Member Info for TheTrotsky

LTI, I suggest that you transfer your holdings to another online broker. In this day and age, HSBC's attitude seems positively archaic (more suited to paper share dealing than online dealing). I understand that share protfolios can now be transferred between brokers without the need to sell and repurchase (you instigate the process with your new broker and they do all of the paperwork). I currently use AJ Bell and Interactive Investor. Neither are perfect but they are at least responsive to complaints (my problem with PAY was fixed within the next 1-2 hours)

I had a similar problem with Interactive Investor the day after the new shares commenced to trade. When I pointed out that it was absurd they went back to their investment team to check and discovered that they'd set up the new shares incorrectly on their system. Basically they'd set the flag to say that PAY was no longer traded on a recognised stock exchange! Daft but true. I suggest that you demand HSBC investigate and point out that, apart from the cancellation of the old shares and the issue of the new shares, nothing has changed. The other alternative posibility is that HSBC has two tickers on their system; one for the old share and one for the new share. If that's the case you should be able to buy by clicking into your existing shareholding and choosing the option to buy. Sorry if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs but just some thoughts.

* principle

IV, the share price fall this morning is a reflection of the total mismanagement of the capital reduction IMHO. As I said in my previous post, there are several reasons to do a capital reduction, surplus cash being the principal. There is absolutely nothing in these results, IMHO, to justify the capital reduction and the unadjusted dividend just rubs salt into the wounds. Wiles and the BoD must go.

Because of the capital reduction the overall dividend payout has been reduced. I'd hoped/expected a pro-rata increase in the dividend and, based on the Market's reaction this morning, I'm not alone.

It would be fair to say that I'm pretty incandescent this morning and, forthwith, will take every opportunity to register my vote of no confidence in Wiles and this BoD.

There are many reasons to return capital to shareholders but looking at these H1 results I can't find one good reason. The money should have been retained to pay down debt. Wiles will be lucky to survive IMHO because I feel he has completely mislead the market. If I'd appreciated that this was situation before the capital reduction I'd have sold at 750p and run for the hills. As it is, I reinvested and more after the dust settled and am now sitting on a loss which is approaching c£10k. I still have confidence in the business and will have to bide my time to recoup my losses but Wiles and the rest of the BoD have to go, IMHO.

Not good. They've reduced the dividend "pot" and not uplifted the dividend on the new shares. Plus they've had a few operational problems in H1. The share price will take another hit I suspect

HHS, You really are a cheeky little b*****d! You asked what the term meant and I explained (in increasingly "excrutiating detail" because you seemed to be incapable of understanding a fairly simple concept). I never said that it applied to FGEN and, indeed, offerred up several reasons why I didn't think that it did apply; please try to learn to read! If you want to keep your head in the sand and suggest that "... it's not part of the real world ..." when there have been many past, "real world" examples of just such scenarios (not necessarily intentional at the outset) then be my guest. Next time you ask a question I'll know to ignore you because clearly don't want to hear the answer.

Actually, I believe ditching further ReZorce deveoplemt will have saved a lot more than £1m per annum.

However, ReZorce may still have legs if the new company can make further progress in reducing ReZorce's volume production cost (I believe it's currently on a par with existing packaging) and/or there is further change in the existing regulatory environment e.g. if packaging manufacturers were made financially responsible for recycling packaging then the disparity between the cost of recylcing ReZorce compared to traditional packaging (much of which can't be recycled easily or economically) could significantly shift the posts in favour of ReZorce. ZTF still has some skin in the game and could still significantly benefit from future royalties if ReZorce does eventually make it across the production start line.

Meanwhile, building a vertically integrated group of companies could pay signficant dividends for ZTF and the acquistion of OKC would appear to open the gates to the lower volume, higher margin, value-added supply chain.

HHS, It's fairly simple. Basically the "capital return" hypothesis says, in effect, that the value of the shares will progressively drop every time the company pays a dividend, by the amount of the dividend i.e. you put £100 in a jar and every year you take out £10, leaving £10 less in the jar each and every year. Even if you choose to put the £10 back into the jar (dividend reinvestment) you'll never get back more than the £100 you originally put into the jar and, in the real world, you'd actually risk getting back zero if there is no money left in the company when you come to sell your shares. It's similar to a Ponzi scheme in some respects; profits are actually illusory, all you are really getting back, if you're lucky, is the money you originally put into the company, and the last person in is left holding worthless paper (it's not a Ponzi scheme because, generally, it doesn't set out to intentionally favour one investors over another).

As I said in my original post, I think it's based on a misconception. Being over optimistic on the equipment payback period can affect the NAV but it doesn't mean that the whole investment case is necessarily flawed and earlier equipment replacement could even reap additional financial rewards to offset the additional cost by significantly increasing the existing installed capacity.

If the government was to now turn its back on green energy production it would probably take decades to rebuild a coal, gas and/or oil-based alternative and nuclear would probably be just as expensive in the long-run. Likewise, I'm not inclined to give much credence to Reform's threats either. US domestic energy costst may be cheaper but it can't just be shipped to the UK at cost (the UK would have to compete with everybody else on world markets for US oil and gas supplies and US exports command international prices not US domestic prices) and there's not an abundance of cheap energy alternatives readily available on our immediate doorstep to enable Reform to play a game of "chicken" with UK producers. All of Reform's plans that I've heard about thus far assume that we can reap all of the rewards and avoid all of the repurcussions, much like Brexit (even ardent Brexit supporters, like Jacob Rees-Mogg, have, subsequently, admitted that it will take decades to reap any Brexit dividend, if ever) and Trump's current policies. Reform's policies will appeal to many voters but I believe that they will ultimately prove undeliverable. E.g. the idea that we can cut the benefits paid to EU nationals and not suffer any repurcussions is just barking. We'll more likely impoverish UK nationals currently living within the EU as a result of reciprocal reductions and force them to return to the UK to claim the benefits here instead! Reform seems to operate on the unproven assumption that the EU is stealing us blind despite all evidence to the contrary.

HHS, Please try to engage your brain. The "capital return vehicle" hypothesis is that you the company returns the capital you invest in the form of dividends are ZERO capital. So, pray, why would you re-invest your dividends when you expect the shares to to return ZERO capital at the end?!

I've pencilled in a final dividned of 21.40p per share (two equal payments of 10.70p each) to account for the effects of the share reduction and a nominal c2% annual dividend increase in line with the current dividend policy. A larger dividend would be nice but 21.40p should be the bottom end. A lesser dividend and there may be further share price angst to come.

The last trading update did seem to suggest that there had been a significant turn around in OMG's fortunes in H2 compared to H1 and although some of that heavy lifting will, no doubt, have been done by the steady progress and improvement in the smart manufacturing division most of it would have had to have been done by Vicon.

So, the market is expecting a half decent set of results. However, I think the the jury still remains out, and although the share price has held up well recently it still hasn't really made any progress in making up the lost ground over the last 12-18 months.

It will, I'm sure, not surprise you that I'm still wary of Imogen's ability to try and divert investors attention away from the bad news that's been coming out of Vicon for the last 12-18 months without providing any real explanation of what's been going on. She's tended, instead, to try and steer our focus towards the relatively small profit increases emanating from the smart manaufacturing division whilst almost entirely ignoring the significnat profit decreases at Vicon. The fact that the last trading update talked about the adjusted EBITDA target still does, unfortunately, give Imogen plenty of scope to deliver any bad news "below the line", if there is some to be had.

I sincerely hope that my suspicions prove unwarranted and that we have, at last, turned a corner at Vicon but I wait with bated breath.

As regards Reeves, who knows. The Tories left a financial mess and Labour are now digging a hole; Reform must be laughing all the way to the bank. The left of the Labour Party still seem to think that they can win the next election if they tax and spend; they've completely lost touch with reality. Starmer is a waste of space but, given his MPs refusal to countenance any welfare cuts (even where they are clearly merited and are targeted at getting people back into work where they are able), his MPs support for increased welfare spending (alleviating childhood poverty will not be achieved by removing the two child cap) plus Reeves' ideologically driven, non-commercial tax changes (which are more likley to shrink than increase the tax take), you almost feel sorry for him. He's in charge of an insane asylum that looks set to replace him with one of its own! Since the 2008 financial crash UK politics has gone to the dogs and, if Reform have their way, we'll all have to buy jackboots before too long!

HHS, Try dividing 12 into 100. If you can't do that, try multiplying c8p per annum by six. I think you'll find that the answer comes out a c48p and the current share price is c64p ;-) As, I say, at the current yield of c12% it will take you c8 years to get back your initial investment.

Reading the recent trading update I was somewhat surprised that the adjusted EBITDA outturn for FY26 is now expected to be not less than £4.35m, given that the adjusted EBITDA for H1 was £3.9m. Albeit that historically H1 sales have always tended to exceed H2 sales, and that trend looks set to continue, the winter months clearly have quite an impact on store operating costs.

For a retailer, ANG is quite unusual in that its peak sales tend to be in the summer rather than the "golden quarter" around Xmas; so, when most retailers are reliant on a bumper fesitive season to "save their bacon", ANG is just hunkering down and waiting for the sun to shine again. If ANG could find a way to crack Xmas this stock could really fly; they've now got a large customer database (c500k) but, for the majority, I suspect that new fishing tackle doesn't necessarily rank high on their Xmas shopping list.

ANG could do with some "outside the box" creativity to crank up their app/online offering over the festive season to try and sell contra-cyclical goods that might particualry appeal to anglers and their families at Xmas but not, necessarily, at other times of the year. As a group of individuals, I'm fairly sure that anglers will share many traits in common e.g. they're probably more likely to enjoy eating fish than the rest of the average population.

ANG should be looking at ways to try and leverage that potential opportunity. E.g. in an ideal world ANG might sell fishing tackle in the spring/summer and food in Nov/Dec to maximise its all-year round sales.

I'm not suggesting that ANG should become a food retailer, although it wouldn't be such a bad idea to, at least, run the rule over the potential advantages/disadvantages of, say, buying a small, speciality fishmonger that could continue to be run separately, alongside ANG, to take advantage of that database and the opportunity to cross-sell, but it wouldn't do any harm for ANG to, perhaps, test the idea of trying to sell, in addition to its normal angling products, some non-angling products, even some novelty fishing-related tat, that might specifically appeal to the angling community at Xmas. If there was ever a time to sell Big Mouth Billy Bass, surely Xmas is it ;-)

I've just checked out the Angling Direct website and you'd hardly know Xmas was just around the corner!

Uh, no. The current yield is c12.3% which equates to just over 8 years, not 5 years.

You should always make investments decisions for the right reasons; that includes being able to do the maths ;-)

If you hold to the "capital return vehicle" viewpoint then a rising yield is an irrelevance because, as the argument goes, it's merely a reflection of the market's view about the company's longevity i.e. if the yield has doubled it's because the company's life expectancy has halved. I'm not suggesting that's the case, I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument (maths aside) if the market's "capital return vehicle" viewpoint holds true (you're chances of "winning" aren't improving).

Generally speaking share buy backs, or special dividends, are far preferable to CEOs chasing acquisitions simply because they have excess cash sitting in the bank. In some respects acquisitions fully or partially funded by debt are often the best acquisitions because CEOs will tend to vet the target a lot more carefully. I like CEOs to run a tight ship and payout surplus cash even if that means they have to go back to shareholders at a later date to raise additional capital to fund an acquisition. I've seen too many CEOs doing deals simply because they feel under pressure from investors to use the surplus cash sooner rather than later. Sometimes good targets/opportunities can take years to materialise and, in that event, returning surplus cash to investors in the meantime is a sensible precaution against complacency. A good investment case should always be able to stand on its own legs i.e. regardless of whether the company has the cash or needs to raise additional debt or capital the logic of the acquisition should not be a barrier to investors giving it their 100% support and putting in additional capital if required.

Don't know anything about OKC other than what's in the RNS but it does look like a very good strategic fit. Although the RNS doesn't say it explicitly I'd imagine that the deal is being funded from within ZTF's existing credit facility rather than by surplus cash, like its recent manufacturing expansions in Asia and USA. In recent years ZTF has started to become quite cash generative as it's business with Nike has expanded but, having been funding ReZorce R&D and US manufacturing expansion for several years, hasn't been able to build up any surplus cash to speak of. I'm pleased with the development. I think ZTF have a good track record and been disciplined enough to recognise that betting the entire house on ReZorce, despite its obvious advantages over existing packaging solutions, wasn't prudent.

I think if ZTF had gone all-in on ReZorce the share price might have gone stratospheric for a period but it's more than likely that ZTF would have eventually plunged back down to Earth like Icarus because it simply didn't have the financial resources or incumbent support to fund ReZorce through to breakeven. It was a tough decision but it shows their resolve to be a successful business rather than a one trick pony.

HgHotShot, I think the reference to "capital return vehicle" is intended to imply that your original capital is, essentially, returned as dividends i.e. you put in £1 and get back, say, £1 as dividends and zero capital return.

Damien, I think the idea that when the assets wear out you have to "start all over from scratch" is a misconception. The fact that equipment will eventually wear out doesn't mean that you are back to square one. A lot of your upfront costs will relate to planning, licencing, connection and infrasctructure and these tend to have a much longer lifespan/payback period, if properly maintained. Also, the fact that new equipment will, at some point, need to be acquired does not invalidate the investment case; if it did then there'd be no energy production companies (or manufacturers for that matter). The equipment replacement issues faced by green energy producers are exactly the same as those faced by traditional producers and will have been factored into the original projections. Also, as green energy production becomes more mainstream, the replacement cost is likely to fall plus you'll probably be able to buy more bangs per buck.

I think market watchers are far more concerned about barriers to entry and technological obsolescence. IMHO the former is likely to be less of an issue than the latter. The need for licences, approvals, network connections, infrastructure etc. means that the energy production market is unlikley to become a free for all any time soon.

Technological obsolescence, on the other hand, particularly for storage batteries, is probably more of a concern. Equipment prices have probbaly fallen a lot faster than people might have expected, even just a few years ago, and the capacity of new storage facilities currently in the pipeline are considerably larger than comparable facilities that came online only, say, 5 years ago because of both lower equipment costs and technological advances.

The upshot of all this is that the payback period of the existing installed equipment may now be less than originally expected i.e. economic necessity may require existing equipment to be replaced before it wears out. However, it's not necessarily all bad news because the cost of maintaining equipment as it ages tends to increase and replacing equipment sooner would offset some of those additional repairs and maintenance costs (and probably reduce the number of days of lost production due to breakdowns). Also, it should be borne in mind, that although infrastructure is usually expected to have a lifespan exceeding 50 years, equipment is normally only afforded a 5-10 year lifespan and therefore replacing equipment sooner than anticipated might not be as catestrophic as it might first appear, particualry if you are able to double, triple or even more your existing storage capacity.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ZTF/acquisition-of-overseas-konstellation-company-s-a/17332987

He's worth every grubby penny ... NOT.

It's a share award (not cash) and he'll only receive the (full) share award if, over the next decade, he achieves certain milestones including increasing Tesla's market value from its current $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion, so I doubt that he'll have any extra cash to spend on Space-X for the foreseeable future (if he starts getting cloes to those milestones he might be able stock lend more of his existing shares to raise additonal cash, if he so desires, but I suspect that we'd be looking at, at least, 5+ years before that even becomes a remote reality).