Triple Point Energy Tran... Share Discussion Threads

[chucko1] 28/1/2025 15:42

The only reason I knew it to be a form of dividend is because the broker labelled it as such. I therefore show a huge loss in the capital account and a ludicrous income gain for one particular month.

I had originally presumed the broker (HL, in this case) were wrong, as they can sometime be. This would preclude many investors from misapplying it and therefore be exposed to a potentially higher rate of tax. Penalties/interest if HMRC are awake, which is possibly not as unlikely as you might expect since they are using software more and more to spot irregularities which is easier where the broker labels something and likely applies some form of coding to that entry.

I have one ongoing matter with HMRC which resulted from a company contribution to a pension payment in 2016, with the letter of admonishment being sent in September last year. Although it actually has zero financial effect, it was a real wake up call as to the ability of HMRC to probe just about anything you might have received/paid into some account/fund etc. If the account has a NI number, then it's not radar-proof.

[eekhoorn] 28/1/2025 13:49

Milkwood Capital bought a stake, so like Downing Microcap the board were forced into unorthodox/panicked distributions.From the latest report risks and uncertainies section:'Inadequate or inappropriate execution of the wind-down: this risk is for the Company as a wholeand includes the proposed delisting and members' voluntary liquidation. The causes for this havebeen extended to include potential investor activism and consequently the likelihood has beenincreased to moderate, from low-to-moderate. This becomes the most material risk to theCompany.'

[cc2014] 28/1/2025 13:49

I can only remember of one other occasion where a trust in wind-down was not paid out as a capital distribution but I forget it's name. I'm sure someone else will pop up to name some but it's highly unusual.

And it's no particular effort to pay it out as a capital distribution.

So, my working assumption is that it's as simple as Triple Point simply don't know what are doing and nor do the Board, didn't bother to take any advice from their house broker and didn't talk to their major shareholders.

I suspect most PI's will declare it as a capital distribution in ignorance and HMRC won't bother to look either.

As for all the net income being distributed anyway, it appears some of the IT's have found ways round that but converting their whole capital to income, through a court process.


However, you cut it, Triple Point screwed me over, regardless of whether through ignorance or perhaps the influence of some major shareholder who's tax affairs meant they wanted it as a revenue distribution.


(I will be glad when all this tax management is over for me. About another 5-7 years and I will have everything in some form of tax wrapper).

[chucko1] 28/1/2025 13:19

As far as I am aware, and anyone correct me if I am wrong, but all other wind down distributions have been capital events, so no income tax payable - perhaps CGT.

If that is correct, what possessed TP (though we know how awful they are) to declare this as a quasi dividend? How can it be when by virtue of this being an IT, most net income must have been distributed anyway.

What the heck am I missing? (not that I am affected, but remain curious).

[cc2014] 28/1/2025 11:55

Yes revenue distributions are taxable and thus the Board at TENT left me in a difficult place in relation to tax as my holdings were taxable.

I could just about have managed with taking the special as a dividend as my average entry was 58p, but there there seemed some risk at the time TENT would continue to declare further revenue distributions leaving me with a tax bill on the dividends, but unable to use up the capital losses, so I sold out as to avoid the issue.


Which about says it all about Triple Point and the Board. A complete lack of understanding of the impacts their decisions make.

Rachel from accounts didn't help either as that also pushed me towards selling early to avoid higher rates of CGT.

[chucko1] 28/1/2025 11:25

Yes, though I am not clear how a 25p return could ever be thought of as a revenue distribution. I have it in a SIPP, so the tax consequences were nil, and therefore did not bother about it. But isn't a revenue distribution taxable?

[cc2014] 28/1/2025 11:18

But the last return was by way of a revenue distribution - i.e. a dividend in the usual way IIRC.

I haven't read the circular so I'm no longer a holder so the answer will be in there.

[2wild] 28/1/2025 10:41

They won't be doing a tender, will be a B share issue or compulsory purchase. Therefore ensuring all shareholders get capital returns with no action required.

[solarno lopez] 25/1/2025 11:36

Spot on as always Redhorse

[redhorse2020] 25/1/2025 10:00

Amazing they're still in business after the lies they told to DGI9 shareholders - must have zero credibility now - this one far far better by comparison.

[grahamg8] 25/1/2025 09:33

Liquidation would equate to a capital distribution from the remaining assets of the company, first a big chunk of £43m within 10 days of the vote, the rest at some time in the future perhaps as late as Q4/26. The alternative vote will result in a tender offer, ie a share purchase which is also a capital distribution, £42m on 4/3/25 and you keep your remaining shares for a rather uncertain future.

[c3479z1] 24/1/2025 19:46

distribution likely to be a capital repayment not a dividend then?

[solarno lopez] 23/1/2025 18:33

Redhorse they have already been sacked from DG19 and SOHO

[solarno lopez] 23/1/2025 18:32

Chucko it was a couple of ICs ago a copy of which I have

[redhorse2020] 23/1/2025 16:04

Considering this is Triplepoint it's an absolutely brilliant result. Certainly could be a lot worse with them involved - see DGI9

[chucko1] 23/1/2025 15:40

When did he write that?

[solarno lopez] 23/1/2025 14:28

So much for Simon Thompsons 50p distribution

[chucko1] 23/1/2025 09:04

So, 49.3p is the stated eNAV, and 43p is on our way in short order. 3p is further expected from remaining receivables (still some small risk attached to the CHP stuff), and then I suppose 3.3p retained for now as working capital.

I would not expect final costs to be very much at all, since servicing merely their accounts receivable could be outsourced, leaving effectively no members of full time staff. They are delisting, so any costs of that nature will be tens of thousands. Liquidation would be quite low as there are unlikely to be any complications as the assets of the company are mainly cash and tax matters should be pretty straightforward. I would estimate £0.2mn.

Not really sure why they might need as much as £3mn from here on in, except that that is typically the amount they have always had! (a bit less).

Seems that one might conclude that 48.5p is still possible since the eNAV would surely have taken into account accrual for IM fees.

[solarno lopez] 23/1/2025 08:55

Of course it will Liquidators don't come cheap

[grahamg8] 23/1/2025 08:00

Rock and a hard place options. I'm fully expecting the surplus £5m or so to magically disappear and shareholders get shafted, again.

[chucko1] 22/1/2025 16:59

Yes, so 0.9% of NAV. This would be around £0.8mn and would most likely not have been paid yet on any previous sales. Clearly would be around £0.4mn on the final sale amount, though would be an accounts payable and therefore not a cash item on the Sep 30th financial statement.

So that would seem to indicate a range more like 46-50p, all in.

[cc2014] 22/1/2025 16:12

IIRC there's a performance fee to TP for selling assets above a prescribed percentage of NAV

[chucko1] 22/1/2025 15:33

Indeed so. The semi annual confirms this. I see a value here of between 47p (conservative - £1mn cash after costs - which should be light) and 51p (using the pure £30mn value less the 25p special),.

Whichever way, I just bought a few at 45p and prepared to take the CHP risk and the final 2026 1p distribution.

[langland] 22/1/2025 14:51

According to RNS dated 19 December the company at 30/9/24 had cash of £30.2mn. Out of this a special dividend of £25mn was paid. There were 2 remaining assets -the hydro and deferred consideration for the LED stuff. Both of these have been sold for a total of £44mn. So, in theory, there should be around £49mn for shareholders less some costs which should not be too much since this is a pretty simple business.

[mwj1959] 22/1/2025 14:07

So £44.1m for the assets sold plus £2m for the deferred CHP payments = £46.1m = c.46p per share (just over 100m shares in issue)less whatever winding up costs etc. So, unless there's some cash floating around, holding at current bid share price isn't going to give you much upside. So, cash holding is probably key to hold or sell decision. Hopefully, we'll get clarity on that soon(as promised in RNS).