Melrose Industries Share Discussion Threads

[steeplejack] 23/2/2015 13:07

Yes,I agree MEANWHILE,small overall rise with Credit Suisse helping the cause.

[tozinowski] 23/2/2015 10:42

Credit Suisse upgraded to outperform this morning with 350 target, probably helped.

[meanwhile] 23/2/2015 10:33

A 13 for 14 consolidation at 290p would give a price rise of 20.7p. If 18.7p is simultaneously paid out as a special dividend, this leaves a rise of 2p in the share price as a result of these 2 changes. Today's opening price, an 8p rise, looks like a real rise in the vasluation of the company.

[cisk] 23/2/2015 10:29

SJ, my understanding matches yours in that the adjustments should represent a zero sum change, so the price movement is normal market noise.

[steeplejack] 23/2/2015 10:11

The share capital has been contracted.To hold the same percentage of the company,you now only have to hold 13 shares not 14.You will receive 18.7p (in income or capital as decided with a default option of income if you do nothing).The contraction of the share capital is intended to counterbalance the special return of monies ie 18.7p and leave the price near unchanged.The problem we have is that private client broker account updates are unlikely to stick rigidly to the intended timetable.The shares have gone XD (and the proposed changes in holdings)but don't expect that to be immediately shown in your portfolios.No help there for understanding today's change in share price.I would presume that today's jump in price does indeed reflect the 13 new for 14 old but I thought that the XD 18.7p would counterbalance that.It's irritating but I hold these in my ISA only so I don't have to account for these complications in my tax return.

[bostonborn] 23/2/2015 09:40

Pretty sure it's 13 new shares for 14 old ones.

Special dividend is 18.7p times the old number of shares you held.

Share price has gone up slightly today to reflect that after Friday 20th Feb you now hold 13/14 of the shares you previously held.

Share price is currently as I write 299.3p mid price.

Hope this clarifies things

[eipgam] 22/2/2015 11:24

the dates are worth looking at.... Feb 5th 2015 for one and Sept 5th 2014 for the other.

Perhaps L&G lost the deal... or perhaps they never won it in the first place. Or perhaps, as suggested in 'my link', there are a number of suppliers.

[eipgam] 21/2/2015 16:21

Elster has opened a new assembly plant that will produce the company’s new Linky electric smart meters for the French market. The plant will be located in Estrées-Deniécourt in Picardie, which is located between Paris and Lille. The Linky project will create a smart meter and communications network replacing 35 million meters over the next five to seven years in total. The first phase includes a deployment of three million meters.

[robow] 20/2/2015 16:23

nice intraday reversal

[eipgam] 20/2/2015 16:22

We're all mates here... Monday 8am will tell for sure

[grahamburn] 20/2/2015 15:43

Enami. I note your interpretation, but I think that may be incorrect.

The payment is (according to the announcement) a payment in respect of each ORDINARY share PRIOR to consolidation. The B and C shares are simply a mechanism to effect the share consolidation and to give shareholders the option to choose a capital repayment (B shares) or an income repayment (C shares) to let shareholders to choose the most tax efficient method for their own individual circumstances.

Hence, my belief that the (effective) ex-date was indeed yesterday, especially as the timetable of events within the announcement only mentions one record date (today). However, now I have thought about this a little more, the whole point of the consolidation computation was predicated on ensuring that the share price remained the same after the consolidation, so maybe the usual "ex-dividend effect" will not be apparent in the price as such. It will simply show up in the reduced capital value on Monday morning!

I could be mistaken - though having been through similar exercises on other shareholdings, I tend towards feeling my interpretation of the "ex date" is right, even if it shows up differently in this case.

[eipgam] 20/2/2015 14:40

yes cisk... sorry. I am getting my MRO and my SL. corporate actions mixed up.

[enami] 20/2/2015 14:33

grahamburn - The dividend is not being paid on the current share issue. It is being paid on the C shares which will be issued on 2 March.

On Monday morning you will have fewer new ordinary shares plus the entitlement to elect for either B or C shares to be issued on that date.

I assume the election will be enabled on Monday.

[cisk] 20/2/2015 14:30

isnt it 13 for every 14 held?

[grahamburn] 20/2/2015 14:09

The ex-date (as per standard procedure for dividends) is usually the day before the record date. The record date is today so it follows the ex date should have been yesterday.

[eipgam] 20/2/2015 12:10

isn't it at after the market closes today? The 9 for 11 is intended to keep the share price steady... lets see what happens tomorrow?

[grahamburn] 19/2/2015 14:11

Which is impressive, as isn't today the ex-date for consolidation date (and so the 18.7p payment)? The record date is tomorrow. The timetable for events in the announcement isn't particularly clear on this point.

[eipgam] 19/2/2015 11:53

Highest share price in about 8 or 9 months

[eipgam] 16/2/2015 09:44

Enami... thanks for the jolly news from GS

[redips2] 16/2/2015 09:34

free stock charts from uk.advfn.com


The gap.

No doubt it will eventually fill or on the share split .

[robow] 16/2/2015 09:25

mine are held in an ISA. Which do you think would be the better option?

[enami] 16/2/2015 09:22

Quite a big gap up to start the week

Goldman Sachs Upgrades to Conviction Buy Target Increased from 315 to 385

B/C Share Record Date for entitlement to 5.00 p.m. on 20 February

[eipgam] 13/2/2015 12:40

Ha! I don't think I have made enough to pay tax

[grahamburn] 12/2/2015 17:26

That would be the usual treatment, so presume this event follows the norm. Hence the options given to individual shareholders to choose the most appropriate form of payment for them.

Now would that be classed as "aggressive tax avoidance" by certain politicians?