Member Info for TheTrotsky

Personally, I think they've botched the re-statement of the 2024 figures and there's c£2m of EBIT (currently booked to PLC incorrectly) that's looking for an alternate home, most likley MC, which would put a totally different SPIN on the MC comparatives (and the narrative) and actually show a material fall in both MC revenues and EBIT year on year (whereas currently MC revenues appear to have fallen c£6.6m whilst EBIT has somehow miraculously improved c£0.8m).

The figures speak for themselves regardless of your barbs Chelsea.

MC is in a mess; has been for over two years and there doesn't really seem to be any end in sight. Meanwhile, Immogen fiddles whilst Rome burns. If she spent as much time trying to fix the problems at MC as she doess messing around with the KPIs (they restated them in 2024 and then completely changed them in 2025) to try and fit her SM agenda we might actually start to see some improvement. To trumpet that SM revenues have increased 341% is, to say the least, disengenuous if not downright misleading (without properly explaining how the revenues have arisen) but is just par for the course for Imogen.

As I say, the original 3-year plan was to reduce MC margins and raise volumes to achieve sales of over £70m. They've missed that target by a mile and yet Imogen has gone strangely radio silent.

Mock me all you like but, given that you are such a knowledgable chap, pray do tell us how Imogen and her mob have managed to generate an EBIT profit at PLC in 2024? PLC is a cost centre and its only income would be internal recharges that would cancel out on consolidation and, potentially, investment income (which should not be booked to EBIT in any event). I'm all ears. Can't wait to hear your explanation!

If you really think these are good results, you need to have your head read (again).

Motion capture (MC) turnover is down 28% over 3 years whilst it's adjusted EBIT is probably down at least 60% (difficult to tell because they keep on chopping and changing the KPIs every year so that a direct comparision is impossible without knowing what adjustmenst they've made).

They've even now managed to conjure up a £0.3m EBIT profit for PLC in 2024 when restating the figures, which is an incredibly hard task to pull off when you consider that PLC has no external income at the EBIT level (any notional internal income should cancel out on consolidation)! I would hazard that PLC should have an EBIT loss of c£1.7m, in line with both 2023 and 2025, which would suggest that MC's restated 2024 adjusted EBIT is understated by c£2m.

On the face of it, smart manufacturing (SM) does appear to be doing well albeit that I suspect that they'll probably struggle to repeat 38% organic growth in 2026 (I think most of that organic growth came from the winning of one new contract of c£1m by, what was, previously IVS) plus most of the vaunted annual SM revenue growth has come from simply onboarding Sempre's existing business. We need to wait for the dust to setlle after the acquisitions of IVS/Sempre, and now Amber Optix, have been properly bedded in post acquisition before we can really tell how well the SM business is performing (it's easy to acquire revenue, less easy to grow that revenue). I think the SM fanfair in the accounts is completely overdone. Again, Immogen is mixing her apples with her pears and (deliberately) trying to divert attention away from the declining sales at MC IMHO.

Net cash is down over £30m in 2 years (c£14m of that will be accounted for by acquisitions) and dwindling fast. Basic EPS is down from c6p in 2023 to c1.5p in 2025 and doesn't even now cover half of the DPS!

The last 3-year strategy review was to GROW MC revenues to in excess of £70m, and look how that's worked out, so I really can't wait to find out what they've got planned for the next 3 years!

Finally, yet again, Immogen chooses to be totally opaque about current trading. Yet again she's rolled out her stock-in-trade line - "... trading to date in line with the Board's expectations ...". What exactly are the BoD's expectations? Anybody know? Anybody actually been told? We are the owners of this business but are being kept totally in the dark. We know, or appear to know, that orders are up year on year so has that, or has that not, actually translated into a year on year improvement in revenues? It's a simple question which Imogen does her absolute best every year to avoid answering.

I, for one, will be voting out every one of the BoD up for re-election and voting down their remuneration at the next AGM. They blatantly don't appreciate that they are supposed to work for us.

I think that part of the problem is that some more recent investments have taken the form of share capital rather than loans, and growth companies don't tend to pay dividends so your more reliant on investment growth and a cash pay out on exit rather than periodic interest and/or loan repayments.

Having re-read, I agree with your assessment Laughton. Mea culpa. I'm not complaining anyway. If they can deliver c£20m of annual savings by FY28 that will certainly boost the bottom line with the ususal caveats (fleet managers won't be slow to spot the increased margings and better opportunities for discounts; if nothing else it will help Zigup to remain competitive).

It rather tickles me that in Spain Zigup trades under Nothgate Vehicle Hire (vehicle rental), Northgate Espana (mobility) and Northgate Talleres (repairs and maintenance). There's nothing wrong with the name Northgate per se and I do appreciate that Zigup was forged by the merger of Northgate and Redde in 2020 but it's hardly Avis or Hertz and, given that the Spanish business all started when Northgate acquired Furgonetas de Alquiler SA in the early 2000s, one would have thought that Northgate might have kept with a Spanish theme'd name (as name recognition goes I doubt any Spanish would ever have heard of Northgare before). Admittedly Furgonetas de Alquiler literally translates as Van Rentals, so some work might have been needed there but sometimes names or phrases just sound better in a foreign language e.g. I'm not sure Joe Green would, at the time, have had quite the same impact as Guiseppe Verdi ;-)

Sorry to rain on the parade but H1 divi cover of 1.7x hasn't changed the year end divi cover target of 1.1x - 1.3x set at the start of the year. It just means that it was a good summer to make solar electricity, now comes the real hard work. Last year H2 divi cover was just 0.7x. Given the shorter days between October and March, that's unlikely to materially improve but could be materially worse. If they achieve 0.7x divi cover this H2 then divi-cover will average out to 1.2x (slap bang in the middle of the target). So, I wouldn't be getting carried away. These results were solid, nothing more.

They've been trying to sell some assets for most of the year and it's always been "nearly there". It will (has to) happen. Personally, I would prefer if they used all of the proceeeds to pay down the RCF in the first instance. Might not be as appealing as a special dividend or the retart of the share buyback to some but it would improve the divi cover which, in turn, give them more scope to increase the recurring normal dividend.

Obviously all of that is caveated by the fact that we still await this government's "machinations" on reducing utility bills. They want to create an industry on the one hand and destroy it on the other!

I use Mozilla FireFox, with Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin, and it blocks any unwanted adverts appearing. Don't know whether other web browsers offer similar extensions e.g. it would seem to somewhat go against the grain for Chrome, given that Google is all about getting a slice of your potential advertising revenue, whether you like it or not.

Wishful thinking I suspect. The use of the word incremental (as opposed to annual) would appear to suggest that they expect to save c£20m over the next three years, which would suggest that recurring saving they expect to achieve is probably c£5-£8m per annum

I'm surprised that analysts aren't penciling in a dividend reduction especially if they are going to need invest to grow.

EPS in FY25 is expected to be less than DPS and they're expected to barely cover the dividend in FY26 and FY27.

I'd be more than happy if they don't cut the dividend but am sanguine enough to think that the brokers might be out of step with reality. At the end of the day these are consenus broker forecasts, not company forecasts, and, as such, the company is not bound by them. The figures are only being published by the company as a "courtesy", no more.

My Ambala order has just arrived.

Tried a couple of nimak para; very moreish.

The baklawa and sheera mix look very appetising too.

My wife has now hidden for Xmas ;-(

It would appear that we are picking up all of the downside disadvantages of the Ambala acquisition in H1 (additional administration and financing costs) and few, if any, of the upside advantages but hopefully that should now start to change as the traditional seasonal and celebration events kick in in H2.

On the positive side, they have now updated the Ambala online offering (much more user friendly) and I've taken the opportunity this morning to buy a few sweet and savoury snacks ahead of Xmas. As they say, the proof is in the eating ;-)

The interim dividend increase was a bit disappointing (only 5%) but probably only to be expected as CBOX prioritises its cash management and repayment of debt for the next 12+ months until the full benefits of the Ambala acquisition, and the opportunities for cross-selling to CBOX's existing, established customer base with ancestoral links to the Indian sub-continent, really start to kick-in.

There does appear to be an error on HL website. In the H1 results PAY said:

"... We have declared an increased interim dividend of 19.8 pence per share (September 2024: 19.4 pence) payable in equal instalments of 9.9 pence per share on 19 December 2025 and 27 March 2026 (to shareholders on the register on 28 November 2025 and 27 February 2026 respectively) ..."

Accordingly the ex-dividend dates for the two tranches should be 27 November 2025 and 26 Feruaury 2026 respectively but the HL website is showing the ex-dividend date fro both tranches being 27 November 2025. If there is a "double dip" tomorrow because of this erroneous information, I would suggest that a buying opportunity will exist and HL can pick up the compensation tab ;-)

Setting aside the botched the capital reduction (heads must roll), I don't see that the operational update warrants the share price drop.

As regards, £2.50 I don't see any operational justifcation for such a price crash.

BME seems to be riding the current bear wave. Bear markets tend to favour food retailers. Investors tend to see them as a port in a storm.

I.e. I wouldn't confuse the current rally in BME's share price with a necessarily altered perception of BME's short/medium term prospects. BME still has plenty of operational issues to address and scope to further disappoint if its run of poor news persists.

The relatively poor performance in the H2 period-to-date outlined in the interim results is heaping even more pressure on its December sales and it still has scope to undershoot its already lowered year end targets if sales do not pick up as management continue to hope. If BME starts discounting in the run up to Xmas it's likely to be indicative of sales still falling short of management expectations and will likely put even more pressure on its shrinking margins and FCF. The markets will be closely scrutinising its margins and prior year comparatives.

What happended to your 3 day rule?

Should be banned from buying or forced to pay the pre-capital reduction share price. Can't help but resent the fact that he seeks to benefit from debacle he has created. The special dividend and capital reduction were not warranted and I feel, strongly, that he ha totally mislead the market. Just want him gone now.

Damien/HHS, It reamins to be seen whether the proposed UK RO and FiT changes will come into effect.

According to the UK operators response to the proposal " ... the government’s own estimate that the change would save households about £3 a year by 2030–31 ..."! One assumes that the benefit to households would increase further over time but the short-term benefit is hardly going to be a game changer for this government.

Given the potential long-term impact on future energy projects (it's likely that the cost to UK consumers would significantly rise to compenate investors for the increased risk and potentially nullifying the benefit of making retrospective changes to exisiting contracts), the (frankly) diddly-squat short-term benefit, not to mention the threat (although not explicitly stated) of potential litigation if the government retrospectively changes the terms of signed commerical contracts, one has to believe that there has to be a better way forward. The operators themselves are suggesting that the use of an alternative, "voluntary" CfD mechanism could save households £30 per annum whilst remaining value neutral for investors (whether that's true would be worth investigation).

Finally, one would also assume that any changes to the current FiT scheme would impact the feed-in tariff households receive. If the generators are receiving less then presumably the "cost" would be passed on in lower payments to domestic suppliers. Not sure.

There's nothing in the FSFL RNS to suggest that its UK tax issues are sector specific. Indeed, the issue seems to have appeared out of thin air (I could find no reference to any ongoing tax review in either the 2024 financial report or the 2025 half year results. In the RNS it says:

"Foresight Solar, with the support of a leading tax advisor, has engaged with HM Revenue & Customs in respect of its group tax structure. This process has been productive in respect of achieving an agreed position for historic tax submissions and providing clarity for tax obligations going forward. Having reached this agreement, however, the current best estimate of tax forecasts indicates that future tax payments will need to be increased, leading to a 3.6pps downside adjustment to NAV. The board has opted to include this estimate in this quarter's update, consistent with the Company's transparent approach. To the extent required, the directors will announce any future updates to the market."

People seem to have just jumped to the automatic conclusion that the reference to "group tax structure" must refer to the fund being Guernsey registered and therefore may be an industry-wide problem (albeit that FSFL has operations in Australia and Spain, in addition to the UK) but the issue seems to be more complex than that. As reported on The Association of Investment Companies (AIC) website, an analyst at Stifel has commented that:

"... it was a complex matter but it appeared FSFL had assumed a higher level of deductions from taxable income than HMRC thought appropriate ... and that .... at this early stage, we hope this is a FSFL-specific issue. However, the market will now be wary of other funds potentially having tax issues. No doubt all the managers will be reviewing their assumptions ...”.

Tax deductions can imply many things. It can imply the rate, allocation and/or amount of capital allowances claimed, the allocation of costs between different tax jurisdictions and/or the allowability or not of certain costs. Both FSFL and NESF are audited by KPMG but are likely to handle their tax compliance in-house, so it does not necessarily follow that they will both use the same tax approach. Auditors will rarely, if ever, advise clients on what expenditure might, or might not, be tax deductible (for liability reasons) where an application of judgement is required unless it’s material and clearly contrary to prevailing tax legislation. In FSFL’s instance, it appears to be a question of quantum rather than tax deductibility per se i.e. HMRC appear to have questioned the quantum of expenditure deducted from FSFL’s UK-generated profits, as opposed to Australia, Guernsey and/or Spain.

I would not bother to contact HMRC. Firstly, the Data Protection Act would probably prevent HMRC from revealing any specifics and, secondly, even knowing the specifics won't enlighten you as to NESF's tax situation.

Damien, There's nothing "magical" about the efficiencies. It's simple economics. E.g. GSF is already procuring the batteries and other equipment necessary to augment some of its existing UK storage sites from from one to two hour duration. This is being driven by increasing network demand and lower costs (as I understand, the cost of two hour storage equipment is now on a par with one hour storage equipment just five, or less, years ago as increasing demand has driven down equipment production costs). The additional cost is being more than covered by the increased capacity. The investment isn't simply expected to wash its face. It's also expected to generate additional return for investors.

Operators aren't just looking to squeeze greater efficiency out of existing equipment. Although there's some scope to increase reliability, reduce downtime and increase utilisation of the existing installed equipment, operators are increasingly looking to invest where they can, cost effectively, increase capacity and/or the operating duration.

There are many headwinds at the moment, particularly regulatory, but I don't think that equipment replacement is one of them. Also, when managers talk about "accretive asset management", they're not just talking about investments/acquisitions they're also talking about their increasing use of arbitrage to maximise revenue generation.

LTI, The fact that you worked for HSBC is, IMHO, irrelevant. Their share dealing service seems to be inadequate and customer service non-existant, but each to their own.