|
Printable version |
From: | "tennyson@caverock.net.nz" <tennyson@caverock.net.nz> |
Date: | Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:03:29 +1200 |
Hi winner69, > >Snoopy - the RBD property sales realised $50M (not the $10.9million >you mentioned) > Glad to see someone picked up the deliberate mistake! ;-) Yes you are correct. The $10.9m that I mentioned was only the profit (amount above book value) on those property sales. I see the actual proceeds form the sales totalled $52.1million. I'll need to rework my figures on the effect of those property sales on RBD profitability now. I was a bit sloppy the first time around anyway, so this will give me the opportunity to correct things. $52.1m worth of property, now rented, on an 11% yield means a rent bill of $5.73million that wasn't there before. Assuming borrowings are being paid for at a 7% rate, and that $52.1million from property sales has gone straight back top paying off debt, then loan interest saved as a result of the sales will be $3.65m. The net effect is a $5.73m- $3.65m= $2.08m annual rent bill to pay. Spread out over 94.8 million shares means gross profit is reduced by 2.2c per share as a direct result of this transaction. The NPAT effect is that the profit is reduced by 0.66x2.2c= 1.4c per share. > > If used to pay down debt current debt would be very low - so the > current debt of $30M odd is a lot higher than it could be. So what was > the extra debt raised for?. > According to my 2002 annual report, RBD group debt reduced from $105.4m to $58.8m (in the year in which the property sales occurred) and later down to $58.0m in FY2003. I don't see a lot of 'extra debt' in those figures. The fact that RBD now has a lot less debt on the books should protect earnings against the effect of modest interest rate rises, when that happens. > > Look at the cumulative cash flows over the last 5 years or so. Look at > operating cash flows plus property sales less investments plus/minus > changes in borrowings and make your own mind up where the dividends > have come from > > Many different interpretations but two are property sales or > borrowings > If that were the case, how do you explain the fact that all dividends have been imputed? You can only pay imputed dividends if you make real profits by selling stuff paying the tax as you go. I grant you the amount received form the property sales probably does closely match the dividends paid by RBD since its float. But by my way of looking at things, that is a co-incidence. > >That same overview will also confirm what you have worked out - the >dividend is probably safe unless they take on another concept or make >another acquisition. > I don't think they will do anything like that until a new CEO comes on board. > >Also have you noted that the DRIP scheme keeps a fair bit of cash in >the company. > I haven't highlighed that fact in any of my recent posts, but yes good point. I see the number of shares has increased over FY2003 from 93,086,674 to 94,815,164. That makes 1,728,490 new shares that have been issued. Options exercised during the year amount to 437,020. This implies 1,728,490-437,020= 1,291,470 shares issued under the DRIP. Total dividend payble at 10c per share was $9,482,000m. Dividend payment is split along the lines (45% interim)/(55% final) allotted at prices $1.593/$1.372 respectively. This means that the number of shares allotted annually under the DRIP plan will *not* be split 45:55 in proportion to the dividend payout, but 38:62. Now 38% or 1,290,470 shares is 490,379 shares. At a price of $1.593 that equates to $781,173 of dividend payout 'saved'. 62% of 1,290,470 shares is 800,092 shares. At a price of $1.372, that equates to $1,097,726 of dividend payout 'saved'. This means the actual cash paid out as a result of the dividend was: $9.482m- ($0.781m+$1.097m)= $7.604m. That equates to a cash flow basis dividend 8c per share (a saving of 2c per share on the actual dividend declared). By any measure, I don't think you can say RBD is short of cash. SNOOPY -- Message sent by Snoopy on Pegasus Mail version 4.02 ---------------------------------- "You can tell me I'm wrong twice, but that still only makes me wrong once." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
References
|