Member Info for TheTrotsky

Just an odd (unbalanced) statement and typical GB IMHO. As per usual, he issues a statement without any thought for how the market might perceive the statement. GB is nothing if not an enthusiast but does not have a clue how to act as a CEO. As I've said before, on many occasions, he's a (very good) CTO masquerading as a (very poor) CEO. I fully expect MW to be in line with expectations; the new production facility only opened in Q2 and so its results were always going to be weighted towards H2. The lack of any update on orders is typical DVRG; just look at last year. For some reason GB thinks that DVRG only ever need notify Q1 production orders and can then stay shtum for the rest of the year. GB is erratic by character and just gets carried away with the flavour of the month (currently STC); excellent traits in a CTO but not what you want from a CEO (you want balance and level headedness, with a view to how the market may interpret your every statement).

The share price is in the pits because GB always gets ahead of himself with his enthusiasm, hinting at new opportunities, as if they are here and now, when in fact they will often take 12-24 months to actually reach fruition, and now the market and PIs just don't trust a word that he says.

Oh well, nothing to with the current economic and political situation then! ALL shares in AV's sector are down. You might as well have sold them all 2-3 months ago! This is not an AV specific fall. The whole sector is following the market down. AV is not immune to what's going on in the outside world. Bewteen results announcements there is very little AV, or LGEN or any other company for that matter, can do to quell market sentiment. I don't know about you but very few of my shares are ahead of where they were 2-3 months ago (whether they are dividend or growth stocks) and, those that are, are only up due to recent company specific announcements that have bucked the current market negativity. I suggest that when you get the opportunity you sell all your shares and stuff the money under your mattress; that way you'll be certain to know that it's not AV, or any other share, that is letting you down. Get your heads out of the sand and look around at what's happening in the real world; believe it or not is does have an impact on most, if not all, share prices (even the shares bucking the trend might have been even higher without the current economic situation). AV has made no announcements that would warrant this current share price fall.

PS. Today, AV is trading on an historic dividend yield of c6.98% whereas LGEN is trading on a comparable yield of c7.40% (AV is therefore still trading at a premium to LGEN). AV's yield immediately before the transaction was c5.5% but the return of £3.75bn of surplus cash was always going to change its yield dynamics; it was never reasonable to assume that the yield before would be comparable to the yield after.

For some reason ITM has failed to dislcose its tender pipeline, only its work in progress and contracts backlog, and some are choosing to interpret this as implying that its tender pipeline has become immaterial or simply evaporated! At 31 December ITM had a tender pipeline of c£909m, so it's not a small figure and it does appear to be a starnge omission. Not invested in ITM but I can't believe that their tender pipeline has simply evaporated; if it is an error of omission, somebody is going to get a rollicking! On top of that, they are facing contract delays and extenions due to the ongoing Covid disruption.

We're getting creamed (again).

Perhaps we need an executive order to prioritise energy storage over EVs until the battery shortage is resolved; the former is green (because without the storage the energy is lost and has to be replaced from carbon emitting energy sources) whereas the latter has more dubious green credentials. Lithium mining and production has a significant carbon footprint (but in choosing between storage and EVs the impact is neutral) however, thereafter, much of the electricity used to charge EVs inevitably comes from existing carbon emitting energy sources, plus much of that energy is lost in transmission (it's greener than burning petrol/diesel but it's not 100% green). Also, in the short term, building new EVs to scrap petrol/diesel cars is not green (it takes years and many miles for the green benefits to conteract the initial carbon cost).

In fairness, Amanda Blanc increased her holding by c37% from c352k to c484k shares on 7 March (she effectively reinvested her capital return before the transaction). As regards the subsequent sales by Amanda Blanc and Andrea Blance, they were, I believe, the results of £nil priced share options vesting and sales being made to cover the consequent tax costs.

Overseas investors, particularly US investors, were very pleased because c£3.75bn of surplus cash was returned in a tax efficient manner (from a UK tax perspective it makes little or no difference). That's why they did it.

I read the article and its says 422.5p, not 425p ;-)

I agree about the insight though.

From a UK perspective, I think the markets were likley spooked by the result of the Boris vote. The size of the anti-Boris vote and the likelihood that, despite his protestations, this issue ins't going to go away and is going to continue to rumble on has unsettled the market (uncertainty is a poor bed fellow).

Boris has become a liability in more ways than one and the Tory party needs to wake up and realise that almost anybody (apart from JRM) is better than Boris now. I think it's looking increasingly likely that we are heading for a hung parliament at the next election with, perhaps, either the SNP or the Unionists as kingmakers. Albeit that both Labour and the LibDems are very lacklustre, I think it's quite feasibe that between them (and perhaps the Green Party) they could at least win the 38 Tory seats needed to eradicate the current Tory working majority. Starmer may be underwhelming but has one major advantage, he isn't Corbyn, and will clawback some of the disaffected Labour vote (it probably won't be uniform but it will swing some marginal seats). Likewise, the LibDems are likely to pick up some disaffected Tory seats in the south of England and highly unlikely to consider a repeat of the 2010 coalition, particularly if Boris remains the Tory leader.

It's interesting how valuable Yotta is deemed to be by brokers relative to Vicon; contributing only c10% of FY21 adjusted profits and yet deemed to be worth c25% of OMG's market value (based on share price target of 157p).

Given that Vicon delivered c25% adjusted PBT in FY21 (FY20: c21%; FY19: c29%; FY18: c30%), I think Nick Bolton needs to better explain why they are aiming to increase sales 2.5x over the next 4-5 years but, effectively, REDUCE adjusted PBT to c15%. I imagine that they foresee a much higher R&D spend over the next 4-5 years to help grow the top line, together with some targeted M&A, but to target only doubling Vicon's existing adjusted PBT by the end of the plan seems underwhelming, unless I'm missing something (if Vicon was able to maintain the existing c25% margin it would mean an additional c£10m of adjusted PBT at the end of the plan).

Actually Mike, I think you'll find the initial reference to GSF was mine in an "off topic" discussion with SD235 as to why more PIs don't take a look at investment trusts (for yield and diversification) as an alternative to investing directly in shares. Also, although GSF is a quoted investment trust, I think Thrugelmir may have got the investment trust mixed up with Gore Street Capital in his original post. There is no conspiracy ;-)

PS. GSF may be exactly the type of business LGEN might be looking to get into itself if the government reforms the Solvency II rules (to encourage insurers to invest in long term infrastructure projects) so I don't see why you have to suggest that GSF is somehow "tarnished".

PPS. I also mentioned GCP (another infrastructure investment trust) plus a couple of REITs in my response to SD235 before you suggest I have an alterior motive (apart from discussing alternative investments to perhaps glean some useful insight).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-powers-on-with-reforms-to-solvency-ii

The government is proposing to reform the Solvency II rules to enable insurers to invest, on behalf of policyholders, in long term infrastructure projects. In principle, I think it's a good idea. Government infrastructure projects can offer an attractive, long term, revenue stream

soton, I'm referring to the Gore Street Energy Storage Investment Trust (GSF) which I hold in my SIPP. GSF's ongoing charge figure (OCF) is 2.4% per Trustnet (this is deducted from GSF's annual profits). I pay a flat monthly charge of £10 with AJ Bell whatever shares I hold; there is no additional charge for holding investment trusts, unlike unit trusts. The OCF maybe high compared to a tracker fund but the OCF is not disproportionately high for an actively managed fund; especially for a fund invested in income producing energy storage assets.

The reality is that the Queen has a lot less executive powers than an elected president; her role is primarily ceremonial. The Queen's only real powers of note are the abilities (in extremis) to sack the PM (if, for example, the PM refuses to resign after losing a vote of no confidence) and to dissolve parliament (by refusal of royal assent and forcing the government to resign). On paper, these are significant powers but, in reality, one could not foresee the Queen (or any other monarch) using these powers other than by popular demand (either at the express wish of a majority in parliament or, possibly, a majority of the electorate). To use these powers otherwise would risk jeopardising the monarchy. The powers are only there as a backstop should every other legal avenue fail.

For those of you interested, herewith a link to a document available on the AV website to assist you with calculating capital gains (if appropriate) and apportioning you original acquistion cost between your (disposed) B shares and your (retained) new ordinary shares:

https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/aviva-corporate/documents/investors/pdfs/credit-investors/Guidance%20for%20shareholders%20on%20calculating%20capital%20gains%20following%20the%20Aviva%20B%20Share%20Scheme%202022.pdf

Essentially, 25.32% of your original acquistion cost should be attributed to your B shares and 74.68% attributed to your retained new ordinary shares.

SD235, The yield on GSF is a tad complex. They aim to target an annual 7% yield on the average net asset value (NAV) per ordinary share each financial year (subject to a minimum of 7p per ordinary share) and are now planning to increase the dividend by 0.5p for every 7p increase in the average NAV per ordinary share over and above 100p. So, yes, GSF is currently trading at a yield of c5.78% based on its current share price but its NAV is creeping up and currently stands at 103.90p per ordinary share (per Trustnet). Given that investment trusts can trade at a premium/discount to NAV (GSF currently trades at a premium to its last NAV update; implying that the market believes that the NAV is rising), you need to keep an eye on its NAV (not its share price) to determine it's likely future dividend. My expectation is that the current "yield gap" should start to close (at least getting nearer to 7%; albeit that there will always likely be a lag because the dividend will be paid on the the yearly average).

You might like to tell Boris about the checks and balances ;-)

Hitman, I'd imagine that there will be some pressure from US activist investors for AV to return surplus capital via buybacks. I don't think that Blanc is too enamoured by the US activist investors but recognises that she has to be pragmatic. I'd prefer the surplus capital to be returned by way of special dividends (I don't want it baked into the ordinary dividend unless it can be maintained and adequately covered) but expect that there might have to be some compromise.

I don't know how US markets tend to respond to share buybacks but UK markets, in my experince, tend to be fairly muted; so I'm not sure how much benefit US investors actually get from UK share buybacks. If the share price doesn't rise then the US investors can't bag any gains and the whole scheme becomes a pointless exercise in futility. One can only assume that US activist investors must gauge the impact and must derive some benefit, otherwise they wouldn't continue to agitate for share buybacks (if the share price is fairly inelastic it would seem better to take the dividends and pay some tax rather than go empty handed).

I'm not greedy. I'd love £5k but would settle for £5 ;-)

The 31p dividend is effectively a c6.5% increase year on year in old money. LGEN is likewise looking to increase its dividend by low to mid single digits this year as well.

Accept that AV may have offered poor capital growth in the past and that there's no guarantee that it will offer great capital growth in the future but it's done well for me in the last 15 months and I'm willing to give Blanc the opportunity to take AV to the next level. Much of what has happened since Blanc came on board may already have been in the pipeline but she has executed the exit strategy in a timely manner. I though the disposal of the French subsidiary was particularly well executed; it was never going to be easy and some exposure still remains but she didn't falter, bit the bullet and moved on. Time will tell.

SD235, I'm buying the guys who store the electricty (GSF) rather than produce it. Wind farms are great but they can't dictate when they can produce the electricity and, without the like of GSF, much of the electricity thye produce off-peak would simply go to waste. Also, there's actually very limited capacity at the moment to extend existing off-shore wind farms; there just aren't enough boats and divers to service and maintain them. GSF is currently yielding c7% (based on average NAV). Perhaps not quite as good as LGEN but I think it's good to have some diversification and not have all of your eggs in one basket.