manner.

I think we're all scratching around in the dark and making wild guesses without having the information we need to make informed decisions. There's a lot being made of DVRG "burning" through it's cash but the fact is that if you're going to (say) double turnover, a lot of that cash is inevitably going to become "invested" into stock and trade debtors. Also, people seem to think that new or expanded production facilities materialise out of thin air without any cash outlay. Get real.

I've said it before over on ADVFN, and I'll say it again, GB should not be CEO. He should be CTO. I love his enthusiasm but he sends mixed messages in his RNS's and too often over promises and under delivers (and never sees fit to explain why). The China Resources deal is a case in point. The deal has been dragging on for over a year (with frankly limp excuses) and in the meantime the Chinese expansion has had to be funded out of DVRG's pockect rather than CR's.

Would appear that our seller is back (like a bad penny)

Splitting hairs but the compounded interest rate (assuming they accrue and don't pay the interest) is 12.68%

I would suggest that the rates being paid are at the upper end of "normal" levels

I'm not suggesting that we should have done a fund raising at the current price. I'm saying that a fund raising might have been possible at 25p before Helium decided to destroy the share price.

The dearth of information in the last trading update was embarrassing. We got some snippets about turnover, EBITDA and operating loss, but no indication about current cash balances or expected current year sales. It's not good enough to just get financial data in June and September each year. The last update on Q1 orders was well and fine but gives us no context; we don't know where we are at or where we are heading. GB needs to sort this out; there are too many tantalising snippets without any real time perspective e.g. we seem hell bent on expanding LabSkin testing when the number of actual current users still seems relatively paltry (we seem to want to test 10s of thousands every month and yet thus far only seem to have signed up a few thousand). Also, have to say that pursuing a deal with China Resources (the supposed money men) seems to be a waste of time; this should have been sorted long ago (they are just appear to be stringing us along).

Unless I've missed something, this is a very expensive facility. A 5% fee (deducted from the drawdown) plus interest at 1% per month on any oustanding funds! Helium (the presumed seller) has destroyed the share price over the last six months and made the possibility of an alternative fund raising impossible. Sure, a fund raising would have affected the price but now we have an expensive facility that may yet be funded by the issue of new shares. We really now need rid of Helium.

Arsenal17, I think you'll find it's a snippet from the Motley Fool bulletin board and I'd suggest that you refrain from mocking others. Dazpink may, or may not, be an engineer (the information he's posted about ultra fan engines has been in the main stream business news over the last 12 months for anybody with an interest to read) but at least he's actually doing some research. C'mon the Foxes ;-)

JIM Nominees Ltd (JIMN) holds equity assets as custodian. They are not assets of JIM; they're assets of JIM's customers.

If you look at the accounts of JIMN filed at Companies House, it has cash at bank of £1 and issued share capital of £1.

JIMN doesn't transact any business per se; it's just a separate legal entity that holds the customers' cash and equity assets as their appointed nominee (nothing appears in JIMN's balance sheet because there is an equal and opposite liability due to the customers which it is permissible to set off). It's a perfectly normal legal structure for an investment broker that ring fences its customers' assets to prevent them from being seized by JIM's creditors in the event that JIM should ever go bust.

It will be interesting to see whether AV flexes the illustrative consolidation ratio (three new shares for every exsiting four shares) or keeps it the same. I doubt that AV ever expected to be able to buy back as many shares as it has done since the results announcement and, if it sticks with the same consolidation ratio, then the dividends per share should actually be higher than set out in th results (assuming that there is no change in the amount of cash allotted to pay the dividends)

This is crazy. It's not in Helium's or our interests for them to keep on selling into every share price rise like this. They're certainly not maximising value for their investors. Surely it would be better for Helium to find other potential strategic investors willing to take some of their shares off their hands, if they want to sell? They've managed to virtually halve the share price in the last few months by their stupid investment antics. DVRG will never appear on any institutional investor's radar if Helium keep on kicking out the legs from under it.

tophat, Thanks for that, I thought I was going mad. The recent results kept saying that last year's comparative dividend was 12.2p, but my records clearly showed it was 12.23p. It's nice to know that I'm not the only loony out there ;-)

Fair point, but the share price would not then have been at a 12-month high ;-)

The close period is typically regarded as the one-month period preceding the release of a company's quarterly results, and the two-month period before the release of its annual results (care of Investopedia).

So, in principle, the last point that Blanc could have invested before the results were released was the end of December.

In fairness, as far as I can tell, the last time Blanc bought shares was in September 2020 (324,887 @ 307.80pps). Perhaps she's just a canny investor and knows a bargain when she sees one ;-)

SFH300, I think you'll find that Blanc couldn't buy at the beginning of February, whether she wanted to or not, because the company's shares were in a closed period; insider trading rules apply. The results were only announced at the beginning of March!