Member Info for TheTrotsky

I think £10m H1 revenues is too optimistic. The new MW production facility was only due to commence in Q2. To meet their FY22 forecast revenues, I think more realistically we should be looking at c£7-8m (assuming that production and sales can be ramped up prgressively through H2); that would be c£4-5m H2 sales. Sales could be a bit lower if inventory is set to be shipped early Q3.

Don't want to rain on the parade but these results include £4m of Covid-related support income. That's unlikley to recur in FY22, against which you have rising utility and staff costs and (likely) inevitable belt tightening by customers over the next 12-24 months. It seem likely that FY22 will be breakeven at best.

I hold GCP and GSF currently. I also hold a couple of REITs (AEWU and RGL). Rather slipped my mind ;-)

One would assume that, once the disposal is complete, OMG would have between c£85m of cash (assuming that Vicon has been able to continue to generate cash at the same rate as FY21). That's a lot of cash and unless they have a specific target acquistition in mind now, one would assume that they must be considering returning some of that cash to shareholders.

The suggestion in some quarters that DVRG is "chugging" through the cash is, I think, misleading. The EBITDA figures for FY21 and latest Q1 figures (albeit with no update on EBITDA) would suggest that overheads are under control. I suspect that cash is being used to fund capex (new production facilities don't just build themselves), inventory and debtors (government organisations, in particular, can be notoriously slow payers). I think we need more clarity but I'm reasonably comfortable that cash isn't just disappearing down the rabbit hole.

SD235, I've invested in investment trusts in the past and would consider doing so again, however, their relative "stability" comes, in my view, at an "ethical" cost. I choose not to directly invest, as a rule, in alcholic beverages, tobacco, betting, defence, mining, and/or oil & gas for many and varied different reasons (overt exploitation primarily) and it's difficult to find any income trusts that don't invest in these sectors as a matter of routine. I appreciate that it's not possible to completely avoid investing in these sectors (e.g. LGEN will probably have holdings in these sectors as part of its client investment portfolios that it manages) and don't have issue with investors who choose to invest in these sectors. Buying individual shares rather than investment trusts enables me to make an informed choice; I may not always abide by my own principles (e.g. I'm not totally against mining or oil and gas production but look for more ethical/green companies in those sectors, if such exist) and occasionally stumble but I try my best ;-)

PS. I'm certainly no saint but try to apply my (mixed up) morals to my investing as best I can.

Thedetector. I really think you need to learn to read. The only thing I agree with you on is that as UK-based shareholder with shares in ISAs/SIPPs I'd have preferred a special dividend rather than a reorganisation (because it makes things simpler for those investors, like yourself, who are just unable to understand the process and are looking for conspiracy theories at every turn). As regards you comments about the future dividends and tax (don't forget those sleepless nights), I totally disagree with you. You think LGEN will outperform AV going forward, fair enough, that's your view (and brokers' current target prices bear that out); my experience in the last 15 months is that AV has outperformed LGEN and, as yet, I've seen nothing to suggest that LGEN warrants that confidence (the brokers have been saying much the same for the last 15 months and LGEN still hasn't stepped up to the line). However, I have a foot in both camps and, if LGEN continues to strenghten, I won't be complaining. Now give it a rest.

Thronegames, As in everything else, timing makes all the difference. I've always tried to buy well and hold. Some of my sure fire winners (quite a lot actually) have come to nothing (to date) but I've done okay (as long as I look at my shareholdings at the top of the market rather than at the bottom; at the bottom of the market everything looks cack).

I'm moving into dividend shares for future income so short term gains/(losses) are less important than sustained, increasing dividends (just don't mention abrdn; they cut their dividend after I'd bought them and I should have sold but, to my regret, gave them the benefit of the doubt when the share price initially rose after the announcement). Personally, I'm not very good at sitting on surplus cash, can't resist re-investing it, so the 10% idea does not appeal to me (constantly looking for the next share to invest in must be very fraying on nerves and could lead you to making rash decisions).

I bought some Lloyds and NatWest in February 2021 (about £5k of each). As it stands, NatWest are outperforming Lloyds on both capital return (c28% vs c22%) and dividend return (c10% more). That's just a snapshot and can easily change. Lloyds has definitely underperformed (its current dividend is still less than it's pre-pandemic level) and should hopefully improve but NatWest shouldn't be ignored. I'll be happy if both can step up their dividends from their current relatively low levels (ideally both should be yielding at least 5% and the share prices should track upwards as hopefully both start to increase their dividend payouts).

TD, You were the one who said that some wouldn't be able to sleep because of the "hidden" tax implications, not me. I'm just pointing out that your suggestions were baloney (like a lot of the other stuff you've tried to imply).

As regards, my preference for a special dividend. My shares are held in ISA/SIPP, so a special dividend wouldn't have phased me. However, I am aware that US shareholders have a preference for capital rather than income because they don't have the benefits of ISAs and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income in the US. AV has an international share register and, given that a capital return or special dividend makes little, or no, difference to UK investors, opted for a capital return (in part due to the lobbying by US hedge funds). More complex, more confusing (for some) but essentially the same in all aspects. PIs in this country are often suspicious of capital returns because they think that directors are simply manipulating EPS (for the benefit of their share options) whilst at the same time taking the opportunity to reduce dividend payouts and I've been at pains to point out that AV have not sought to short change PIs. Although EPS has risen, so too has DPS and AV are planning to pay out more in dividends in FY22 than they did in FY21; the reduction in the number of shares will NOT lead (as planned) to a reduction in PIs dividend income. Obviously no future dividends are ever 100% guaranteed but AV's ability to pay future dividends is no less reduced by the capital return than it would have been by a special dividend (the overall amount AV plans to pay would have been the same just the DPS woould have been different).

I am a holder of LGEN too but, having bought AV and LGEN at the same time in February 2021, my LGEN holding is still under water (excluding dividends) whilst my AV holdings have gone from strength to strength. You are not alone in predicting that LGEN will outperform AV going forward (just crunch the brokers latest price targets and you'd realise that brokers are now predicting the yield on LGEN's shares to exceed the yield on AV's shares). The reality is that LGEN has underperformed for the last 18 months, so forgive me if I take the suggestion that LGEN will outperform AV with a pinch of salt. I expect/hope that LGEN's share price will improve and hopefully be trading above 300p later this year, if not before, but the real question is whether LGEN will be able to sustain it (it was trading above 300p in January before its most recent precipitous fall). I still think that AV has a lot to offer and I won't be divesting AV just yet.

The last 12-18 months the perception in the markets is that Blanc has been getting things done (streamlining the business, resisting the temptation to go off at a new tangent and improving the performance of the remaining business). The latest Q1 update was promising. It remains to be seen whether Blanc can achieve all of the ambitious targets that she has s

Thedetector, I'm sorry but you really are clueless. A special dividend would have achieved the same aim but would not have increased your future dividends one iota. As an experienced investor I fully understand why AV did the share consolidation; it would not have been my first choice but there was a business rationale that seems to be beyond your means to fathom or willingness to try and understand. We've been through the reasons before (the tax treatment in different jurisdictions) so I won't go through them again. As an aside I would mention that if you now have a capital gains tax problem because of the consolidation then you'd more than likely have a far bigger income tax problem if AV had done a special dividend (but I'm sure you'd never actually given that any thought during your rantings).

I love that you are tipping LGEN because of its great dividend and yet you castigate AV because its future dividends ain't in the bag. Do you actually ever listen to yourself? You contradict yourself at every turn!

AV is proposing to increase its FY22 dividend payment to c£870m, compared to c£831m in FY21 (a c4.7% increase in the cash cost but a c6.8% for current shareholders because after the FY21 results were announced AV purchased shares in the market for cancelation before it did the consolidation). As it happens, the proposed increase in AV's FY22 dividend is on a par with broker's consenus opinion for the increase in LGEN's FY22 dividend. These are the facts.

Babbler, Out of interest what limit price did you set (was it 385.475p or some other figure) and how did you arrive at that figure? Was there any science/logic behind the figure you chose or was it simply a (hopeful) shot in the dark? It's certainly looking like a good investment (a prospective yield of c8% and a nice capital return to boot).

Thronegames, My strategy lies somewhere between the two strategies. I don't sell before and repurchase after the ex-div date but nor do I simply re-invest my dividends. I, instead, accumulate my dividends and trade once (or more) a quarter putting my accumulated dividends into one of my existing holdings or a new holding as I see fit.

In fairness, I've only been prioritising dividend shares, in preference to growth shares, for the last 15 months and thus far it's been a bit patchy. Dividend growth has been good (I'm already looking set to exceed my initial 3-year dividend target after two years as a result of re-investing my dividends to date) but capital growth less so (I still think that high yielding dividend shares are 20-25% undervalued).

The fact is Thedetector a lot of investors, like you, seem to struggle to add two plus two and would be far better off just puting their cash in a bank account (a lot less confusion). You refuse to do the maths and stick to your unsubstantiated assumptions. Get it into your head; AV would not be proposing to pay a dividend of 31pps if they hadn't done the share consolidation. If you could accept just that one simple fact then everything would become a lot clearer.

Today's LTIP announcement is depressing. Essentially the directors will recieve c50% of their LTIP entitlement for simply maintaining FY24 basic EPS at the same level as FY21 i.e. 5.89pps. Challenging in the current environment perhaps but hardly ambitious.

Nice to see the directors all snuffling at the trough at PIs expense! Was rather hoping that the share price might dip below 35p so I could recoup some of my book losses (at the directors and their buddies' expense) resulting from buying additional shares in February/April. Registered my protest vote at the EGM. Hopefully I'll be able to recoup my losses later this year; at which time I'll probably disappear to pastures new. Don't want to be investing in a company that is being run solely for the benefit of the directors and their buddies.

Hi R-hnew, I thought it dropped below £3.90 in the first hour but stand corrected if I'm wrong. I did notice the share price dropped later in the day (didn't think it went below £3.90 but stand corrected) before recovering to c£3.95 at the close. I thought all HL customers had access from 8am (again I stand corrected). It would seem no joke that we'd all be better of changing our surnames to Aadvark; there does seem to be a suggestion that brokers deal with their customer accounts in alphabetical order (and clearly it isn't as "automated" as we'd all like to think - I hope they feed the person in the box!)

Retirment, As far as I'm aware shareholders who use HL had online access to the market from 8am. ii tell me that I would have had online access from 8.08am but I think that's bull**** (I tried and for the first hour and half Aviva wasn't even a recognised company!). I have no doubt that some PIs did buy at c£3.90 (the share did briefly dip below £3.90 in the first hour) but it would have taken fortitude and belief that the share was at, or close to, the bottom (we all know what it's like; when a share price is falling we hold off just in case the price drops a bit more and often end up missing the bottom as a result).

Retirment, You should have held and sold on 20 April ;-) Personally, I don't think the share price would have dipped below £4 if there hadn't been all the economic/political turmoil in the two week run up to 13 May (without the economic/political turmoil I think the price would have been unlikely to dip below £4.10 but that's just a guesstimate) and it's quite clear that the MMs, hedgies et al took full advantage on 16 May to make a buck at PIs expense (logically you'd think that they might have sold on 13 May to buy back cheaper on 16 May but I'm not sure how they'd have been able to fulfill their order on 13 May given that the shares wouldn't have existed on 16 May).

Anyway, you made the right call. The result might have been different without the economic/political turmoil, e.g. if the war in Ukraine had ceased in late April it's quite likely that the whole market would have received a boost (AV included), but you can only play the hand that you are dealt.

As regards, being able to buy at £3.90, a lot of us were locked out when the market opened. I got access just after 10:30am and was able to buy at c£3.95 but noted that I could have bought closer to £3.90 later in the day if I'd waited. Timing is everything

Thedetector, We'd all love to have our original shares and be paid the enhanced dividend but it was new going to happen; the profits would have to (miraculously) jump c40% overnight to justify (the equally miraculous) c40% hike in dividends. AV is proposing to increase the current year dividend by a much more manageable c7%. Do the maths!

I fully appreciate that a return of capital is a return of my own initial investment but it seems that you don't understand the rationale. Assume that you originally invest a £1,000 into a company with a mixed bag of assets that returns an average (say) 10% per annum. The company then disposes of (say) £250 of assets that were generating (say) 7% per annum (this is not "pie in the sky" logic because part of the reason for AV's disposals was that it's overseas assets weren't performing as well as their UK & Canadian assets). As a result of this disposal you've now got £750 of assets generating 11% per annum (do the maths) and £250 of assets generating (say) 2.5% per annum. Question. Is it better that the company now retain the £250 or return the money to shareholders to re-invest? I would aceept that if the money could be re-invested by the company in a short time-frame to obtain additional return at (say) 11% then the money should be retained but if not then it is better that the money is returned to shareholders so that it can be re-invested elsewhere. Returning the money to shareholders is not showing a lack of ambition. It's recognition that the company needs to improve its existing efficiency and doesn't need the present distraction of trying to find a large, complimentary acquistion. Furthemore, the remaining business is expected to generate additional surplus cash that will afford the company the opportunity to buy smaller, bolt-on, complimentary acquistions if the opportunity arises in the short/medium term.

As regards the tax aspects, we've run through those scenarios many times before and I'm not going to repeat them, suffice to say that I am fully aware of my own tax consequences, and sleep very easy, whereas you are clutching at straws.

Also, it's not quite as simple as just adding Integumen's pre-acquisition sales to MWG's pre-acquisiton sales for comparison purposes. Integumen was a supplier to MWG so, on acquistion, the sales between the two "disappear" on cosolidation.