Logic?, page-101

Stock, I can't resist a bit of humour though I probably will get pummelled by some for me attempting to act as the grammar police!

If you send a bottle of whiskey to Scotland you are likely to be strung up by Joubert's rope. Now if you send a bottle of whisky you'll be welcomed as a guest of honour at a Fling.
------------------

p.s.

I like your view though I am in the maintain dividend camp. Said in the belief that the company is consolidating (no further cap-ex other than maintenance) and now entering a cash generative stage where value is extracted from current assets to a level far greater than servicing debt over 5 years. Why would we pay down debt earlier than necessary when at low interest rates - if we forego dividends to pay off debt it is synonymous with depriving shareholders of cheap 5% (assumed cost of debt) leverage.

Apart from debt there is also a large chunk of payables to chip away at. I surmised a while back that this might have something to do with the negative cash flow first half (among other matters). It would not surprise me to see payable down at a greater rate than receivables collected in the first half. Not good at face value but when it is seen that receivables are not in danger and it is just timing driven by system changes, office changes and part of positive negotiation with insurers then it will be seen in a different light.

I do accept that paying down debt would lower risk and therefore the discount rate applied by market thus increasing SP value. That is all theoretical though and there is no way of knowing how the market would react. It could possibly react with greater negativity to no dividend than it would to willing to apply a lower discount rate.