Member Info for TheTrotsky

Get over yourself.

You seem to think that investing in OMG is the be all and end all. As I've said there have been better investments than OMG over the same period.

I'd accept that FTC hasn't faired so well over the last few weeks as OMG but that's because new investors seem to have totally ignored broker's forecasts that have been knocking around for the best part of 6-12 months+ and the significant investment that's been made in new capacity to meet future demand.

As regards a "fool and his money being easily parted", this wouldn't be the first time that OMG's share price has looked set to rebound to £1+ only for actual results to catch up with reality and knock it back down. That's exactly what happended back in Apr/May last year and, to a lesser extent, on other previous occasions too. I've seen nothing from this executive team thus far to make me think that FY26 will (definitely) be different from FY25 or FY24 but I do live in hope that they will finally get their act together.

QED, although OMG might have looked undervalued based on an initital view of its net assets back in October, those net assets have been steadily erroding each year under Imogen's tenure and, without a major improvement in its trading results, those net assets look set to deplete even further as its investment income invariably decreases in line with theongoing reduction in surplus cash.

So, if I was a betting man (which I'm not), I'd have to think long and very hard about selling any new investment in OMG ahead of its AGM statement and/or H1 trading update because I'm not sure that I'd be fool enough to put any reliance on Imogen and her executive team actually delivering based on their track record to date.

In the long-term I still think that OMG can recover, with or without Imogen, but in the short-term I don't think I'd be gloating about the recent share price performance ahead of the AGM statement and/or H1 results becasue at least I would be sanguine enough to realise that it might yet prove to be just another fasle dawn (PI expectations getting ahead of economic reality) and that the recent share price increase might evaporate even more quickly than it arose.

I fully accept that it's not a foregone conclusion (Imogen may yet surprise me) but the smart money might start thinking about banking some profits ahead of the AGM and/or H1 results just in case Imogen manages, in her own inimitable way, to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" once again.

If you remember, part of problem last year was that due to some obfuscation in the AGM statement, Imogen's speciality, there were raised expectations of a significant improvement in H1 EBITDA which were subsequently dashed when the H1 results were released and the share pricecrashed accordingly; they'd chosen to only quote the cash balance at the AGM date rather than quoting the cash balance at the end of H1 and at the AGM date, as per the norm.

It never ceased to amaze me how clueless some investors are. They seem to think that you can spend £millions on new capital expenditure and recruitment to meet future demand without it having any impact on profits or EBITDA! Instead, they seem to think that capital expenditure and recruitment move in step with revenues, always operating at 100% capacity! FTC have taken steps, ahead of time, to more than double their production capacity and it will take several years to fill that capacity (you don't invest to just meet current requirements) and this year, as expected, FTCs results will be cost heavy but in subsequent years the P&L impact of those additional costs will mitigate as revenues increase. People also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that probably at least 50% of the prior year's revenues related to a very large, one,-off contract from SpaceX (the retro-fitting of their existing base stations) and that revenue has had to be replaced by new contracts that are expected to generate consistent, recurring revenues for several years to come. These results need to be read in that context.

Brokers understand these factors and have already taken them into account in their forecasts. These results are in line with forecasts and if the share price does tank today it will be because PIs who don't understand one end of accounts from another will be mugged (no doubt ably assisted by the MMs) into a frenzy of selling whilst institutional investors quietly scoop up their shares and wait for the rebound when sanity once more prevails!

So Musk is fundamentally "conning" future SpaceX investors into buying his X media platform; that's one way to try and recoup the massive losses he made when he bought Twitter and the proceeded to trash the company. It seems that these days just adding the term AI to your company's name adds $billions to its valuation, whether it's warranted or not.

I'm not sure what synergies are to be gained by SpaceX from acquiring xAI; after all, given Musk's investments in both businesses, it's not as if xAI would be likely to use a SpaceX competitor to launch its future satellites. If anything, it's more likely to discourage xAI's competitors from uaing SpaceX. By becoming more vertically integrated, it would seem that SpaceX is at risk of having a less diverse customer base.

Zebbo,

You can't simply change a trust's investment structure.

As far as I'm aware, the only way you could "change its structure" would be to close the trust, sell its assets, distribute the proceeds and then de-list. Shifting its listing to a different market sector doesn't change a trust's investment structure.

The "85% requirement" is based on NESF currently being registered in Guernsey (not because it's a REIT; it's not) and the only way to avoid this requirement would be to "re-register" the trust on the mainland, in which event its profits would then become subject to UK corporation tax! Truts pay no corporation tax in Guernsey provided they distributes at least 85% of their relevant profits whereas, on the mainland, only REITs are exempt from paying UK corporation tax, provided they distribute at least 90% of their relevant profits. QED.

NESF is selling assets to pay down debt and/or distribute to shareholders (this could include preference shareholders) via dividends and/or share buybacks. Given the structure of the trust, the preference share financing, the inability to roll up profits without paying corporation tax etc. it would have always been envisaged that the trust would need to sell assets (at a premium to their aquisition costs) and/or recoup business loans to repay the preference shareholders, the same as any bank loans.

Nothing's changed other than your world-view and a fudnamental misunderstanding of how the trust was expected to operate from day one.

I still think that OMG will remain a niche player (revenues relative to the potential market size) in the smart manufacturing sector and that it's SM business is unlikely to ever be the market leading supplier in the sector (albeit that there may be opportunities to be the market leading supplier in certain small scale, specialist areas) whereas Vicon is one of, if not the, market leader(s) in its sector. That said, the addressable market for Vicon is likely to be a lot smaller than the smart manufacturing sector.

IMO the jury is still out on whether the investment into smart manufacturing is going to pay off. We've certainly onboarded, via acquistion, a lot of generally recurring revenues but, as yet, it's been too early to try and determine the operating margin we might expect from the new division going forward and what impact, if any, OMG is having on division's management. Part of the rationale for creating a combined business is to drive cost efficiencies and generate new revenue opportunities.

Ignoring all of the hypebole in the FY25 results there were inklings that the SM division might deliver a decent operating margin but, as regards new revenue opportunities, it's probably too early to say. Yes, there were three new contract wins announced in FY25 but, given the time it often takes to negotiate these deals, I rather suspect that they might already have been in the offing at acquisition. It would be good to see existing contracts retained and new contracts added in FY26 or early FY27 as evidence on that front.

I'm looking forward to seeing the upcoming H1 results; that will be the first true LFL comparison for the SM division to be able to try and assess what OMG have brought to the table. It also goes without saying that we need to see some real progress in both revenues and profits in the Vicon division now that they're shot of the loss-making NZ subsidiary.

Chelsea, Try reading what I said. Averaging doesn't change the situation one iota; you're still sitting on a loss on your original investment. "Camouflaging" the loss on your original investment with the gain on your new investment doesn't change that situation.

I may still be sitting on a loss on my original investment in OMG but, in the intervening period, I've made money on, for example, FTC that I would have had to sell to make a further investment in OMG. The decision I made was purely based on what I thought would generate the best overall return for my portfolio rather than the return on one single share in my portfolio. Barring dividend reinvestment, I generally try to look at each investment I make in isolation when evaluating performance.

At the end of the day, the only difference in our strategies is that I believed that I could make more money holding onto my investment in FTC rather than selling and reinvesting the proceeds in OMG. In the long run, I think FTC will prove the better long term investment but that's just my opinion and I freely accept that I may be proven wrong in the fullness of time; that's investing.

The point in dispute is whether "averaging down" is a good strategy in all circumstances. My view is that any investment in OMG, or any other share for that matter, should be based on whether or not it represents good value at that point in time; the rationale for any new investment decision is that it needs to be able to stand on "its own two legs" and should not be biased by any previous investment decisions. We're all susceptible to chasing our losers; often, but not always, in the mistaken belief that they'll come good eventually. I'd agree that investing in OMG in the mid-40s has proven a sounddecision, as long as the primary motive wasn't simply to "average down" i.e. that the decision was based on an assessment of OMG's true value rather than simply trying to recover what you'd already lost.

I reiterate, I take a portfolio view rather than individual investment view and am willing to accept, at any given point in time, that some, maybe even all (in the event of a market crash), of the investments in my portfolio will be in the red. I don't need to see my OMG investment in the green to know that the loss has reduced over the last few months. Hopefully that will continue but I await the upcoming AGM statement with bated breath (not forgetting that last year's AGM statement proved somewhat adrfit from the subsequent H1 trading update).

I'm not saying that OMG is a bad investment but its trading performance over the last two years leaves a lot to be desired and I remain to be convinced that the current executive team are the people to turn it around (having helped to put it into the current financial situation to start with). However, I am open to them proving me wrong and that's why I've been saying that FY26 is a critical year for both OMG and the executive team.

So says the man who lives in LaLa Land and keeps insisting that 2+2=5. What a dummkopf!

Anybody with an elementary understanding of maths would realise that you've either broken even on your original investment and made zip/nada on your new investment OR are still underwater on your original investment and sitting on a nice profit from your new investment. You can't breakeven on your original investment AND have a nice little profit on your new investment. Totally deluded.

Meanwhile, in the Real World, I've paired my losses on my original investment and made a nice little profit from not selling my FTC shares to fund a new investment here (as I've repeatedly said, I didn't have any spare cash so would have had to sell something else in my portfolio to fund a new investment in OMG).

Finally, and to the point, it's not as if we haven't been here before. OMG had a very nice little price run into the low 60s before the last set of results only for Imogen to disappoint and the share price to tumble back into the 40s where the current price run started. So, unless you are nimble of foot and happy to sell on the highs in the hope that of buying back again on the lows (personally, I'm terrible at market timing - always holding out for more on the highs and anticipating lower lows and missing the boat).

So, you've got a choice to make, either sell before the next results in the expectation that Imogen will again fail to deliver or hold in the hope that Imogen and OMG have, at last, turned the corner.

Personally, I'm going to hold regardless because I believe that OMG is too good a business to ultimately fail and that it will turn the corner, with or without Imogen, in the end. I hope Imogen does turn it around but I'm sanguine enough to realise that she's now in the last chance saloon and not even hyperbole can save her job if FY26 doesn't shape up. Meanwhile Chelsea will, no doubt, continue his love-in with Imogen regardless of the results.

GLA. Here's hoping the next results aren't just another false dawn.

SABA should be told in no unceratin terms to get on their bike. It's not excatly a freewheeling market for asset sales at the moment, if your hadn't noticed. It's taken GCP close to two years to realise the asset sales it wanted. I suspect that SABA are trying to position themselves to try and force a continuation vote so that they can be force GCP to pay them out at small discount to current estimated NAV and leave the rest of us up the creek without a paddle and more debt to boot.

Tsk, tsk it's Reform, not NF, these days old boy! Re-branding and all.

Oh, mea culpa you meant Nige! What a coincidence ;-)

Fishinggardner, I suggest that you do a bit more delving. The interim dividend was re-rated following the acquisition of DLG (it was increased by c10%) and AV stated in their post acquisition/interim RNS that they intend to do a similar re-rating for the final dividend i.e. c10%. Thereafter, going forward, AV's stated intention is to reduce the dividend growth rate back to mid-single digits.

Admiral is down 4.5% so far today; AV's share price decline may have more to do with the general insurance market than Amanda potentially leaving

If you are referring to EQT's acquisition of Coller Capital then I don't see any reason why it would effect their bid for OXB.

The base consideration of USD 3.2bn for the acquisition of Coller Capital is to be funded by an issue of new EQT shares.

Only the additional contingent consideration of up to USD 500m will be funded in cash.

.

JATW, discretionary fund managers earn additional fees by churning (trading) your portfolio and, in my limited knowledge, always tend to ignore "noise" i.e. they trade regardless of any market news, whether positive or negative (they are just as happy to buy at the top and sell at the bottom as vice versa). Whether this is the best long-term strategy, and generates the best returns for investors, is open to debate IMHO.

EQT have employed Morgan Stanley and Jefferies International to act on their behalf whereas I think that Aberdeen, Blackrock, Liontrust, Threadneedle etc. are acting on their own behalf.

It's not unusual to see a lot of activity when there's an active bid. Whether EQT is building an equity stake is unclear (they've yet to make any announcement to the market to that effect). If they are, they'll only be purchasing at a price below their undisclosed offer (I believe I'm right in saying that if they pay more than their undisclosed offer, whilst the share is under offer, they would be obliged, under stock exchnage rules, to raise their offer price accordingly).

I would suspect that Morgan Stanley and Jefferies International are currently trying to keep a cap on any further price increases (either to enable EQT to buy in the market or to keep a cap on the BoD's price expectations in any negotiations).

In fairness the £5.50 was based on heightened expectations for ReZorce but, nevertheless, would agree that ZTF remains undervalued

I think most people by now know that TACO is an acronym for "Trump Always Chickens Out" and, just like that, it would seem that following NATO talks at Davos he has now decided to drop the threat of tariffs and said that he'll not use force to take Greenland, so there may well be a bounce tomorrow am.

As for DFM, that's one I'm unfamiliar with but suspect that it's an acronym for Discretionary Fund Manager.

Here we go again! I've mentioned both FTC and SSIT several times in the last few months and anybody with any grey matter between the ears would be able to quite easily verify their performances against OMG. Some people are just tone deaf.

I'd accept that ONWD's performance has been lame but that's more of a long term punt than a short-term gainer. PEB has done okay but not as well as OMG. However, PEB's trading well and I firmly believe that there will be a bounce in its share price come results.

I've also repeatedly said that I haven't had much spare cash to invest anywhere recently (not even in SSIT). What spare cash I have had has been reinvested in dividend paying shares yielding 7%+, which better suits my long-term plans. So, whether or not to invest more into OMG hasn't been an issue for me to weigh up. Yes, OMG is currently paying a nice dividend too but, all other things be equal, some of the recent capital growth will likely be pared back when it goes ex-div.

Could I have sold some other shares to buy into OMG? Certainly a lot of my portfolio hasn't faired as well as OMG over the last 3-months but I've always been a holistic investor (looking at overall portfolio performance rather than always trying chase the next Polly Peck) and accepted that there will always be some swings and roundabouts.

In the absence of any facts, rather than blind expectation, I'm left to look at Imogen's performance over the last 24 months and can't say that I'm encouraged. However, I still continue to hold my original investment in the hope that she (or her successor) will eventually turn OMG around. FY26 is critical and we need to see good LfL growth in H1. If Imogen can deliver that in actual £s, rather than hyperbole, then I may yet be converted.

PS. I've made more money from my long-term holding in FTC over the last 3 months than I would have made if I'd sold and put my money into OMG instead; so put that in your pipe and smoke it Chelsea! Not bragging; simply stating a fact for the dunce at the back!

PPS. Personally, I still think that space is going to be the hot sector in 2026, in part fuelled by the prospect of SpaceX's expected IPO later this year, but it's just my hunch and certainly not a recommendation. Each to their own and, as always, caveat emptor.

PPPS. If anybody's interested, my outlier would be that the renewable energy sector might start to recover some of its shine this year. It certainly looks all doom and gloom but there are some indications in the US that the wheels may be starting to fall off Trump's "Drill Baby Drill" policy; a case of falling prices meeting rising costs. Meanwhile, in the UK, the governement's current proposals to reduce renewable subsidies seem to lack commercial sense and ceratinly doesn't look like a vote winner. According to the government's own figures, they'd expect the average family to be £3 a year better off by 2030!

Will probably have egg on my face this time next year ;-)

OMG's share price is holding up well but, I'm sorry, I can't just ignore Chelsea's chump comment which is clearly directed at me (again) despite him having blocked my posts. If you'd invested the same amount of money in SSIT, a share I've mentioned several times recently, when this share hit 40p, you'd now be sitting on a c73% gain as opposed to a c38% gain on OMG. I'm not personally invested in SSIT but I'm invested in FTC and that's up c46% over the same time frame. Truth of the matter is that I haven't had any spare cash to invest but if I'd sold FTC and bought OMG, as an example, I'd now be out of pocket.

The reality is a lot of shares have performed well in the last 3 months and I'd hazard that OMG is towards the top of the 2nd quatile for share performance, if not the 1st quartile, and I'm very happy to be clawing back some of my previous losses but, at the end of the day, short-term performance is fairly irrelevant; a company's share price is only as good as it's next trading update, a lesson most LTI investors in OMG know only too well. Over the last 12 months the share price has trended upwards on several occasions, only for the upwards momentum to be scotched by the trading reality. I'm genuinely hoping that this time is different but I'm not holding my breath; Imogen has disappointed too often over the last 24 months and I'm not going to count by chickens before they are in the bag, unlike some.

It goes without saying that the recent good share performance at FTC and SSIT could equally do a U-turn, no shares are immune, but simply because OMG has gone up c38% since mid-October does not automatically make OMG the best investment for additional cash. So can somebody please tell Chelsea to stop harping on. He's got his strategy and I've got mine but averaging down does not reduce the loss on your original investment; you should only average down if you think that the market has got it wrong and see an opportunity for arbitrage. Unfortunately the market has got in right more often than it's got it wrong on OMG over the last 24 months but perhaps "tommorrow is another day" and OMG has at last turned the corner. Roll-on the next results (a few new contracts announcements wouldn't go amiss either).

So, by my reckoning, that's £3 per new share. Not bad work if you can get CaptNemo ;-)