Digital 9 Infrastructure Share Discussion Threads

[ghhghh] 28/3/2024 11:07

WC

Independent valuations where the valuer knows the value will be soon tested should be robust

Agreed. Argiva is the big ticket item and market doesn't like the lack of a clear exit strategy. I'd hope Macquarie would make clear if any significant valuation difference.

The replacement non execs must be top drawer and can the BoD survive the AGM?

And it's a mix bag of assets but a takeover target at 21p.

I'm surprised it's not bounced more this morning but a lot of very unhappy shareholders and the abrupt departure of Miller and Boleat is a concern until we know exactly what the bust up was about. I'm assuming they wanted to abort the wind up process so it's arguably positive that D9 still want to sell off assets, implies they are confident re today's valuations?

[williamcooper104] 28/3/2024 11:03

Board not aware of any major looming problem So let's take another 10p of :) 60p target

[fisternator] 28/3/2024 10:45

Well you're a braver man than i.

This lot had the Verne NAV at £517 Millions at December 2022. Then conveniently before the sale they slash that by 23% to £398 Million in December 2023 .
They actually received £325 Million in March 2024 plus a wing and a prayer for another £100 million.

I have every confidence the Bod will carry on in similar fashion.

[williamcooper104] 28/3/2024 10:31

I'm at a realisation of about 70p Independent valuations where the valuer knows the value will be soon tested should be robust Taking of 14p for disposal costs

[riverman77] 28/3/2024 10:22

That's basically the approach I'm taking - conservatively slashing their 84p NAV per share by half to factor in the boards complete lack of credibility as well as the risk of further fees or other unpleasant surprises. That still gives 100% upside, with potentially a lot more if things aren't as bad as feared. On the plus side, fears over liquidity risk are now gone - so the risk of this going to zero is fairly remote now - and today's update indicates the board is at least not aware of any major problems lurking on the horizon.

[fisternator] 28/3/2024 10:10

Is it not the case that virtually no one on the sidelines believes the value per share here is 84p, or insofar confident that the bod could employ that amount from the aforementioned assets?
That is copiously clear by the lack of any interest in apparently tripling your money in two years.

I have the NAV when all is said and done and subtracting DGI9 managements lack of credible abilities at a 40p return to shareholders, if i get any more then i will be pleased.

Is this just plucking a number from the sky? Well yes! It remains faithful to the adage Half the Blue sky figures provided by a utterly something of the night Bod at DG19

[catch007] 28/3/2024 09:50

Donald - well done on highlighting the sheer anger and frustration of shareholders at this debacle. You have my vote, if by some miracle you can progress Director election. Sound common sense is sadly lacking with this board.

I am at a loss why the current board need to hire 3 expensive advisers to assist a totally incompetent, greedy management company that has destroyed shareholder value whilst still benefiting from a wholly inept NAV based remuneration package. Triple Point have no shame imho.

I bought into the original concept of investment in the 'plumbing of the internet' on the basis of steady low risk long term returns yet Triple Point bought assets which could never deliver the promise and were hugely capital intensive. The deals seemed almost like panic buying and paying an unsustainable dividend was utter madness.

It is an easy game for the manager when NAV is at a premium and constantly fund raising however actually managing a portfolio with care and diligence has proved way beyond Triple Point its clearly too hard work for there ' management consultant' quality team!

In my view the BOD should have pivoted to wholly support the two experienced recovery specialists as a self managed trust. An opportunity now thrown away.

[keith95] 28/3/2024 09:32

Muppet managers or not the past is past and only relevant to those with a gripe over the past … the question now is how much for the assets going forwards.

[stemis] 28/3/2024 09:15

Yep but it’s what INPP/HICL/BBGI/3IN all do

Problem isn’t accounting

It’s muppet managers

Followed by a raft of posts complaining about the presentation of the numbers. The way these companies present their numbers makes its almost impossible to understand whether they offer real value or not.

[keith95] 28/3/2024 09:11

See my post above from last weekend:

“I received a response from DGI9 to my questions. The attached is the response to one question:

"Arqiva’s balance sheet includes large shareholder loan notes, which are a part of an internal tax and cash extraction structure. They are owed to Arqiva’s current shareholders, not external lenders. When D9 acquired its 51.76% economic interest in Arqiva, it acquired 51.76% of these shareholder loan notes. "

So the £163m VLN bought 51.76% of the Arqiva shareholder loan notes.

So go to Arqiva Global and find out the value owed in terms of shareholder loan notes, then go to the subsidiary companies like Arqiva Limited and note the shareholder assets in terms of reserves where operating profits annually are placed.

One question I did not get answered from DGI9 is the form in which the £3 bn of reserves tied to Arqiva Limited equity is held.

[donald pond] 28/3/2024 09:00

Can you believe we are paying 3 investment banks to draft an RNS that elicits this response? The gap between NAV and share price reflects the confidence of the market in the board and manager. Other than seeking to maximise their fees it is hard to see why they are still involved.

[fisternator] 28/3/2024 08:59

Hello Keith thank you for your response.

Further, the point i make is that surely if the company are valuing the NAV then a simple sum of assets on one side and the outstanding debt on the other would make things transparent.

They could then if they wish add in another figure of the total estimated costs via wages and adviser fees the 2 years winddown will cost.

That would give at least an actual plausible Net worth per share rather than totally unconvincing spin.

[kamshafqat] 28/3/2024 08:55

Hi Keith - for whatever reason (I find their approach to reporting odd) they mark Arqiva net of the VLN. Text from the report as follows: "The value of Arqiva Group is net of the Vendor Loan Note ("VLN") of £169.8 million"

[invisage] 28/3/2024 08:53

Are the buyers of the dgi9 assets triple point themselves and therefore the NAV has credibility?See rns from TENT who sold assets to triple pointTriple point have a very large private credit function

[keith95] 28/3/2024 08:35

"where is the debt and VLN" The VLN along with Arqiva shareholder loans bought with the VLN money do not appear on the balance sheet of assets for DGI9.

[fisternator] 28/3/2024 07:57

It would appear , at least to my own judgment that these figures seem disorganised . And with my admittedly little understanding of the subject matter to outright contradict themselves!

I'm sure the value is above 40p but where is the debt and VLN on the chart showing the ascribed NET values? The whole read seems never to mention the amounts of outstanding debt?

imho

[ghhghh] 28/3/2024 07:50

The Board's assessment of the unaudited portfolio valuation is on the basis of fair value, defined by the International Financial Reporting Standard 13 "Fair Value Measurement" ("IFRS 13") as "the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date", commonly known as the 'willing buyer, willing seller' basis.

Obviously all hinges on this! 84p leaves a lot of headroom for a bit of optimism!

[livewireplus] 28/3/2024 07:08

RNS Regulatory News this morning:Digital 9 Infrastructure PLC Unaudited Portfolio Valuation and Unaudited NAV

[windn pish] 27/3/2024 23:18

Donald,
A first ever post from me. You'll be aware that your actions have zero chance of securing the Director appointment you crave but I otherwise applaud the actions you're taking to highlight the poor governance at DGI9.

[williamcooper104] 27/3/2024 20:48

Yep but it's what INPP/HICL/BBGI/3IN all do Problem isn't accounting It's muppet managers

[f56] 27/3/2024 20:20

This is the shareholders model from hell!

[f56] 27/3/2024 20:12

Good description.

[stemis] 27/3/2024 18:20

genista71,

this whole sector is smoke and mirrors. Wholly owned subsidiaries allowed to be treated as 'investments' and put on holding company balance sheets at npv based NAVs by a calculation that no-one outside the company has visibility of. Quit often little or no disclosures of underlying profits or actual assets and misleading dividend covers based solely on what the holding companies are stripping from their subsidiaries. DGI9 is this plus incompetence but I'd be surprised if it is the last one to come apart...

[gonsan] 27/3/2024 18:01

hxxps://citywire.com/investment-trust-insider/news/digital-9-investors-vote-for-wind-down-as-two-directors-abruptly-exit/a2439096?re=118720&refea=1811699

We could leave some comments...

I already did

[donald pond] 27/3/2024 17:57

Well genista, that is rather the point. It is a trust, was marketed as a trust, is externally managed and has an independent board. It is a member of the AIC iirc. It is the failure to diversify risk that is the key failure here. They risked the entire company on a transaction they didn't understand and then those who made the decision from Triple Point walked away.