Yep - the answer is probably that despite disallowed losses and interest (which can only create an effective tax rate higher than the stat rate) they had huge upfront/expense relief on Capex which drove the effective rate below the stat rate It's just I think sloppy wording |
Even if there is a loss the explanation given is wrong as disallowing expenses always has a positive effect on any tax rate. It's a very sloppy attempt to explain something which has failed miserably. |
Reaching back into my memory banks of Basic Accounting from Business School, the difference between the actual tax paid and a simple P&L calculation of tax due at the statutory rate goes into Deferred Tax.
Presumably if there is non-deductible interest or asset impairment charges on the P&L, then there needs to be a note explaining why the P&L tax calculation doesn't appear to be using the statutory rate. |
Presumably because there is a loss, so its explaining why the tax relief on that is less than 25%? |
Please could someone explain the following statement which appears in Arqiva"s recent half-year results.
"The effective tax rate is below the UK statutory tax rate of 25% (30 June 2024: 25%; 31 December 2023: 25%) as a result of disallowed interest expense and the disallowed impairment on the loss generated in the period."
I would have thought that disallowing interest should result in a positive tax rate. |
Oh yes - absolutely - these boards are driven by share price movement at all times - not value! |
Agree but no nasties either which I'll take right now. Despite the thousands of words written here Arq/DOG9 is cheap, if the BBC licensees are extended and probably close to zero for DGI9 otherwise! Meters might save us but they have to grow PDQ. |
A bit meh. Nothing in there to get excited about however the real action is coming with smart meters etc.. |
hxxps://www.arqiva.com/credit-Investors-reports/2025/Financial-Statements/ABPL%20and%20AGPL%20Interim%20Financial%20Statements%20Dec-24.pdf
Arqiva Q2 |
Big volume and a keen buyer being matched. |
We won't see an RNS on the RCF until 13/14 March, maybe even the 17th itself.
There's no real incentive for lenders to push this into administration - they probably get a higher interest rate from a new RCF than whatever the existing RCF provides for as penalty interest. But there's probably no reason for either side to cave in on the price negotiation until the deadline is imminent.
Maybe we'll see a few more share buyers show up after that particular risk is dealt with. If the share price keeps trickling down to the 8s, I might pick up a few more the week of the 10th. |
What if it's 25%? ;)
But yes, actually concluding it is the main thing - and the fact it still hasn't been done/RNS'd. |
The interest rate is an irrelevance to some degree - whether it's base + 3% or +8% isn't going to shift the dial much. |
The radio silence doesn't appeal - feels like the longer no news on the RCF, the worse the interest rate could be. 17th March expiry. |
Struggling at the moment as to what way is up or down given the geopolitical situation But crudely; a bias towards higher rates and inflation, higher defence spending good for industrial demand, consumer spending and assets linked to that likely to be under pressure |
Yes I'd agree that co-investment could be a profitable strategy, though even better if they target something already owned! So I like WC104's suggestion of LABS. Also agreed DGI9 probably not on their initial wishlist, though if taking a 5m stake takes the price to mid teens then that's an easy 2.5m gain to get the ball rolling for them. All speculation really but it's a rainy Sunday afternoon. |
Yep - it trusts like LABS - pretty small market cap, at least some good assets, management not doing the right thing |
Yes, I'm intrigued by the new vehicle as well. I might make a cheeky co-investment in whatever they target. (assuming they don't drive the target all the way up to NAV like SABA has ended up doing) But ultimately AVI do much of the same thing with a solid track record.
I can't really imagine that DGI9 would be on their wishlist. Even buying £5m of DGI9 would send the share price back into the mid-teens at least. Besides that, they will surely be looking for plays where a bit of agitation could get the IT management to change course - Infrared is already saying and doing the right things here. |
hxxps://citywire.com/investment-trust-insider/news/james-carthew-activist-achilles-could-pack-a-powerful-punch/a2460221
The new Chris Mills/Rob Naylor vehicle 'Achilles Investment Company' looks interesting. Looking at the documentation it names a certain Brett Miller as a director. As an ex director here with 400,000 shares bought at 30p I wonder if he still fancies the share at 9.5p?
There are probably more obvious candidates for AIC to take a stake in eg GRID, LABS, SEIT, WHR but Miller will have a unique insight into DGI9s prospects and with a market cap of 83m it would be easy for them to use some of their 53m firepower to build up a decent sized holding. |
Well VPNG, Global X Data Center REITS & Digital Infrastructure UCITS ETF USD Acc (GBP) is now at all time highs, but even there early investors needed to wait almost 3 years to get back to par. |
Hmm. Interesting. Id have thought most of them simply funnelled research from either parent companies (i.e Barclays wealth) or paid for it from other research funds.
Im not sure why they would 'hoover up investments' - beyond being paid their ludicrous fees I suppose theres no much upside. Beyond being fired by your client obviously.
id have imagined they'd be 'index huggers' if anything, given the sophistication of their clients - who should all hold low cost passive fund, and sit on them!
i.e exactly as i should have...
D |
riverman - are you serious about wealth managers being unsophisticated?
I suppose they buy block and then sell into their clients portfolios (which they have full control of as to investment decisions).
if you have really dropped the ball and not sold till 10p - down from 120p! - is it worth really getting out? I suppose it's really a 'how it looks' affair... |
They'd have known about it. Might be because Aqua 'own' very little of the total bandwidth, and Meta have got the money so they dont want the hassle of having to share infra. |
See Meta is spending cash on undersea cables pity they did not buy ours ,surprised that DGI9s cable offering could not be sold for even the cost of building and laying new cable.
Bonkers Britain at work again . |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
