Convatec share price has been strong of late but today’s interims show a huge gap between adjusted ($262m) and statutory profits ($115m). If you dig deep into the notes you find $48m is due to a write down in its InnovaMatrix product related intangibles due to the highly uncertain outlook in the skin substitute market and $21m due to lengthy CMS audits of physicians which have led to significant delays in collection of related receivables. There was $12m of other adjustments covering legal matters and costs incurred in a particular transformation project. The adding back of amortisation of intangibles on acquisitions accounts for the rest.
Free cash flow in H1 was negative $68m vs +$58m this time last year due to adverse working capital movements and higher growth Capex. Growth Capex rose to $90m from $40m last time.
Net debt up by $204m to $1,534m.
Despite the increase in net debt it also announces a $200m share buyback.
I hate it when management seek to bury the important facts deep in long financial reports. I won’t be buying.
It takes more balls to release this in 2026
than it took for the Sex Pistols to release
‘Anarchy in the UK’ in 1976.
As Brendan O’Neill put it on Spiked,
this is real punk.
A follow up interview with Ato Jay of Savvy Wallet. This time we cover SpaceX, Open AI and Anthropic and much much more including undervalued UK minnow Vanquis Banking.
Youtube - https://t.co/YjmBChi5tI
Spotify - https://t.co/hAxHNUkQAr
Apple Podcasts - https://t.co/PPWzrzjx9g
All content linked above is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. Please conduct your own research and, where appropriate, seek independent professional advice before making any investment decisions.
Marx’s ideas also began as an idealistic blueprint for a fairer world. The tragedy was that they underestimated incentives, entrepreneurship and human nature, while overestimating the willingness of people and nations to subordinate their own interests to a grand collective vision. The result was coercion, authoritarianism and immense human suffering.
Piketty’s Global Justice Report rests on a similar flaw. It assumes nations will voluntarily surrender sovereignty, taxpayers will accept ever-greater redistribution, and entrepreneurs will continue taking risks despite modest capped rewards. Yet a system requiring worldwide political conformity can only be achieved through coercion—and coercion has a poor historical record.
One week after the launch of the #GlobalJusticeReport, we've received a wide range of reactions. We're grateful for the many comments, critiques, and questions we've received so far, and we hope the discussions continue in the weeks ahead. We see the report as a contribution to a broader public debate.
Here are three common criticisms we'd like to address:
1) “The report proposes a radical de-growth agenda”
2) "The report uses an unrealistically pessimistic 4.5°C warming scenario."
3) "The report is a utopian dream."
🧵
If you need someone to lend you an additional £130bn every year to cover overspending their opinion is going to count whether anyone voted for them or not.
He’s not alone in thinking landlords are a rentier class exploiting tenants, producing nothing, and deserving to be taxed into extinction — if not outright nationalised. No wonder Britain continues its slow and tortured decline.
I’ve been a landlord for 25 years..it’s been financially ~stupid but I’ve absolutely loved getting to know the folk whose lives have become intertwined with mine
You are bang out of order in castigating all landlords in that manner
I accept most CGT receipts come from business disposals and PE exits rather than retail investors in ISAs. My point is that behaviour changes once rates become materially more punitive.
As my modelling showed, indexation means the real economic impact on long-term investors may be less dramatic than the headline 45% suggests. But higher rates still create incentives to defer disposals, restructure holdings, move into collective vehicles or use wrappers wherever possible.
That’s why I’m sceptical the full £12.8bn materialises in practice — especially if entrepreneurs rightly remain protected. The politics and optics of “aligning CGT with income tax” may end up being more significant than the fiscal reality.
I’ve modelled 3 possible UK CGT systems over 20 years assuming:
• £100k invested
• 7% annual returns
• 3% annual inflation
• invested in a collective fund (taxed once to CGT at the end) or a portfolio of individual shares sold every 5 years and taxed after each disposal
• No ISAs/pensions used
Current System (24% CGT, no indexation)
• Fund: £318k final value | 5.96% pa
• Shares: £291k final value | 5.48% pa
45% CGT + Inflation Indexation
• Fund: £294k final value | 5.55% pa
• Shares: £280k final value | 5.28% pa
45% CGT, NO Indexation
• Fund: £258k final value | 4.91% pa
• Shares: £218k final value | 4.01% pa
So based on these assumptions indexation largely offsets the impact of the higher headline rate of CGT. However, in the real world returns are volatile rather than a smooth 7% annually. That likely makes high-rate CGT systems more economically distortive than static models suggest, because tax gets paid after strong years while losses are only relieved later — permanently removing capital from long-term compounding.
These proposals will only change investor behaviour and therefore are unlikely to raise the hoped-for £12bn a year. Higher capital gains tax rates will encourage many investors to move away from owning shares directly and into collective funds. Inside a fund, managers can switch investments at the appropriate time without triggering tax for the end investor, whereas individuals managing their own portfolios would face repeated tax charges for reallocating capital. That may be good news for large fund management groups, but not for engaged private investors who back individual companies — especially smaller quoted businesses.
These proposals will only change investor behaviour and therefore are unlikely to raise the hoped-for £12bn a year. Higher capital gains tax rates will encourage many investors to move away from owning shares directly and into collective funds. Inside a fund, managers can switch investments at the appropriate time without triggering tax for the end investor, whereas individuals managing their own portfolios would face repeated tax charges for reallocating capital. That may be good news for large fund management groups, but not for engaged private investors who back individual companies — especially smaller quoted businesses.
Stunned, appalled, shocked etc to see actual tax reform from a politician. This from Wes Streeting today.
A thread on why capital gains tax is broken. It's too low AND too high. & why this is a good proposal.
These proposals are far more likely to change behaviour than they raise the hoped-for £12bn a year. Higher capital gains tax will encourage many investors to move away from owning shares directly and into collective funds. Inside a fund, managers can switch investments without triggering tax for the end investor, whereas individuals managing their own portfolios would face repeated tax charges for reallocating capital. That may be good news for large fund management groups, but not for engaged private investors who back individual companies — especially smaller quoted businesses.