Hi TL - You still in IQE? (Haven't seen you or Jack on there for some time - I don't post, only read/ 'lurk' there).
Read their latest profit warning (2nd or 3rd now?) this morning and the subsequent result uoon the SP. Pain!
Not in it, but have followed it in a watchlist for a year or two now.
Am I the longest holder of IMB on this board? (I bought in 2016 and am hung up at £30+) [Yes; more fool me].
I ask because once again, I'm asking myself if most posters on here are brand new investors to this stock. I see things such as:
"....given that the recent hit to the share price too ......"
- and can you blame such statements when even the CEO encourages you to think like that with what she said on 11th June in the analysts Q&A session with:
"...because that's been quite a significant downward pressure on the stock since the end of March, but we see that coming off now...."
And that's why I wonder if some on here are only talking of life from when they got into IMB. Well life with IMB started for me in 2016 and since that date it's been three years of 'unrelenting downward pressure' and 'hits' of which "just recently", is par for the course from my point of view.
What are you expecting? Just because you've bought in very recently the price will now for no earthly reason fly back up to well over £30 ?
What are you expecting of the SP?
The long term trend is down.
The medium term trend is down.
And the short term "recent" trend is down.
Woodford is just the latest in a long line of excuses, so thinking all will be well after Woodford has gone takes some swallowing.
It's not a recent hit nor a recent significant downward pressure - it's been three years solid of all that - because unlike some on here - I've lived through 3 years of downward pressure with IMB. To hell with only recent. There's nothing "recent" about it.
Ah well the end of the week. One tries. Do you want me to submit and accept defeat?
Can I push for asking for just a wee bit longer? No, admit defeat you say? Well I remain defiant and state here and now:
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius Velo, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered candlestick, husband to a murdered second digit 3. And I will have my vengeance, in this week or the next.
Can I have next week please? :)
Wow! Somebody carry out a full security body pat down for knives. And for god's sake, before leaving the room ensure all milkshakes are removed from easy reach.
No,I agree, that post wasn't a rant either. Just a simple post by someone with a vein throbbing angrily in their temple. That's all.
(Was that a full stop half way down the page?) Paragraphs; no not when one is ranting, no time for them.
So the message is clear. Some posters are allowed to criticise others, but woe betide you if you even dare to even think of criticising that person back - Is that why they get so angry - They kent hendle the truth?
Still, some valid points in there, well there would be if only the anger was replaced with reasoned opinion and debate.
Aah thanks for that Uddinkas. You're a client of theirs. So the inference from those media analysts who're reporting a mood swing against BT is genuine. It's just that I'm not reading it generally.
I do pay a subscription for the cumlative brokers estimates for the future and that still indicates an increase in earnings. I'll stop here as it's not VOD pertinent. But thank you, it has cleared up a qeury I had.
Finish this cuppa off and time to turn in.
Thanks for that Fleccy.
- The second article down by IC published in April says: " and BT (BT.A). These two companies were among the fund's top 10 holdings at launch, but Mr Woodford sold OR REDUCED THEM over this period."
The other M/Star reports only divulged the top 5 holdings.
So, is it possible Woodford retains 'some' holdings in BT but insufficient to be in the top 10 of his portfolios???
Uddinkas - Out of general curiosity, did you get that UBS research paper for free by sheer chance, or as a paid subscriber to UBS?
I ask because seeing a disturnbing increase in media analysts briefing against BT saying due to analyst downgrading earnings for the current year.
Haven't seen any myself (all my research shows an expected increase - not downgrades), so assumed it was paid subscriptions to Broker's houses. Only thing is all the latest Broker's noes on the BT page have a very high SP forecast for BT so doesn't sound like they're downgrading BT.
It's left me puzzled, so I wonder does it mean they're subscription only, did you pay for the UBS paper on VOD?
Mad as a Hatter Conspiracy theory anoraks corner:
I often wonder who quietly reads our posts for whatever reason. I know for a fact Gavpants said he got his secretary to print off a couple of comments now and then on the forums for him to occasionally guage mood or something (Bet he framed Rod's post on his office wall with a title: My No: 1 superfan :)
I hope some Hedge Fund junior doesn't collect snippets from forums on the same principle and rushes into his bosses, Hedge Fund office over in the US and says excidetdly:
"Boss! Boss! I've got the Woodford lists you're hunting for! Some Limey in the UK has posted them on some site called LSE - here you are boss."
Hope I haven't made things worse for BT. Until this post most wouldn't know Woodford still had a position in BT. Try and add posts after this to bury it off screen.
End of Conspiracy theory corner post :)
Fleccy - You can no longer access the Woodford full holdings lists any longer as a report in the media just now confirms by saying Woodford's been forced to remove them from public viewing to protect the shares from Hedge funds looking to short them, or whatever. (At one point two or three years ago I had copy pasted the lot in to a file on to the desktop of my old computer. But that old obsolete computer was disposed of (XP).
I clicked in yesterday, and could get the top 10 in each fund only. After idly reading a forum post on my subscription site, I noticed BT by chance near the bottom of a list where someone was monitoring the momentum of the current Woodford's shares now that they were all involved in distress sales. He posted it because he knew the full lists were being withdrawn from public view.
I'll post the full list below (these were the shares he didn't do a momentum review on) but first here's a snippet for his reasoning:
" Information beyond the top 10 in each fund is tricky to get now, and this only covers Equity Income and Income Focus. This also only covers UK listed companies where I've managed to get the historical price information. "
To answer your question it would appear BT was either in the Equity Income Fund or the Income Focus Fund. It sounds like he is/was a Woodford fund investor. I could ask him, but not that bothered really. Maybe Woodford only part sold BT shares for Next? Anyway, here's the list (BT is mentioned about a dozen up from the bottom) :
Honeycomb Investment Trust
Raven Property Convertible Pref
Eddie Stobart Logistics
Raven Property Convertible Pref 6.5%
Thin Film Electronics
British American Tobacco
Mary Poppins @ "The yield is getting high here - if it gets much higher it may become a matter of concern. A yield approaching 10% is high yield and indicates a junk status..."
Yes, and the forward yield on today's lowly price is a stonking 11.5% !!! And still no takers!
(But there will be, should the SP drops to 1830's -ish :)
At the moment a similar price to last week's low seems to be the support area - for now.)
However, I prefer to insert the term "red flag" rather than your "junk status" though.
And: "...Not sure the company wants that, and it may be a signal to reduce the yield (irrespective of cover)."
That's the crux of my point on this matter: ( 'irrespective of cover' ).
The dividend is not covered. Despite all and sundry saying it is. Even the CFO doesn't have the brass neck cheek to say free cash flow 'covers' the dividend yield.
Check that interview provided the other day and he refrains from using the word "covered" for very specific reasons. Instead he says throughout, that cash flow "SUPPORTS" this dividend payment and future divi payments. Why didn't he say "covered" instead, as all on here are continually saying? Surely it means the same thing. Well it doesn't.
Because if he did and subsequently the divi was cut he would be attacked for misdirection. This way, any bumps on the road that require funds for a new directive that involved cutbacks, then dividends would be an easy choice with the board saying: Well the dividend is only being cut to prudently bringing it back into line to be covered by earnings, as free cash is now needed elsewhere.
Bumps in the road / unforeseen events. That's what could trigger a divi cut - it's supported until the day cash is needed elsewhere that is, despite the free cash flow being amply supportive of the dividend payments.
It happened only last month on VOD and caught many out (inc some who post on here) who said the dividend is safe from a cut because Free cash flow amply supported the VOD dividend. Debt was the problem. And all the divi is safe because of supportive FCF adherents, perhaps underestimated that.
FCF supported the dividend before it was cut and after the dividend was cut. So a sustainable and generous free cash flow didn't save the dividend from being cut at VOD.. That's an example point I'm failing to get across here. A healthy Free cash flow does not mean the dividend is safe just because it's well supported by cash. It's only well supported as long as the cash is not needed elsewhere. And in almost every case where a CEO has had to backtrack on their word - it's been to unforeseen circumstances.
Anyone here swear on the bible that IMB will never, ever, encounter any unforeseen bumps along the road - that it's plain sailing, for ever, for IMB? Can they "guarantee" absolutely the current Free cash flow will be sufficient for any "unforseen" unplanned events?
GabsterX @ "Have you done any DCF analysis on IMB? If so what fair value did you come up with?"
I've got a variety of valuations on hand but barely glance at them, as I subscribe to the school of thought that runs DCF valuations run the very high risk of "rubbish in, rubbish out" results. The inputs are just to open to interpretation and makes DCF valuations endlessly variable.
For instance on the pre-set variables (provision is made to input whatever you like) within Stocko', it's shows the DCF fair price for IMB as 6162.86p and therefore 228.9% undervalued compared to the current actual showing of 1874p.
I can alter the variable inputs to my heart's content, but my heart's not in to DCF's :)
Wonder what Sharepad default is showing?
Here's an example of the rubbish in, rubbish out phenomenon. This is the fair value calculation from a free and also subscription site that allows you permanent free access but only for 10 goes per month (subscription for the rest).
I find it useful on an infrequent basis as a free comparison, but don't rate it highly. It's showing fair price on future cash flows as 5119.0p
Back to Stocko' and there's a neat little default setting only of the Enterprise Value to compare to the current Market Cap, and currently it's showing the actual Market Cap as £18.11B
BUT the Enterprise Value (takes into account debt and cash) is £31.53B
- Which is 74.15% ABOVE the current M/Cap. So effectively saying that the current SP's fair value is circa 3263.57p
My preferred method for simplicity (but derided by most) is a quick multiply of the 'forward' PE ratio against the industry average. To date it's given me not half-bad results. In IMB's case the forward PE is 6.70
But the Industry average for IMB's is double that @ P/E 13.5 and so an everyday quickie calc (when looking at any share) gives me a fair average price of 3775p. (Stocko' has Price to Earnings ratio price as 2610p).
There's also a ruck of various other methods using price to book etc., Loads of them. All different outcomes LOL!
So all-in-all, my highly personal opinion on fair value to the industry average P/E and no more, is an SP of 3775p
Seen another article this morning (released on Wednesday) it floated up unsolicited upon opening my phone, and from an analyst I know as a big divi lover (he also has his own high yield dividend website besides working in the analytical media) - and he too has now turned against BT and cites analysts forecasts have now reduced forecasts for the current year.
Wasn't going to link it, but here it is for the curious, not quite as bad as that £1 forecast, but bad enough:
All this, and yet no trading downgrade updating from the company to confirm these rumours. I can only assume this view in the media that appears to be gathering pace is from the brokers houses where you only get to see the analysts report if you pay for them etc., I do not have those "new" ones.
What I do have from subscription data sources is seriously good forecasts for the current financial year. So, I'm left scratching my head and asking why isn't anyone other than the media seeing these downgrades? Was going to email these guys but they'd only have to cite brokers notes - but anyway, look on brokers notes on this site, here - the last just recently on the 28th May reiterating 340p as a price to expect as fair. Does that sound like a broker who's issuing earnings downgrades?
Whatever, I believe it's having a bearish market tone on the SP.
Also of note is that Neil Woodford's funds have BT listed as one of the company's he has significant positions in. And he's currently liquidating as many positions as possible before he lifts the suspension on access to his funds. When he does the market expects something like a resumed stampede on his funds pushing him to sell even more liquid holdings than he's doing right now, in shares like BT to meet the selling by his members.
So added to the concern of these mysterious downgrades that only media analysts can see, is the proven fact that Woodford is actively selling off those remaining equities he has, because they the only highly liquid stocks he has.
So in the background of BT's shareholders is a big distressed seller.
Was thinking about those two issues with the SP faltering around the 200-mid-single figures and this morning's 200-low-single figures. Should have been done and dusted with sub 205's by now. Neither of the two issues I've referenced are of BT's making.
Thanks for the reply GabsterX.
That's interesting. Very. Guess what? I get my data supply from Stockopedia.
We can conduct a useful real-life experiment. Both are the 2 leading data suppliers in the UK.
We both pay a couple of hundred in subscription charges. So one would expect some convergence on forecasts, but as that's forecasting ahead into the unknown, we can expect and allow a small margin of movement between the actual results and the prior forecast expectation.
But here we are massively apart. You've been supplied with £11B and I've been supplied with £12.8B.
I've marked my calendar so when the results are published in November I will return and post back here so we can compare for 'reasonableness' in accuracy, for what we're paying for.
There's other things we probably both like in our respective subscriptions (For instance amongst other things I love the little algo Piotroski F Score so would happily pay for that alone).
I'm hoping that "the truth" is equidistant between both estimates so neither of us feels dissatisfied.
If mine is way out, I will definitely write up a post on the Stocko forums and write in to their offices. But I've been so pleased to date, I'm not expecting a massive error.
I've read retail comparisons on the benefits contained within the two systems but never read of a head to head accuracy test. Perhaps we're the first to conduct such? :)
Patience Mikey, patience.
Although I realise citing patience to long sufferring holders of Vod is an abuse of the word patience, nonetheless this is still in XD period so unless there's new news, any rise is going to be within the confines of the restrictions that are artificially placed upon the SP within XD period. No way is the system stacked to allow you to collect a dividend and a big rise too in the same period. Otherwise the whole world would trade every shares every single dividend period like a fiddler's elbow and get rich quick. The market's not daft. It's already wise to that wrinkle.
The pattern is secure but lacking strength. Tonight's close is inadequate to throw it off course completely. It was a bit iffy, and yes could go on to declare this a misfire based on the 80/20 principle as otherwise if patterns were 100% accurate no one would bother with fundamentals or anything else - as the world would know that patterns never ever fail. Well they do. Now and then. Not enough to give up but enough to confirm no one system is beyond the occasional misfire.
Not prepared to declare a misfire tonight. Let it zig. And let it zag. There is no straight edged ruler like rise. You know that. It will zig and zag along it's way. It will not perform on cue to anyone's command. It will seesaw and whipsaw along it's chosen path.
Patience. If it fails I will of course submit.
However, as of tonight the fat lady has not yet sung her song. It's still game on.
".. But ,Velo sounds high, As a kite,,.."
- Ha! Mad as a hatter would be a better fit :)
"I think you must have had you charts upside down :)"
- exactly what I'm thinking when I hop over to check up on the VIX where down is good for share prices, and up is bad.
If anyone can beat Longish to the draw with the answer to the riddle, I'll get up from my computer and sing:
" I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so " ( 'Japanese candlesticks' for the uninitiated :)
And accompany the song whilst doing R\verdance at the same time. Or maybe just the feet going, if I can't cordinate