Forum Topics RUL RUL Buy Back

Pinned straw:

Added 7 months ago

We will pass a milestone today in the $RUL buy back program. Based on Friday's report, today will see the cumulative buy back reach $20 million paid for 12.3m shares. There remain a maxiumum of 10.5m to go (22.8m total or 10% total SOI).

About $12m worth has been bought back over the last 12 months.

My reason for posting is that over recent months the behaviour of the buy back has changed. For much of last year, the buyback were more stop-start, dialling up when the SP fell below $1.55 and slowing or even stopping above about $1.60.

Now, with the SP right up at $2.45, they are pretty much buying $50,000 worth every day. On some days, they do buy fewer, and I think these are lower liquiduty days, when there are low volumes with offers close enough to the current SP. But I have been monitoring for a few months and $50,000 days are pretty much the norm. So $1m a month.

The buy-backs are typically 5-6% of average daily total volumes - although this varies hugely. Highest price paid is $2.60.

If the SP was to stay flat at $2.45, and if they keep buying $50,000, then the current announced program would run for another two years. Of course, SP likely to continue to rise, so it would go for even longer. Equally, there may come a point at which they stop as there is no obligation to execute the program announced.

I'm still puzzled why at $2.60, the highest return opportunity the board can see is eating themselves.

In the short term, I'm not complaining - as this level of buyback is continuing to put some support under the SP, and of course will directly drive EPS.

Disc: Held in RL and SM

thunderhead
Added 7 months ago

If the general expectation at the board level is for further share price gains (due to improved operating leverage and/or business performance after inflecting past the SaaS transition cliff, or possibly a takeover in the not-so-distant future), it makes sense to continue buying back even at these elevated levels.

19

Mujo
Added 7 months ago

I think your both saying the same thing. It only makes sense if the board thinks the current price is still attractive and that buying back shares is a better use of capital than reinvestment or dividends.


18

lyndonator
Added 7 months ago

This aligns with the messaging in the last earnings call where they said:

  • They are not interested in expanding outside of mining and mining related OEMs
  • There are not any acquisitions they are targeting at the moment (they referred to themselves as the "last man standing" in this space).


So I think it makes sense to return the cashflow to shareholders.

I believe (but could be remembering incorrectly) they said they still have tax credits stored up from previous losses, so won't have franking credits for dividends (forgive me if I am misconstruing this, I'm not sure how franking credits are really accrued) - hence the choice of buybacks.

Personally I am happy for them to just give us the money back, rather then spending it on some hair-brained scheme (like some other companies would).

17

mikebrisy
Added 7 months ago

@lyndonator I agree with your points.

My question is slightly different. Even with the core focus they have, many of their solutions have been client-driven, so there is a fair amount of technical work to code the software so that client processes are variations/configurations of a common core. In software, the ideal economics are plug and play a standard offering, with configuration of options.

The successful software companies are forever updating and redeveloping their platforms. For example, I think $TNE have done at least 3 complete rebuilds of their local council SaaS offering over the years.

By any measure, I consider $RUL's R&D spend is underweight for what you'd expect, if they aim to continue to grow within their existing industry and core functionality footprint.

So I am not referring to M&A or new developments on flights of fancy. I am purely talking about making the current core sustainably competitive.

The low level of development spend supports the thesis that they are looking to be taken out at some point. But a high SP doesn't help that.

This question doesn't detract from my investment thesis, but it is on the "issues list". Innovate or die!

25

lyndonator
Added 7 months ago

Ah, gotcha.

Yes, I agree, them downplaying the need for further R&D did trigger a warning signal with me too.

Taking the time to look at their R&D $$ and comparing it to their contemporaries is not something I have done - but now you mention it is on the to do list!

Agree, software is never finished.

20