I know perhaps we will learn more at the AGM next month. |
Family controlled though surely??? |
Dewhurst flying again today. I expect it is the bid rumours again. |
albeit small trades, any reason for an unusual amount of sudden activity ? |
What is the rumour here? |
What is the rumour here? |
Well the Ords have ripped since my Dec post, but the "A" shares (DWHA) have barely budged. The "A"s a gift here methinks - they value the company at c. 50m, when there´s net current assets and property worth around that i.e. all the future profits are close to being in for free. Nonsense IMO, though what the outer is for a rerate I´ve no idea. One for the patient. |
Remember when the voters were briefly over £20 a share (July 2021) -why was that I wonder ? |
Hi NTV - would love it to be interesting, but I don't see how...... |
An interesting situation developing here I wonder I have a small position here as I think the business is undervalued |
A search at companies house suggest Ingmar Scott isn't shooting any lights out with his investment performance.
Kneecaps2- I'd say it's pretty obvious (regards share classes) It allows the family control of the company (ie >50% of votes) without owning 50% of the total share count. |
I did read recently that the Stock Exchange was going to allow the fresh issuance of dual share classes again. |
Why in 2024 does Dewhurst still have ordinary and A shares? I would have asked the directors if they had the AGM at a sensible time! |
Interesting Holdings RNS this morning. Ingmar Scott held 4% of the voting shares just over a month ago, now he's up to 8.4% - mainly indirectly, which might be Rio Capital Investments (assuming I've got the correct Ingmar Scott) of which he appears to be a 75%+ shareholder. As people called Dewhurst own 47.3% of the voting shares - plus any others <3% / in other surnames, the chance of any unwanted corporate action appears unlikely..... |
It is good to have the buy back announced today. Why is the AGM being held at 9am? Is it because they do not care about shareholders? |
Market cap is barking mad here. Strip out cash and/or property and you pay a very low multiple of earnings (which have been pretty reliable and generally gently growing for many years.
I wonder if anything will happen to shake things up. They have authority for a 15% buy back IIRC...why on earth they don't use it more is beyond me... |
Am still a holder - there are more exciting companies around, but the family presence is comforting and they have maintained high cash holdings. Plenty of room for the dividend to grow and/or bolt on acquisitions. A shares on PER of 9.2x which is not unreasonable. |
Results today, no posts for 18 months......... |
The last company I expect to be hit by a cyber event . The Ords are now coming down to a more normal level vs the A shares , why did they get to £27 ?? |
Agreed - can't quite see the point |
Hardly a radical name change, which is good. I was expecting some marketing bod to have come up with something trendy and cringeworthy, like "elevatia". |
Thank you Coolen - that sounds more like it.
It is still a mystery as to why some buyers have been willing to pay such a premium for the voters (and it can't be a current large holder because they have to declare any 1% increase in holdings) |
If I remember correctly, at Cakebread Robey (which had a similar capital structure) the non-voters nodded through a scheme whereby, although the voters received a scrip issue, the non-voters received a hefty special dividend and were enfranchised, thus creating a single class of capital. Still family controlled (through the scrip issue) but with the "A" holders now enfranchised and with cash in their pockets. |
Gengulphus: I'm blown away by your erudition - that was a brilliant piece of investigation, logic and prose. Thank you very much - it clarifies the position beautifully. That raises the question (again) of why purchase voting shares if you have no control of the company given the family's entrenched position and your economic position is a fraction of the non-voters. |