It was certainly reasonable to defer the dividend until after the second instalment (and perhaps abler minds would have planned that sequence in the first place) but what we have here is effectively cancellation of the dividend in all but name (together with huge doubt re all the future proposed distributions)even though the pre float literature and post float announcements by BCS were encouraging people to buy or hang on to the shares on the basis that pre-road opening payouts were coming. I'm sure the misleading effect of these repeated and deliberate reminders of an attractive income return(particularly post float) will be key when the matter goes to court as it was the ongoing divi which provided that cornerstone of the investment proposition both before and after float and its effective removal (not its deferral) which immediately led to the collapse of any market in the shares. No ifs buts or maybes in Rowes announcements post float, just repeated reassurances of the share value on the basis of the forthcoming distributions. To put it another way, would the float have got away without the divi (of course not), and if there was any doubt whatsoever that this key element of the return would be removed within weeks, why was the float not pulled, and even afterwards, why were investors not warned about possible cancellation with the same diligence and alacrity that the company is now putting into threats re the second instalment? Oh dear!
BCS Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
