Member Info for TheTrotsky

I think that article should be read with a large slice of baloney. It's based on a HMRC admin response to a question about the Santander DRIP. You will note that it does not say that the dividends are exempt from income tax; it just says that the income tax is rolled-up and payable in one lump when the shares are sold plus any additional capital gains tax due on any increase in the value of the shares.

This seems to be a perpetuation of HMRC's opinion that annual interest on a fixed rate savings account is all taxable at the end of the term if the interest is automatically re-invested each anniversary (regardless of the fact that your bank issues an annual tax certificate). All sounds great on paper until you realise that, ignoring the time value of money for a moment, this tax treatment favours HMRC e.g. it has the potential of pushing a non-tax payer/basic rate tax payer into higher rates (which could far outweigh the time value of money).

If you can afford to pay the income tax, you're better off paying it as you go (at least that way you can plan your tax without any nasty surprises). It should also be borne in mind that this is only an interpretation expressed by HMRC. As far as I am aware, the tax legislation makes no explicit determination on the matter and it's never been tested in the courts.

Nuts! However the reaction of potential investment partners is not wholly unexpected. The current market incumbants have a vested interest in not embracing ReZorce e.g. when you have multi-£millions (perhaps £billions) invested in forestry, adopting an alternative non-wood based product is not exactly palatable. They'd prefer to make their wood-based products marginally more environmental. One has to wonder what type of investment Zotefoams would require to get ReZorce off the ground again.

All in all, a very disappointing outcome. Industry likes to talk about going green but in reality they balk at the costs.

They used to say the same about tulips and south sea pearls.

I'm not convinced that the limited supply of individual crypto currencies makes them any different from the aforesaid. In principle there's no limit to the number of crypto currencies that can be created and, even if the supply was now regulated, I'm not sure crypto has any inherent value (it's essentially just an IOU without any fiscal/government backing). Also, the recent increase in the value of (say) bitcoin can, in part, be explained by the increasing real-world cost of mining new coins (as bitcoin's upper limit approaches the time taken to mine each new coin, and therefore the real-world cost, is designed to rise exponentially).

I'm also not convinced with the argument that, in time, crypto will become fiat currencies. Firstly, the security features of the blockchain, mean that the number of transactions that can be undertaken every second are insufficient to meet real-world demands. Advancements in computer hardware, e.g. quantum computers, could in theory resolve this problem but that would overlook the potential security risks to the blockchain i.e. the security features of the blockchain would have to increase in lock-step with the advent of faster computers, otherwise the security of the blockchain would be null and void. Secondly, would the world-at-large be willing to entrust their life's savings to a non-government backed currency or worse (would you exchange your US dollars for, say, Zimbabwean dollars?). Thirdly, your crypto wallet is both a boon and a bane; highly secure but if you lose access, for any reason, almost impossible to recover. Finally, crypto can't simultaneously be both a long-term, appreciating "investment" and a fiat currency.

At the end of the day, games of two-up are exciting until they're not!

Crypto has, IMHO, all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme and the fact that the new Trump administration is even considering regulating existing crypto is extremely worrisome. At least, whilst it remains unregulated, Joe Public remains unliable for any losses that crypto-investors might incur. I have no doubt that, if regulated, the value of crypto will rise still further as investment banks flog crypto to all of their unsophisticated investors (packing their 401K's) but that does not mean that crypto's unanswered questions will simply disappear.

Caveat emptor.

Firstly, yes, dividends can be paid out of debt. Don't confuse debt (cash) and losses (retained earnings).

Secondly, dividends can in theory be paid out of losses. A dividend is only illegal if a compamy has insufficient distributable profits. Distributable profits are defined as realised profits and excludes unrealised profits and losses. Distributable profts do not equate to retained profits and losses in the balance sheet (which include both realised and unrealised profits and losses). Distributable profits are not required to be disclosed in the accounts (this didn't used to be such an issue because unrealised profits and losses tended to be booked to a revaluation reserve; another "benefit" of IFRS).

Thirdly, you need to give consideration to a group's structure. The distributable profits requirement applies to individual companies not groups of companies i.e. the listed parent company may have distributable profits even if the consolidated group does not.

Today's fall is attributable to the share going ex-dividend although, given the ongoing sp weakness, one might have hoped that the sp might have shown more resilience (bottomed out)

Anybody got an idea when the interim results will be published? According to the investor calendar on DUKE's website the interim results were due to be released on 30 November. I'm surpised that there's been no update on when we can expect to see the interim results; the recent fund raise should not have been cause for any undue delay (albeit that they might have waited until the outcome of the EGM was known).

Deutsche Bank cuts M&G to 'hold' (buy) - price target 230 (240) pence; so obviously the share price should drop below 200! This market is peverse

AllatSea, Trying to compare AV directly with DLG is like trying to compare apples and oranges. E.g. AV is likely to generate significant revenues from its bulk annuities business with a significantly lower headcount whereas DLG has millions of customer policies in-force so will need a large customer support network. You really need to compare the headcounts and revenues for AV's insurances products business (if you can find them). I doubt that the disparities in headcounts would be anywhere near as large.

First you accuse me of me ignoring what they said when they bought IVS (which they didn't) and now you pluck a statement from their June 2024 statement when the price was around 110p to try and justify your original comment (desperate).

On 11 June 2024 they also said, just one line below the statement you chose to cherry pick, "Looking ahead, Oxford Metrics enters the second half with >90% visibility of full year revenues and with a growing pipeline, the Board believes the Group is well placed to deliver results in line with current market expectations" which were, at that time, ahead of FY23. Just three months later, having said that they had >90% visibility of full year revenues back in June they dropped the bombshell that sales were not only going to fall short of FY24 expectations but also below FY23!

As a shareholder, I'm fully entitled to say that Imogen is full of "s**t", just like you.

IVS's FY24 sales are below the level of their last full years results before they were acquired and it's loss making. Operating profits from continuing operations are down 90%+ year on year. They made an operating loss in H2 FY24. The shortfall in September 2024 orders is likely to have a knock on effect on H1 FY25. IVS/Sempre are not riding to the rescue any time soon (at the current rate, not this decade). As I've said all along, IVS is a niche business in the smart maufacturing sector (actually read the additional highlights in the acquisiton statement where OMG refers to "new niche market strength" - you've been refuting that it is a niche business for months and yet there it is in black and white, stated by OMG, on acquisition). You haven't got a leg to stand on. These results are atrocious, smart manfacturing is a sideline (come back and tell me about it when it's contributing 50% of sales) and Imogen is playing fast and loose with the facts.

Chelsea, I suggest you actually re-read the original RNS about the IVS acquisition (they didn't make any such claims at the time) rather than what Imogen is now saying (surely even you should have realised by now that you can't trust what Imogen says; vis-a-viz H2 performance for example). I genuinely thought IVS was a long-term project when it was acquired but that OMG was still on the look-out for a bolt-on acquisition for Vicon. Perhaps it passed your notice that one of the FrastTrack 100 private companies this year operates in the same sector as Vicon and has managed to grow its profitable sales to c£10m from a standing start over the last 4-5 years (if my memory serves)! I'm not suggesting that it would necessarily have been an appropriate acquisition for OMG (I'd imagine that the price tag would have been beyond OMG's means for starters and probably too large for a small company like OMG to integrate easily) but its performance compared to Vicon definitely raises questions.

As I said in my last post, be honest Chelsea; did OMG pursue IVS/Sempre simply because they had the cash and do you think they would have pursued them if they hadn't? I appreciate that UK markets have been pretty tumultuous since Brexit but still remain a firm believer in good, logical acquisitions standing on their own merits and I'm not sure that OMG would have been able to persuade any of its investors to stump up the cash to buy IVS two years ago. We were given a fait accompli and instead had to believe that management knew what they were doing at the time. Two years down the road they now appear to have bought, and since doubled down on, a distraction they don't really need at this time when they have troubles afoot in Vicon and an apparent delay in Markerless (as I said, I stand to be corrected on that).

Saxman, I've never shorted OMG although, with the benefit of hindsight, I sometimes wish I had. I'm just pointing out that the CEO is not being frank with investors and is trying to plaster over some major shortcomings. A 90%+ annual decline in operating profits from continuing operations is shocking (not to mention an actual operating loss for H2 - Imogen hasn't highlighted that either) and the trading outlook statement is woolly (at best) but I have to say that the addition of the new graphics in the RNS was a really nice touch (it's a typical accountant's touch; when you have little of susbtance to say or want to gloss over bad news, just add some nice, fairly meaningless, graphics to the presentation.

As a shareholder (and a believer in the Vicon product) I certainly hope there's good news on the way in FY25 but I'm really not holding my breath; I'm now expecting the worst and hoping for the best. Unfortunately I fear the CEO is doing the same!

Chelsea, You're talking through your proverbial again.

Operating profits have collapsed and IVS is loss making; those are the real facts of the matter.

IVS generated £2.9m of sales for the year ended 30-Sept-24 (compared to £3.4m for the year ended 28-Feb-23). Not only are the sales quite paltry (c7% of total sales) for a compnay that's been trading for over 24 years, they are even less than before OMG acquired this supposed "growth business"! As I've said before its a niche business (there's nothing in these results to suggest otherwise) in a supposed £bn sector which is likely to only be a distraction (at least in the near term) whilst Vicon's Entertainment division is currently imploding (the Entertainment division lost more in sales that the whole of IVS earned).

Vicon has problems and the problems in the Entertainment division may not be fixable (the whole VR gaming sector may be in decline - people still aren't willing to spend the money needed to make VR profitable; it's the perennial problem). OMG is now fire fighting on several fronts. Even if smart manufacturing is the future it's not the present and OMG has thus far failed to make any inroads; it's now trying to cobble together two, very small, smart manufacturing businesses whilst at the same time trying to fix problems in its core Vicon business. That's not very smart!

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the rollout of Markerless is running behind schedule. I stand to be corrected but wasn't Markerless supposed to start generating meaningful revenues in FY25?

Furthermore, the RNS rather suggests that September orders disappointed and that does not augur well for H1 FY25.

My beef is that Imogen likes to play fast and loose with her news announcements and I wouldn't be totally surprised if OMG now issues a further FY25 downgrade. Personally, I'm losing (if not already lost) patience with her and still haven't forgiven her faux pas at the interims. I think she's hoping for a miracle, rather than facing facts and saying it as it is.

As regards valuation, if you strip out the c£50m cash, it's hard to see current operating profits warranting a £10m valuation (20x earnings), let alone £20m+. It doesn't give me any pleasue to say it, but if anything the current share price is c10-15p too high! The BoD have managed to destroy value and acted like a bunch of amateurs. They should have distributed the surplus cash at the outset.

The real question you should be asking yourself, Chelsea, is whether or not OMG would have pursued the acquisitions of IVS and/or Sempre if they hadn't had the surplus cash. The cash should not have been the raison d'etre for the acquisitions.

Operating PBT from continuing operations has decreased from £5.6m to £0.5m; a 90%+ decline!

Smart manufacturing delivered a £0.3m operating LBT. The future is loss making (thus far).

There's no suggestion that those "delayed" orders have yet appeared post year end.

Way to go Imogen!

Explain your logic. Recurring quarterly income of c£6.15m for the 12 months ended 30 June 2024 (which is set to increase to c£6.4m in Q2 FY25 after recent follow-on investments and likely to increase even further after completion of the investment raise) against a recurring quarterly dividend (after investment raise) of c£3.6m, and you suggest that a dividend cut is more likely than a dividend increase?

Dividend coverage in FY24 was c1.19x (FY23: c1.11x) based on adjusted, recurring earnings per share (which strips out non-cash movements, disposal proceeeds, expensed acquisition costs and unrealised gains/losses) of c3.34pps (FY23: c3.10pps), and both the dividend coverage and adjusted EPS were set to improve further in FY25 by c5-10% before the investment raise. There will inevitably be some lag between the new investment funds being received and the funds being re-invested, which may no doubt have some knock-on affects on both adjusted earnings and dividend coverage for the next couple of quarters. However, these affects should only be temporary and, even then, should not warrant the need to reduce the current dividend (even temporarily).

Unless AEWU's modus operandi materially changes, I think it's unlikely that the annual dividend will change.

AEWU's operational model is to enhance the value of its assets, sell (at a profit) and re-invest. As a result, its EPRA earnings (which exclude gains on disposals of assets) have had a tendency to dip below 8pps for sustained periods (whilst proceeds are reinvested in suitable new investments) and, as such, it's difficult for AEWU to build a sustainable flow of EPRA earnings above 8pps to be able to consider increasing its annual dividend (it's more likely to reinvest than pay out).

The (additional) long-term value in AEWU will be its ability to enhance its NAV and, possibly, pay the occasional exceptional dividend if retained earnings permit.

To start increasing its annual dividend I think AEWU would need to change its modus operandi i.e. by investing for income and reducing its asset churn rate to virtually zero (the fact that they haven't bought/sold any assets for the last six months should not yet be seen as indicative of such a change). Over time, this would probably reduce AEWU's ability to increase NAV. It's a trade off.

By "investors" do they mean the Chinese?! The Chinese have been huge investors in US treasuries for the last 15+ years but one can imagine that they might be feeling less inclined given Trump's threat to increase tariffs; a warning shot across the bows perhaps (not that Trump is likely to pay any attention; he's working on the basis that the US is an island and all they need to do is put up the shutters and everything will be hunky-dory).

There's not a lot NESF can do about future, short-term UK price forecasts and inflation; they are out of NESF's hands. It's not as if NESF can export its electricity production through the European interconnectors to generate higher returns (even if it could export its electricity production there's unlikely to be any demand in France or Norway, given their available nuclear and hydro production). So NESF is left to take their NAV impact on the chin. The impact on gearing is, for the most part, a follow on from the reduction in NAV.

Theoretically, as at 30-Sept-24, NESF had the capacity to generate c8,612GWh pa (2023: c8,173GWh). Unfortunately we don't get daylight 24/7 and, even then, NESF is reliant on clear, cloudless days to maximise electricity generation. A 4GWh decline in production year on year, although disappointing, is less than 1% (or c5% if you factor in the theoretical capacity increase) and well within the margins that have to be allowed for climatic conditions. NESF has no control over the heavens!

Likewise NESF has no control over the market price which has been systematically undermined by successive governments' lack of investment in the electricity transmission network.

Bottom line, given the nature of NESF's business, you have to distinguish between the factors that NESF can control and the factors that NESF can't. It's not a retail business that can move production, sell into alternative markets or increase prices; it's hands are tied. It can try to build assets in other countries but that takes (a lot of) time and money and even diversified generators, such as GSF, are experiencing pricing and subsidy issues overseas. It's not an easy conundrum to fix.

Clearly they didn't raise the money to just put it on deposit and one would assume that they also didn't raise the money simply on the off chance that a suitable investment might turn up at some point in the future (one would assume that they already have some potential irons in the fire which should come to fruition in the next, say, 3-6 months). Obviously there will be some inevitable lag between the money being received and the money being reinvested. Also, it's likely that some of the money will be invested in equity which may not initially generate any cash return (will depend on dividends, if any). One would assume that any investments in the immediate offing will only be announced after the fund raise has been approved at the shareholder meeting on 5 December.

The FY24 after tax earnings were depressed by c£6.9m of unrealised fair value losses whereas the FY23 after tax earnings were similarly boosted by c£9.1 of unrealised fair value gains. IMHO periodic fair value fluctuations need to be taken with a pinch of salt; I'm not saying that they should be simply ignored but Duke does have a pretty good track record of generating a positive CAGR on its investments over their lifetime, regardless of periodic peaks and troughs.

Operating cash generation net of financing costs on the other hand improved from c£10.7m in FY23 to c£16.9m in FY24. So, I think the dividend is secure and hopefully will start to increase in due course.

Read the link: https://www.gov.uk/apply-tax-free-interest-on-savings

The allowances relate to interest earned outside of ISAs.

The £5,000 starting rate for savings is primarily targeted at UK state pensioners (they are the ones who generally benefit the most from this allowance) who have no other sources of income other than some bank/building society savings but anyone can benefit from the allowance who meets the criteria.

Potentially you can receive £6,000 of tax-free bank/building society interest if your earnings, pensions and other income are no more than £12,570. E.g. if you receive (say) £10,000 of pension (still feasible if you are the old state pension) then you could earn an additional £6,000 of interest before you'd have an obligation to report your income and have any tax to pay.

Or perhaps they're trying to buck the current market trend amongst brokers. There seems to be a tendency amonst brokers these days to deliberately undervalue UK listed businesses; the valuation of a business shouldn't be materially below what you'd expect someone to pay to buy the business and yet we are regulalry seeing 100% uplifts whenever a bidder appears. Perhaps you should be questioning why the other brokers are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Yes and no. PHNX has debt (which is decreasing) but it also has cash and cash equivalents (which is increasing). PHNX is in a rising net cash position (as opposed to a net debt position). It all really depends on what story you want to tell.