Ocado Trading Update, Coronavius Apps, EMIS AGM, IDOX Pay, Segro Dividends

Ocado (OCDO) issued a trading update today, and it shows their joint retail venture with M&S is benefiting from the coronavirus epidemic. In the second quarter revenue was up 40% on the prior year. They have had to ramp up capacity significantly to meet this demand, and they have suspended delivery of mineral water so as to cope with the needs of additional households. The announcement gives the distinct impression that they need more warehouses (or CFCs as they call them).

On a personal note, my family has been using Sainsburys’ on-line delivery system and as a “vulnerable” person we get priority. The result has meant neighbours asking us to shop for them. But at least I don’t need to accept the offer of food parcels sent to me yesterday by the local council!

There has been good coverage of coronavirus apps in the national media in the last couple of days. This UK Government has chosen one that relies on a centralised system and it looks distinctly insecure and not good enough to protect privacy. Robert Peston pointed out another flaw in it that someone could maliciously chose to report themselves as suffering from symptom thus causing everyone they might have come into contact with in the last two weeks to self-isolate. I am not at all clear why the Government has chosen this approach, which may deter take-up anyway, when Google and Apple are implementing a different system with fewer privacy concerns. That has been adopted by other countries so there will be problems with international travel.

EMIS (EMIS) held their AGM today. Nobody allowed to attend and no on-line session which is not good enough for an IT company. EMIS operates in the healthcare sector. Recurring revenues have held up but new business sales have been lower. They still expect to meet full year expectations.

However, they did get 15% of votes AGAINST the remuneration report. That included my votes as a holder as it looked a typical complex scheme with total pay too high in relation to the size of the business.

Another example of a poor pay scheme is that of IDOX (IDOX), an AIM listed company that operates mainly in the provision of software to local authorities. Reviewing the Annual Report, the Chairman acquired 585,000 share options last year (current price about 40p, exercise price 1p) based on a share matching scheme. The CEO acquired 3,512,400 share options under an LTIP with an exercise price of 0p (nil). The CFO also acquired 1,000,000 share options, again with an exercise price of 0p, but with a performance condition of the share price being greater than 45p. In summary I think this is way too generous so I have voted against the remuneration report. The AGM is on 28th May, so other shareholders have plenty of time to submit their votes.

Another item of annoying news I received recently was from Segro (SGRO) the property company. They will no longer be sending out dividend cheques from next year. I still prefer dividend cheques for my direct holdings because it is easy to check that the dividends are received and you know exactly when the money is in the bank because you pay them in yourself.

However looking at a report published by the Daily Telegraph last year, it quotes registrar Equiniti as saying that up to 30% of dividend cheques do not get presented which is a rather surprising statistic and must create a lot of extra work. Kingfisher, Marks & Spencer and Vodafone have already stopped dividend cheque issuance, forcing you to give the registrar your bank details. I may have to accept this as a reasonable change even if I don’t like it.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

 

 

Dividends Slashed, Investing for Income, NMC Health and Finablr

Many companies are announcing cancelled, reduced or postponed dividends – two of the latest were Shell (RDSB) and Sainsburys (SBRY). This will hit investors hard who rely on dividends for retirement income. But should they be doing so?

Terry Smith of Fundsmith had an article published in the Financial Times today under the headline “Investors: never let a crisis go to waste” in which he attacks income funds. In particular he questions whether the Investment Association should allow funds with “income” in their name to only have a yield greater than 90% of the average fund yield, i.e. less than the average! Even that requirement has now been suspended for 12 months. Terry calls this a “ridiculous piece of deception” and I can only agree.

If you invest in individual shares, there is a strong temptation in times of stock market crises to run for the hills and start buying what are viewed as defensive businesses with high dividend payouts. You argue that the dividend yield will keep the share price up even if all other news is bad. But this is a fallacy. All you do is put yourself at risk of a sharp decline in the share price when the dividend is chopped.

As Terry Smith also pointed out in his article, dividend cover in many companies that are on high yields are inadequate. In reality they are not maintaining the businesses, or certainly not growing it, by not investing enough of their profits back into the business. Sometimes it indicates that they are operating in a declining sector and many have an abysmal return on capital. Should you really be investing in such companies is the question you should ask yourself?

The simple rule should be: Never invest in a company solely for the dividend. Invest in it because it is a quality company with positive prospects and management dedicated its long-term future for the benefit of all stakeholders.

I have mentioned NMC Health (NMC) and Finablr (FIN) in previous blog posts along with many other frauds. It’s not that I am trying to put off people from investing in the stock market which is one of the main sources of what little wealth I have. Likewise when I criticise those who invest in income funds or high yielding shares. But my desire is to educate people about how to get positive rather than negative results. NMC and Finablr have both been chaired by Dr B.R.Shetty and he made a rather surprising comment in a letter which was published by Finablr yesterday. He said: “The preliminary findings provided by my advisors from my own investigations indicate that serious fraud and wrongdoing appears to have taken place at NMC, Finablr PLC (‘Finablr’), as well as within some of my private companies, and against me personally. This fraud also appears to have been undertaken by a small group of current and former executives at these companies”. He goes on at some length on how the frauds were committed. This all sounds rather unlikely but we will no doubt see in due course whether what he says is true.

The shares of both companies are currently suspended and NMC is already in administration. Finablr also had this to say: “The results of this exercise currently indicate that the total net indebtedness of the Finablr Group may be approximately $1,300 million (excluding any liabilities of the Travelex business). This is materially above the last reported figure for the Group’s indebtedness position as at 30 June 2019 and the levels of indebtedness previously disclosed to the Board. The Board cannot exclude the possibility that some of the proceeds of these borrowings may have been used for purposes outside of the Finablr Group”.

The outlook for shareholders in both companies looks very bleak indeed. Let us hope that the investigation of these frauds is quicker than it normally is, but I doubt it will be. The larger and more complex the company, and the bigger the fraud, the longer it takes regulatory authorities to pin the tail on the donkey. Think of Polly Peck for example.

As I said in my previous blog post that mentioned false accounting at Lookers, “Such events totally undermine investor confidence in the accounts of public companies and suggest much tougher action is required to ensure accounts reported by companies are accurate and not subject to fraud or misrepresentation”.

For investors the motto must be ““Let’s Be Careful Out There” (as said by the sergeant in Hill Street Blues) because the financial world is full of shysters. You need to research companies as much as possible before investing in them, but even that is not fraud-proof unfortunately. Only improved regulation and accounting can really solve the problem of corruption in the financial scene.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Another Good Article from Terry Smith on Dividends

As usual, there were some very perceptive comments from Terry Smith of Fundsmith on dividends and income funds in FT Money on Saturday (6/10/2018). Many investors want income – for example to finance spending in retirement – so they invest in high dividend paying stocks. Some simply think that reinvested dividends will enable them to grow their portfolio value but this is a poor result in reality. As Terry explains it would be better if the companies retained the earnings and reinvested them. The maths shows the negative impact of the tax you pay on the dividends.

Terry bemoans the fact that income funds outsell all other types by some margin, even though in reality many have only a yield that is slightly higher than the average. Needless to point out perhaps that the funds he runs are not income funds. But that does not destroy the wisdom of what he is saying.

All that matters is total return. If a company can reinvest the generated profits with a good return, there is no good reason to pay them out as dividends; as Warren Bufftet’s Berkshire Hathaway has never done with great results. Retained earnings compound even faster if no dividends are paid.

A personal investor can always sell a few shares to generate a cash income if necessary, and generally at a lower tax rate than they would pay on dividends.

Companies can usually find projects or acquisitions that can generate good returns. There are a few exceptions of course. Incompetent managements who pursue mirages or make disastrous acquisitions are examples, but those are the kinds of companies you should be selling not buying anyway.

Today the stock market is falling yet again, with growth stocks badly hit. There can be a tendency to hold on to those boring defensive and high-yielding stocks in a market rout. But that is a mistake. For the same reason you probably should not have bought them in the first place, don’t hold on to them. A yield of 4%, 5% or higher does not offset the risk of share price decline. Just consider when you are cleaning out your portfolio today to get rid of the duds that won’t be generating high and growing profits in the future. That’s all that matters.

Incidentally I had a letter published in the Financial Times today on the subject of Brexit, which was very kind of them as I effectively criticised their editorial policies. It was headlined “Please – no more letters from moaning Remainers” and was in response to two previous letters from clearly biased correspondents. You can find it on the FT web site.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.

Pay-outs from Labour’s Dividend Plans

I said in my last blog post that the Labour Party’s plans to take 10% of a company’s shares and pay the dividends into an employee trust did not make much sense. I have actually worked out what the implications of such a scheme would be on a few large UK public companies. These are the figures (after 10 years and assuming 10% of the total dividend is therefore paid to employees):

  • BP pays £6.15bn in dividends and has 74,000 employees: £8,310 per employee.
  • Shell pays $10.87bn in dividends and has 92,000 employees: £9,846 per employee.
  • M&S pays £304m in dividends and has 84,000 employees: £360 per employee.
  • Tesco pays £82m in dividends and has 448,000 employees: £18 per employee.

The latter two do of course have many part-time employees. How they might be treated is unknown so I have assumed they get an equal share. Tesco has also been paying a low dividend of late because of past financial difficulties but even if it returned to previous levels, the pay-out to each employee would be low – hardly sufficient to motivate them.

In the case of the oil companies where they have relatively few employees in a capital- intensive business, the pay-out would exceed the £500 cap in year one, so it would be mainly the Government that benefited.

This seems a perverse result to say the least. Are M&S and Tesco employees so much less worthy than BP and Shell employees? Whether an employee got any worthwhile share of the dividends would much depend on the kind of company they worked for.

Another odd result is that the Government would collect a lot more in tax (the amount above the £500 cap) from capital intensive companies than from those with lots of employees.

The more one looks at this, the more perverse this scheme turns out to be.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson )

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

© Copyright. Disclaimer: Read the About page before relying on any information in this post.