Member Info for tichtich

Yes, it seems very cheap, though it can always go cheaper in a crash! I already have a lot of UKW, so I've been holding out for 130p before buying any more. Getting close now, and I'm very tempted to go for it.

My thanks to whoever recently mentioned this site's filter feature, as I hadn't noticed it before. It's getting plenty of use today. 😉

"Hold DEC, bank the dividends and hope Trump wins the Preesidency is my position."

Really? Even if Trump would be good for investors (which is questionable), the election of a lawless, lying, depraved, delusional, hatred-inciting con man as US president and dictator is not something to be welcomed.

P.S. It's only about 0.035% of outstanding shares.

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but it looks like DEC has taken advantage of the low price to do some share buybacks today...

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/diversified_gas_and_oil/news/rns/story/x2ezmnx

What they mean is that revenues go up to some degree due to inflation, but not as much as inflation. In other words, they go up less than inflation, which means they fall in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. The so-called "positive impact" is only in nominal terms, not real terms.

It's like when you receive 3% interest on your savings but inflation is running at 5%. You're falling behind at a rate of 2% per annum.

What does "run out of money" even mean? Oops, the piggy bank is empty?

At the last update, SEIT had cash on hand, gearing not high, dividend covered 1.2x.

That said, I'm still not buying because I think it's vulnerable to inflation, and I'm trying to hedge against inflation. But at this price I'm sorely tempted.

Hi. I just started looking at REDD a few days ago. It looks very cheap, recently bought back shares, low debt. The only drawbacks I can see: (1) probably very cyclical and we're heading for a recession; (2) higher oil/petrol prices could be bad for business.

Correction to one of my previous comments: RESI can't suspend the dividend. As a REIT they're obliged to pay out 90% of earnings.

Good point, Terry. All the same, I'm glad that TheTrotsky weighted in with some thoughts that wouldn't have occurred to me. It helped to set my mind at rest.

I see many examples in the LSE boards of people looking for unnecessarily deep explanations of why a share price is falling. People seem reluctant to accept more mundane explanations, like investors seeing something in the company they don't like, or irrational market sentiment. So they find something else to blame it on. Usually they blame shorters conspiring to force the price down. Other times they blame insider malfeasance. And sometimes those explanations may be true, but I think people reach for them to quickly. There seems to be a natural human preference for conspiracy theories over more mundane explanations.

Greygeorge, it sounds like your only evidence of malfeasance is the fact that the price is falling (plus maybe the fact that Rusty sold shares and the fact that a share issuance was badly handled). But the malfeasance couldn't cause outsiders to sell, since they don't have any evidence of it, so the evidential price fall must be a result of insider selling alone. This all seems like a very thin reed on which to base your theory. It sounds more like a hypothetical possibility than something we have any good reason to believe.

(Regarding the hedging, I get it now. You were talking about hedges at a time when the hedge price was below spot price. Sorry I didn't read you more carefully.)

Sorry, Gavster, I mixed up the names.

I would agree with TT that the problem of the asset retirement obligations is probably sufficient to explain the falling share price. It's nearly enough to make ME sell!

Greygeorge, I'm new here, so please tell me where to find the evidence to support your theory. Do you have a link to a short report, or something like that?

I fail to see why Diversified would be forced to buy gas to honour it's hedging contract. Since the hedge price is higher than the market price, surely the hedge counterparty would be only too happy not to take delivery of the gas.

On the other hand, if Diversified didn't produce enough gas to fully utilise its hedges, perhaps they might _choose_ to buy gas on the open market and sell it to the hedge at the higher price.

Or do hedges even work that way? I had the impression that commodity hedges were a kind of insurance: the hedge counterparty just pays or gets paid the difference between the market price and the hedge price. They don't take delivery of the commodity. Or do they?

I'm no expert, so maybe I've misunderstood something. Please enlighten me.

Each to his own, but in general I'm not going to sell shares in a company I like in the hope of buying them back cheaper later. Been there, done that, and more often than not the price has gone up and I've "lost" the opportunity to hold a good share because I'm not willing to buy it back at a loss. Of course, I could just buy something else instead, but I only find a few shares that I'm really happy buying. As a matter of fact, CSN is one case where I did succeed in making a small profit by selling and rebuying. But I'm not doing that any more. Not worth the hassle and risk. I've decided I'd rather just buy good safe dividend payers, leave them alone, and sleep well at night. 😴

Currently I'm about 5% down on my average price, but that's nothing when you're holding for the long term. It would be nice to time my purchases perfectly and get the exact bottom. But 5% is near enough for jazz. Of course this might not be the final bottom, but as long as the dividends keep coming and I'm not selling, why worry? In fact, if you haven't reached the maximum you're willing to buy, a fall in price is good (as long as it's not a sign of something gone wrong) as it means you can buy some more at even better value! I'm considering doing just that, but might wait and see if we get back into the 260s.

Anyway, I hope it works out well for you.

I only bought recently, knowing the problems, and still think it's a reasonable bet at this price, for long term income. They just need to deal with the floating rate debt (which is only 10% of their total debt).

High interest rate on the 10% of debt which is floating rate. High energy costs (on heating communal areas). Currently only covering 86% of the dividend (if I remember the figure correctly). They are trying to sell some non-core assets (probably the local authority housing) to pay off the floating rate debt, but they probably can't get an acceptable price for it. If they don't manage it soon, I think they should suspend the dividend for a year or so to pay off that debt.

@Monkshood. I'd prefer them not to do any more placements, so maybe it's best if the price stays down (as I'm not planning to sell). Some other renewables companies are starting to do share buybacks at these low prices. If they want pay down debts, they can use the surplus profits.