Member Info for TheTrotsky

Divermike, You make a 1m shares sound like "small beer" but, unlike you (clearly), most of us don't have £70k just "lying around" like "chump change" to invest in CASP ;-) Suffice to say, based on the current share price of c7p per share, the shares are currently yielding c7.6% per annum (based on the current minimum monthly dividend of £1m) i.e. about £76 per £1,000 invested.

The 10p divvy is simply in line with market expectaions.

Three way collar hedges aren't a "problem" they just limit the potential upside of the market price falling below the hedge price. In the Chesapeake Energy Corp (CES) example cited in this article https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2023-02-14/u-s-gas-producers-skimped-on-price-hedges-and-now-face-a-reckoning (I couldn't access the Reuters article) CES would still benefit from the price difference between $3.40 (the hedge price) and $2.50 (the put price); CES would only be foregoing the benefit of the difference between $2.50 (the put price) and $2.36 (the current market price). Obviously the amount of benefit foregone would depend on the hedge price and put price, and will differ from one company to the next.

Kheldar, The guidance only says that companies should aim to pay dividends with options (such as scrip dividends, DRIPS etc) WITHIN 20 business days of the election date; it doesn't stipulate that they must be paid 20 business days later.

SimonV, "town gas" was coal gas (a c50:50 mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen as I understand). I'm not disputing that hydrogen can be used in a domestic environment but if we are to use 100% hydrogen then, by my reckoning, we are either going to have to deliver it into homes at c3x existing pressure (to get the equivalent amount of energy per cubic metre) or heat our homes and water about 3x more slowly than we currently do (essentially you need a given amount of energy to heat a given amount of water over a given period of time and, because heat dissipates over time, the longer it takes the more likely you are to need more energy; at least that's my understanding). Also, lets not forget that existing gas appliances may have to be converted/replaced (they had to be converted/replaced when we converted from town gas to natural gas and it's possible/probable that a similar kinf of conversion/replacemnt process might be needed if we convert to 100% hydrogen). That's ignoring the fact that hydrogen as a fuel has had a chequered history and that any explosions would only feed the existing negative connotations.

Savvy, Are you suggesting that we should transport and store hydrogen gas to convert it to electricity to charge EVs? Yes, it's feasible but have you actually sat down and considered the implications? Elon Musk once (basically) said that hydrogen-powered vehicles were 3x less efficient than EVs (a fact, that as far as I am aware, has never been disputed) i.e. it took about 3x the amount of electricity for a hydrogen-powered vehicle to travel one mile as it did an EV. Green hydrogen is created by electrolysing one of the most stable molecules on the planet (water); it takes a "humungous" amount of electricity to create hydrogen, let alone liquefy and store it until needed. Now, if the electricity can't be stored (batteries) and it would otherwise go to waste (or the wind turbines would be switched off) then it makes sense to convert it into hydrogen (essentially just an alternative form of storage). However, to then convert the hydrogen back into electricity, rather than simply use it as a fuel in its own right, would be just adding inefficiency on inefficiency. I would hazard that converting electricity into hydrogen and then back into electricity would probably be, at best, 20% efficient, if not lower (I believe gas turbines for comparison are, as best, 40-50% efficient) - the initial conversion alone, using Musk's figures would be about 33% efficient (ignoring the subsequent transmission loss).

The amount of energy that it takes to move a petrol-driven car one mile is, in reality, only a small fraction of the untapped energy that existed at the well head (once it has gone through the refining, distribution and combustion process) and we now seem hellbent on making that process even more inefficient! That's progress ;-)

I don't see that you could sell STC without selling Labskin and selling Labskin at this formative stage would be foolhardy; you'd be selling at a fraction of its potential future value.

Also, selling to a major cosmetic manufacturer would be unlikely to maixmise its current, let alone its future, potential value, for DVRG shareholders. If a major cosmetic manufacturer was to acquire Labskin other cosmetic manufacturers would probably cease to use its services (overnight) and therefore signficantly reduce its revenue generation potential.

Selling Labskin is not a logical decision.

I suspect that the problem with the home insurance was a question of re-insurance rather than necessarily premiums. If you look at AV, it says its weather-related costs were c£50m compared to DLG's c£90m despite AV being the larger insurer. Does this imply that the houses DLG insured were more prone to weather damage? I doubt it. I suspect that AV may simply have "laid off" more of its risk through re-insuance than DLG. It's a balancing act. Self-insurance can be a lot more lucrative (it's like gearing) but in a bad year it can come back to bite you in the bum!

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily the right time to dump DLG. It's problems are fixable and a new CEO is now in place (although it might have been preferable if they'd chosen an outsider because, despite Penny having taken the bullet, it was at heart a collective failing). Also, it's a feature of the FTSE that the previous year's worst performers tend to be the following year's best performers (just look at abrdn; I gave up the ghost back in September and sold at c144p and it's since recovered to c216p - nearly 50% - despite no material change in its results). I haven't entirely given up all hope that DLG may, at least, partially reinstate its dividend in FY23. Foregoing its FY22 final dividend should save c£200m and, together with the c£50m saved from curtailing the share buy-backs, should go a long way to plugging the holes in the FY22 P&L. FY23 will be a year of transition but DLG does have some strong, recognisable brands and there's no reason to think that it's all about to cave in.

PS. Unlike an ISA, you are permitted to hold foreign currencies within a SIPP

My understanding is that the likes of AJB, HL, ii et al make a "universal" election, or not, on behalf of all of their nominee account holders (they don't normally permit the individual account holders to make their own individual elections) but will generally pay the dividend into your nominee account in GBP regardless.

For example, I used to hold DEC with both AJB and ii. AJB has elected with DEC to receive the dividends in GBP and DEC pays the quarterly dividend to AJB at the notified dividend exchange rate whereas ii has not made the election and instead receives the dividend from DEC in the default currency (USD) and converts it to GBP at the exchange rate applicable on the date of receipt. I'm not sure whether HL has elected or not (you should be able to tell from whether the dividend is paid at the notified dividend exchnage rate) but my read is that HL would appear to be offering you the opportunity to receive the dividend in USD (on payment of a 1% commission). The fact that HL appears to be offering you the opportunity to receive the dividend in USD would, if I'm correct, suggest that they have not made the election with DEC.

Why are you singling out PAY to become a charity? What about the banks, Post Office and shops that profit from trading with low income customers? PAY isn't targeting low income customers per se; it's targeting customers who transact in covenience stores, whether that be cash, vouchers or digitally, who just happen to be, for the most part, on low incomes.

About £10m of PAY's FY22 overheads related to depreciation and amortisiation. I suggest that you go and swat up on the R&D rules; product development doesn't isn't eligible for R&D tax credits. For the most part, PAY's terminals probably would never have been eligible (even in development) because you don't get R&D tax credits for simply assembling common, off the shelf parts into a completed product (as far as I am aware PAY has never created any besopke parts for its terminals). Its original computer software might have been eligble for R&D tax credits but subsequent enhancements probably not. The fact that PAY receives only a small amount in R&D tax credits does not mean that it's not undertaking product development. I would suspect a large part of PAY's overheads would have related to staff involved in software development, enhancement and support; indeed some of the software developemnet costs may even have been capitalised as intangibles assets if they were considered to be of an enduring, long term benefit to the business and are being amortised accordingly. The R&D tax rules are very specific and it's likely that only PAY's original bespoke software and knowhow would have ever have qualified; that does not mean that the products aren't being continuously enhanced and developed.

Finally, PAY is highly cash generative and is paying down its debt in accordance with its loan terms. In FY22 PAY took a one-off cash hit of £12.5m relating to a historic dispute with Ofgem which depleted its corporate cash (year end corporate cash fell by c£3m whereas it would have risen by c£10m without the payment). Much of PAY's debt has accumulated from recent ancilliary acquisitions (like the upcoming Appreciate acqusition) which have been (and are expected to be) earnings enhancing.

Stop nit picking or at least learn to read a set of accounts and brush up on the R&D rules, to get your facts right, before you do so. If you don't like PAY fair dinkum, move on. Stamp duty is a lame excuse for not investing (£25 on a £5k investment is hardly a deal breaker). Me thinks that you are simply trying to talk PAY down in the hopes of finding a lower entry point; on yer bike!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64629680

I'm assuming that the drug, Libmeldy, developed by Orchard Therpeutics would have used OXB's LentiStable™ technology (the "harmless virus").

Despite being a shareholder in Ceres, I think there is way too much hype about the capabilities of hydrogen. All of the effort is being concentrated on producing the "sand" without any thought about "delivering" it.

It seems clear (to me) that large scale general, domestic use is just a pipe dream; at best we should probably be looking for an 80/20 natural gas/hydrogen domestic mix using conventional boilers with the possibility of replacing off grid oil heating with hydrogen (using storage and solid state fuel cells). As I see it, the main use of hydrogen will be for large scale industrial and fuel.

However, it's just as much at risk of becoming a non-event as EVs if people (and governments) in particular continue to get carried away with the hype and don't concentrate on the problems first. There are already signs that the EV revoulution may already be faltering in the UK because the government has failed to address the infrastucture problems (getting the electricity from where it's generated to where it's needed), failed to address service and maintenance problems (there are barely enough botas and divers to maintain existing off-shore wind farms, let alone the proposed new ones) and, possibly worst of all, over-hyped the existing generation of EVs which are only a stop gap (better batteries, better electric motors etc. are all in the offing in the next 5-10 years). Furthermore, in the rush to be green, people are being green-washed (I've heard of diesel generators being used to charge cars because local power grids don't have the capacity) and it will backfire.

Much the same applies to hydrogen. No thought appears to have been given to how the electricity being generated is going to be transmitted to where it's going to be needed to produce the hydorgen. Also, people are being completely blase about the risks current hydrogen storage solutions pose. NONE of the current hydrogen storage solutions are 100% capable of preventing hydrogen leaks (all of the existing materials in use are actually porous to hydrogen; it can even seep, slowly, through metal containers because of its small molecular size). Some hydrogen storage solutions are better than others but are we really proposing to dot potential "Hindenburgs" all around the country?! Hydrogen is highly combustable in large concentrations (exactly what you find at storage facilities). It would only take a couple of large hydrogen gas explosions at storage facilities to put hydrogen fuels on the back burner once again. Graphene may be the solution and the amount of money needed to accelerate research in this field would be a drop in the ocean to the potential benefits (but I very much doubt that the UK government will ever cotton on).

Not sure what MW's plans are but I suspect that for the remainder of 2023 he'll just be wanting to stabilise Tile Giant. Given that he left Topps over 3-years ago I thought the link was a bit tenuous; just a journalist looking to earn brownie points from naming names rather than doing any real journalism. I think it's a non-story for Topps other than the strong are likely to become stonger in the current market.

I'm not sure what percentage of the tile market Tile Giant currently has but I don't think Topps would be allowed to buy a large competitor because of potential competition issues whilst buying a small competitor is unlikely to be as beneficial to Topps as it might be to its larger competitors who might currently be less resilient (would probably add little or nothing to Topps's revenues but would reduce competition in the market generally; making its competitors stronger). Instead, I think that if Topps is looking to be aquisitive it will look at ancillary additions (like Pro Tiler). In the meantime, there is nothing to bar Topps from increasing its revenues organically and taking market share by taking advantage of its existing economies of scale.

The reality is that if they are shorting then the price needs to go further south from here before they're in the money. The lack of news from the BoD is making it easy for them (they're pushing against an open door).

I suspect that the likes of Bemmacolli1 (not wanting to be presumptious) and many other long term DVRG investors who are sitting on large 5-6 figure losses are extremely unlikely to even consider putting one more penny into DVRG (in the hopes of averaging down) until there is a lot firmer news and, until such time, there's not a lot of share price support.

Personally, although I'm sitting on a low 5-figure loss, I take the view that DVRG's cash flow problems were caused by over rapid sales growth (and lack of cost control) and that, if there is more moderate sales growth and/or cost savings, then it should be possible to remedy the cash flow problems and have taken the opportunity to add a few more. Obviously there are others who take a much dimmer view of GB and his dealings but, in the absence of any information from DVRG, it's just unverified speculation.

My greatest concern now is whether the BoD is acting for all investors or just the new investors brought in during the fund raising. The current dearth of information could enable the BoD at a later date to try and feed us the line that the business needs to be taken private (beacuse "the market doesn't recognise DVRG's true value" spiel) and the new investors will hold sway in any vote.

BillBursio, They're not skimming or exploiting (as you suggest). They're providing them with services they need and can't normally otherwise obtain. Also, if you hadn't noticed, a number of Post Office outlets are now based inside shops; many of which will no doubt use PayPoint terminals.

As for paying bills at zero cost using bank accounts, are you actually financially literate? Do you think that banks don't make money from transactions? Banks don't just make money on "the turn" (the difference between the interest they pay and the money they earn from lending or depositing the money with the BofE), they also make money on transactional charges they levy on businesses, local authorities, governments, housing associations etc. If you'd ever run a business account you'd have realised that.

PAY, far from being a big bad wolf, is offering additional services; making it easier for both people and businesses to do business (one solution rather than a multitude of different offerings). Yes, PAY makes money from doing this business but so do banks, Post Office et al.

I'd also suggest that you try topping up your pre-payment meter by paying your bills at the Post Office. The hint is in the name - you pay before you use. That's not how it works I'm afraid. I suggest that you come down from your gilded tower once in a while and see how the common "man" lives for once!

Given the supposed "strong institutional demand" for shares in OMG (which doesn't really seem to be reflected in the share price), one has to wonder why OMG doesn't give some thought to buying shares in the open market with a view to bundling them up to sell on to institutional investors. Utilising only a few £million of their net cash they could effectively "rinse and repeat" several times; they wouldn't need to make a profit (just cover their costs) and it could help set 110p as the bottom of the share price range rather than the top as it's currently. Just a thought.

I'd say buy yourself a pint ;-) Maybe a quart ;-)

NewUnc, The afternoon onslaught has begun. 3x 500k sells in the last 25 minutes. Even if it was Turner Pope selling you'd have thought that their holdings were fully depleted by now (unless they've received yet more shares, in lieu of fees, in the last placing - can't see any guidance in the RNS's). I don't believe Turner Pope underwrote either the placing or the broker offer; if they had I wouldn't expect them to be selling any of the "unsold" shares below the placing price (that's a sure fire way for a broker to go out of business).

What I found interesting was the comment by Tile Giant's restructuring advisor (Interpath Advisory):

"... While retailers specialising in DIY and home improvement enjoyed a period of growth during the pandemic, the squeeze on disposable income caused by the current cost-of-living crisis is now starting to place significant pressure on cashflow ..."

This may be true for Tile Giant and its ilk but, at least uptil now, TPT doesn't appear to be suffering any similar problems (as evidenced by the c10% increase in Group sales in Q1 FY23 and the net cash of c16m and revolving credit facility of £30m at the end of Q4 FY22). TPT seems to be well positioned and despite the likes of Tile Giant have gone through the process of a pre-pack (the phoenix rising from the ashes) it's a smaller proposition than it was before the pre-pack.

NewUnc, There's your answer to why the share price isn't moving up; another c600k shares sold at c12:39.

It's getting very frustrating ;-)

My gut tells me that there must be shorters out there with reasonably large positions (despite none being reported) becasue if there was one, or more, large sellers in the market they'd surely have fully depleted their holding(s) by now (it's been 4-6 months of almost constant selling).