We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital 9 Infrastructure Plc | DGI9 | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.52 | 2.74% | 19.52 | 14:39:33 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.32 | 19.30 | 19.70 | 19.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| EQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/06/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 15/06/2023 | 16/06/2023 | 30/06/2023 |
| 09/03/2023 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 16/03/2023 | 17/03/2023 | 31/03/2023 |
| 01/12/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 08/12/2022 | 09/12/2022 | 23/12/2022 |
| 02/09/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 15/09/2022 | 16/09/2022 | 30/09/2022 |
| 24/05/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 01/06/2022 | 06/06/2022 | 30/06/2022 |
| 10/03/2022 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 17/03/2022 | 18/03/2022 | 31/03/2022 |
| 30/11/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 09/12/2021 | 10/12/2021 | 23/12/2021 |
| 06/09/2021 | Interim | GBP | 0.015 | 16/09/2021 | 17/09/2021 | 30/09/2021 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 24/10/2024 13:53 by duncansawalker Another way of looking ar Arqiva I suppose is to imagine, with the de-risking and lower interest / swaps / inflation finance costs, can we see in the future a time where Arqiva can pay shareholders 50M dividend, reasonably covered, with clarity to this dividend going forward?. That'd be 25m or 3p a share for DGi9 holders and at a 5% yeild would make the DGi9 equity half worth 50-60p, minus the VLN. That doesnt seem impossible, though obviously the BBC contract risk is the major issue. Does anyone know what % of the telecoms ebitda comes from the BBC component? |
Posted at 22/10/2024 12:26 by popit How could the largest smart meter business in the UK be anything but extremely valuable?If the new managers do their job well over the next few months and years then it should be possible to realise near to £1 a share for DGI9 shareholders Oak may be a little optimistic at times but he makes a reasonable case for an eventual value of nearer £2 a share hxxps://theoakbloke. Arqiva is as exciting a holding as I thought. In fact more so. Let’s consider the recent news about fellow smart meter provider Smart Meter Systems (SMS) being acquired. Let’s consider what that means for Arqiva. For a start Arqiva’s smart metering is almost double the size of SMS. (£110m vs £189m of ILARR - I’m being generous and including traditional meters in SMS’s £110m… Smart Meters are £70m actually). Arqiva have 25% market share of UK Smart Meters versus SMS who have 14%. SMS was bought at an EV / EBITDA multiple of 20.0x (calculated based on LTM Pre-exceptional EBITDA of £71 million as of June 2023). By comparison Arqiva has an EV/EBITDA of 11 (£3,714.2m/£337m) - again stripping out all the shareholder loan note stuff, so that implies that Arqiva could be worth £6.74bn (£337m x 20). If it were to occur, that would equate to a £1.45bn gain to DGI9 (Note SMS have a EV car charger, a BESS and energy services business whereas Arqiva have a Media & Broadcasting business so you may disagree the same valuation methodology should apply…… in my opinion Arqiva’s other business is at least as valuable as asset as its Smart Meter business) The growth plans and the tailwinds it address along with the stability of utility like RPI linked income make this attractive indeed. You could buy the whole of DGI9 currently for £255m and own 48.02% of what looks to have £855m of net assets - so a near 50% discount to NAV. With a takeover potential which would take it to 90% discount to NAV…… And that’s ignoring all of DGI9’s other assets. On Arqiva alone, DGI9’s current share price makes no sense. |
Posted at 05/10/2024 15:05 by popit EMYou are completely wrong about the valuation of Arqiva On almost any valuation measure Arqiva is worth at least 40p to DGI shareholders and possibly much more As said before the shareholder loans can be completely ignored and the real debt in Arqiva is about £1.5 billion Arqiva has shareholder funds of over £900 million and so half of that is DGI9 or about 50p per share There is also good reason to believe that the value in Arqiva for DGI9 shareholders could be far higher than 50p due to its position as the leading smart meter provider in the UK Oak Bloke for example gives a valuation of over £1.50 for Arqiva in addition to the NAV of 45p So a total valuation for DGI9 of about £2 This may seem excessive but it is certainly not very difficult to see a sale of Aqua etc for a total of 25p and then a valuation of Arqiva at 50p to get back to the previous NAV of 75p hxxps://theoakbloke. hxxps://theoakbloke. |
Posted at 04/10/2024 10:40 by dog239 @hcpg - not sure that reasoning holds. Macquarie will value it as they like.@cc2014 - it wasn't Macquarie that sold DGI9 the stake, it was a Canadian pension fund. Probably don't want to buy it back for reasons why Arqiva is bad for DGI9 - lack of overall control. To my knowledge, Arqiva has never paid a dividend. It has always instead diverted cash to capitalising shareholder loan interest. I don't think anyone ought expect it to produce one while a private company - its just not tax efficient. Macquarie can effectively indefinitely hold Arqiva. Even if their infrastructure fund has a defined horizon, they can just roll it into a new fund - seemingly they have high rollover of investors between their infrastructure fund series. The decision Macquarie has to make is: is for whatever reason now a good time to liquidate its holding of Arqiva via taking it public? Probably not? Not sure what is different for Macquarie now versus historical efforts to IPO it. Or can it coerce DGI9 into a distressed sale given the windup and result in absolute control, which increases the value to Macquarie dramatically. |
Posted at 04/10/2024 09:54 by cc2014 I'm really struggling here.DGI9's stake in Arqiva has most value to existing shareholders. Why is it that Macquarie aren't buying their holding back for £250m, having sold it for £450m? I appreciate Arqiva isn't being marketed for sale but DGI9 have been open to any offer on any holding for the last 15 months Indeed any of the other 3 shareholders in Arqiva could see it in the same way and it would give them a controlling shareholding to run Arqiva as they like. From where I'm sitting shareholders in DGI9 would probably accept an offer even as low as £200m for the holding in Arqiva. That would be bad news for those that bought at 40p but for existing holders it's decent enough. If there were any such discussion going on, for sure things would have leaked and the share price would not be 17p. The share price of DGI9 has been down at the 20p level for over 6 months now so that's plenty of time to decide what you want to do. And if existing shareholders in Arqiva don't want to pay £200m, we can be sure a new investor would want to pass less. Effectively the share price of DGI9 is already a proxy for an IPO price of Arqiva, given that disposing of the other assets has some visibility. That's not to say of course the market is efficient in it's valuation of this. There are lots of examples where it isn't and as hpcg suggests things could resolve quickly. A bid for DGI9 at 30p to scoop up everything does not seem out of the question. GLA |
Posted at 04/10/2024 06:44 by cc2014 I'm looking at the IRR or opportunity costs differently.If you take SEIT I think it not unreasonable that with interest rate cuts leading to an increase in NAV and a closure of some of the discount the share price might be 90p within 2 years. Add to that 2 years of dividends of 12.6p and I could get a gain of 39.6p on a share price of 63p, which is a 62.9% return over 2 years. Therefore my IRR is 30% for an investment far less risky than DGI9, so I'd probably want 35%+ to entice me in. At the current share price of 17.5p, that's equivalent to 32p in 2 years time and from there everything falls down to what the assets will get sold for. The biggest variable is actually time as much as price. If everything in DGI9 gets sold within a year (hard to see with all the required government compliance stuff) then DGI9 looks far more attractive. If it drags on 3 years, the balance tips even more in favour of SEIT. 13p might do it. I have two further points, one positive, one negative 1. Whilst we are waiting for Arqiva to be sold, it is generating decent profits and they are sizeable compared with DGI9's market cap. It's a big number in percentage terms. For sure, Arqiva is struggling with growth and margins but it's not a basket case investment, albeit my research suggests a cliff edge with regard to the BBC contract. It's kind of obvious but worth stating that today you can part a share of Arqiva for 17.5p not 46p if you get my drift and therefore a share of profits based on 17.5p not 46p. 2. Because the NAV's of each business unit are not published how do I make a judgement over whether the NAV is too high to too low? There are some respected posters on ADVFN who are now suggesting that all it may be sold for more than the NAV, but I do not see on what basis they can form a judgement without that information. I am unconvinced it has been kitchen-sinked and it's my view that will only happen once TP are replaced. I guess you could call this an opinion rather than fact but without this information I'm going to want even more in my IRR calculation. In conclusion I'm of the view that's it's not that 17.5p isn't a good price, it's more that it's not low enough to entice me to sell my SEIT to switch to DGI9 |
Posted at 01/10/2024 10:26 by craigso VLN is non-recourse to DGI9. Very simple structured finance concept. I'm sure anybody could dig through the various companies mentioned in DGI9 accounts and find that DGI9 Holdco owns some intermediate company that owes the VLN and owns the Arqiva shares and shareholder loans. That intermediate company will be in a jurisdiction where there are no tax implications to "receiving" shareholder loan interest. Nothing to worry about there.If at any point the shareholders of Arqiva wanted to make distributions to equity (instead of continuing to de-leverage), it could either pay dividends or repay shareholder loans. It doesn't really matter which. Under no circumstances would Macquarie be able to insist that its own shareholder loans are repaid before the other shareholders. That intermediate holding company would be unable to distribute any funds to DGI9 Holdco without first paying the VLN interest (until 2026 I believe) and then the principal as well (from 2027 and beyond). The only element I don't know is if the VLN has a firm and final repayment date, which would be the hard-and-fast deadline for selling or IPO-ing Arqiva. |
Posted at 01/10/2024 09:48 by cc2014 You have it right hpcg.But whilst effectively the shareholder loan notes net off between the DGI9 accounts and Arqiva and the previous Board have stated they can be ignored I'm not so sure. DGI9 do not own 100% of Arqiva and therefore the other owners including Macquarie can insist the shareholder loan notes are paid off. For sure they could all agree to write them off but why should all the parties especially the smaller holders do that? These are liabilities Arqiva has and I would also worry what the tax treatment is if they write them off. I'm not sure that's a nil sum. I can't prove it to myself though. I have asked on here before about this but been met with either silence or the usual barrage of (unsophisticated) PI's talking their own book telling me there's nothing to consider. Even ignoring all this Arqiva's debts are large and the balance sheet doesn't look so great if you take the goodwill out. The senior lenders have been happy to lend against a stream of BBC contracted income but that contract is up for renewal in 2027 I think (might be 2029). That contract for sure is not going to get renewed at the same price. Much lower. There is a very interesting video from CORD some time ago where they were asked by an analyst about buying Arqiva. The answer was a decisive no and something to do with BBC contract and government influence IIRC. I take the view DGI9 is a bit of a binary investment. Alot does depend on what Arqiva can be sold for but given Macquarie have been trying to sell it for over a decade and the only mug they found was DGI9 I'm not sure the market has much enthusiasm for it. Everything has a price but I suspect that price is much better understood by the analysts than PI's and the share price may be a fair one given the opportunity cost of investing elsewhere where one can get a 10% return reasonably easily with little risk and hassle. For a bit of risk you could buy CORD which I'm not going to ramp but is treating me very well. |
Posted at 26/9/2024 06:03 by cc2014 Foetus,Firstly everything I know about the stock market I've learnt myself. I being doing this full-time for decades but I've never worked in the city and don't have access to expert resources or advice so I'm happy if someone wants to pull what I'm about to post apart and for me to learn something new. I do not think DGI9 spent £459m on Arqiva. I think it's all a bunch of financial engineering which can make it look like that but it's not the case. We know DGI9 paid £300m cash and issued a VLN for £159m (ish - round numbers and might be out a bit and I can't be bothered to go back and look). The VLN was issued by DGI9 (not Arqiva) and is non recourse For sure Macquarie ended up with £300m and an asset of £159m for the debt they are owed by DGI9, which makes it look like £459m but in DGI9's account they have the Arqiva asset and a £159m liability. Note they did not receive £159m cash when they issued the VLN, like they would have done if they had borrowed the £159m from a bank, so in many ways it's a one legged transaction for them. The fact they did not receive £159m cash is critically important! (That's why it's a VLN and not a traditional bank loan, no bank in their right mind was going to lend them £159m for this transaction. We should also bear in mind Macquarie have been desperate to sell Arqiva since at least 2015 and have failed to IPO it etc. Posters have pointed out on here that the VLN trades at par (or did 6 months ago anyway, I can't be bothered to check now). It trades at par as no-one in their right mind would pay par for it, but as Macquarie are the only holder and seller they never reduce the price below par. Or at least that's my view on it) So, I maintain the value of Arqiva when DGI9 bought it was £459m of assets less £159m of liabilities = £300m, which is what DGI9 say they invested in it on page 50 of the annual accounts for 2022. It's there in black and white (well colour lol) They then wrote the £300m up to £355m at year end (again on page 50) Page 41 of the annual accounts shows £355m was equal to 27% of the GAV so at the time of purchase £300m was equal to 22.8%, less than the 25% concentration risk. (which is all completely unsurprising, as DGI9 would have run the numbers before the purchase of Arqiva and that's why the concentration risk was lifted to 25%. If Arqiva had cost more it would have instead been lifted to 30% or whatever at the AGM) So from where I'm sitting I'll repeat the question as to whether DGI9 and the Board broke the concentration risk. It doesn't look like it to me. It looks like they ran all the numbers, realised that they couldn't buy Ariqva on a 20% concentration risk and went to shareholders to ask them to approve 25%. In which case if I've understood all this correctly (and I'm very happy to be corrected and learn something new as I said) then taking DGI9 Board to court is based on sand. |
Posted at 12/9/2024 15:31 by petomi Some interesting comments about possible valuations above, thanks guys for this hard work. My only thought would be that the disposal costs will be quite heavy.The IC has an interesting summary of DGI9 vs CORD, which is still undervalued, probably tainted by this disaster. GLA ============= A tale of two digital infrastructure trusts - Investors' Chronicle (investorschronicle. The contrast between Digital 9 and the only other peer on the market, Cordiant Digital Infrastructure (CORD), couldn’t be greater. Stifel analysts recently called Cordiant “structurally robust”, emphasising that it has no debt maturing until 2029, and the dividend is covered; Numis analysts have praised its portfolio of “cash generative companies at attractive multiples, which are capable of self-funding growth, supported by stable and flexible balance sheets”. We’re all perfect investors in hindsight, but looking at what the two trusts did differently can perhaps teach us something. Cartridge says that a key mistake made by Digital 9 was that it tried to please everyone, by offering both an attractive dividend and the potential for high growth. In a changed funding environment, this proved impossible to deliver. Numis analysts agree, noting that at its IPO, Digital 9 promised a dividend that was uncovered and looked high in the context of its investments in “growth-hungry digital companies”. “This was compounded by the acquisition of businesses that could not fully self-fund growth and weak equity markets removing the prospect of raising fresh equity,” they add. In a nutshell: if it looks too good to be true, it’s probably because it is. By contrast, Cordiant was managed more prudently and was able to gradually increase its dividend. Cartridge also notes that there is a good alignment of interest between shareholders and Cordiant’s board, with chair Steven Marshall owning more than £8mn-worth of shares. Cordiant was trading at a 34.5 per cent discount as of 9 September, and part of this could be due to investors becoming sceptical about the sector after Digital 9’s woes. Once Digital 9 is taken off the market, there is hope that Cordiant will be able to “shine brighter”, Cartridge concludes. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
