takenoprisoners
22 Jun 2016
Re: For the Record People beginning to get that bit tetchy, edgy and unconvinced.I kind of hope it doesn't retrace back to the 21p level you stated blanketstacker but you just never know with these small market cap shares.Imvho and please dyor.
takenoprisoners
21 Jun 2016
Re: For the Record I forgot the sell flag blanketstacker. That's my view.You'll probably find those who have lost decent money will be looking to bank and move elsewhere at the slightest wobble. Plenty better and more predictable around.Good luck I think you are going to need it. Imvho and please dyor.
takenoprisoners
21 Jun 2016
Re: For the Record Apologies for the delay blanketstacker In answer to your question maybe so but you would expect financial prudence to prevail.Tread carefully for you will end up chasing a share up and holding, that will only deliver you profit warnings. Eventually the cupboard ends up bare.Good luck I think you may be needing it.There are far better ones around.Imvho and please dyor.
Blanketstacker
19 Jun 2016
Re: For the Record I totally agree with you tnp, but would point out that a fall in profits over the next two years has already been highlighted and may be in the price already. We have a PER of 11, so not massively overpriced. A fall below 21 will see me top up.
takenoprisoners
17 Jun 2016
For the Record One of several I have been tracking for a while and been getting tempted and did note with interest the FY results today and potential for special dividends being a plus point. Sometimes though these things are put in to cloud and act as distractors from other points so I looked just a little bit more closely. The devil always being in the detail.What did stand out, sort of hidden off centre was this one-liner."§ Pre-tax profit of £6.9m (down 10%)"There really is no point in having a decent dividend whilst sitting back and watching your share price tank and your initial investment and capital diminish considerably. (The one year graph shows just how that may have happened for some).The recent strengths of the Brexit campaign also concerns me slightly given the share price movements seem to correlate in some way with recent declines.Maybe one to look at in about 6 months time to see if profitability has started recovering at which point it may be that bit more appealing.Imvho and please dyor.
LoadsaDosh2
17 Jun 2016
Special divs on the horizon Existing yield well covered and expects to return more cash to shareholders through special dividends in future. Plenty of cash too. Bargain.
Blanketstacker
29 Apr 2016
Anyone buying here yet? We are approaching the annual low here. This gives a PER of 12 and a potential yield of almost 10%, though profits and thus the dividend are projected to decline marginally in the next couple of years. Stockopedia gives this a positive stock rank. The company has no real debt and returns a ROCE of 20%. The trading statement last week noted AUM were steady. The weakness of sterling against the dollar may help profits. Results are due on 17 June. Am I missing something here?
Greyinvestor
24 Nov 2015
Adequate results Results today seemed adequate if uninspiring.Revenues flat, wages costs up, profits down 8% despite being flattered by one client.Dividend held at 1.65p for the full year, 0.825p at the half year v 0.75p. But this dividend is by no means guaranteed.Outlook not much better.But...Net tangible assets look to be about £33m, almost all in forms of cash. So the actual trading business is valued at about £32m versus a full year profit of about £6m.A Hold for me, in the hope of an upturn in business. I have a modest holding in these shares, currently showing a 2% loss.
Greyinvestor
26 Oct 2015
It's a tortoise I bought into these @36p, then sold out at 35p because I thought there might be a negative reaction to the results. Now I've bought back in at 29p. It's a tactic that I very rarely use, but I think that this is a share that some investors don't research in detail. On the negative side this is a business that has gone nowhere for five years. On the positive side it appears to be very conservatively run, with a good dividend yield.From my time in business, quite often you slog away for years without developing much, and then you fall over an opportunity and off you go. This could always happen here.Then you come to valuation. In my view this business is well underpriced. A private equity firm would love it (shudder). When I looked at it again yesterday, the market value was £63m with £30m in liquid assets. So in essence you get a PBT of £6m for £33m. ie a real P/E of between 5 and 6. This is indeed a deep value asset, and well done everyone who has noticed.My apologies for not replying to earlier posts. I didn't want to post until I had bought back in.
LoadsaDosh2
22 Oct 2015
Re: Article in Shares Vol 17 Further comment re. REC's assets vs market cap. Reading that article, I think they are saying that the type of asset is important, In REC's case the bulk of the assets are 'current'; things like cash and investments. These can be easily realised at pretty much their book value whereas old plant and machinery may have a book value greater than market cap but in a fire sale, the assets would not fetch anything like their book value.So although REC's share price is higher than assets, the assets are good quality, liquid assets and hence the fund manager with 9% of his fund in REC considers REC to be good value.
LoadsaDosh2
21 Oct 2015
Re: Article in Shares Vol 17 Reference shares below asset value. What is more important is earnings and profit. No good having assets if you are making a loss. Many mining companies way below booked asset value but are not earning enough to support a dividend. Sure tangible assets are a bonus but not the be all and end all of share value.
LoadsaDosh2
21 Oct 2015
Re: Article in Shares Vol 17 The stock dropped on news of a fall of AUM of 6% in USD but only 2% in GBP so I'd say the drop is overdone. I rate them a buy at 30 to 31p. The dividend is covered, directors have only been buying; no sells; a good 5.4% yield (dividend increased last financial year). I am happy to buy for the dividend income with a high likelyhood of 10% or more capital appreciation at some point over the coming year; it would only take news of a new contract to send them back over 35p or they might just drift back up there anyway in a YE rally.
gamesinvestor
17 Oct 2015
Re: Article in Shares Vol 17 Correction, MJ Gleeson Market cap is £274M, not £174M, but the point is still the same but even worse with the real number.Games
gamesinvestor
17 Oct 2015
Article in Shares Vol 17 Hi I saw this mentioned in shares magazine on page 22 of the above Volume 17 dated 15th October -- don't know if you guys get it - Greyinvestor perhaps?The article is all about cheap shares and Go Jeroen is featured in it with his SVC Church House Deep Value Investment Fund.In his top 10 is Record (REC) with 9.3% of his funded invested in the stock.The principle behind his investment theory and the purpose of the article "CHEAP CHEAP", is to illustrate (in Go's case) deep value investment and buying stocks at market caps not just below net asset values, but below even current asset values, minus liabilities.Go seems not to stick to his principles. I selected two stocks on his list, Record and MJ Gleeson.Record trades at £74M Market Cap and Net assets of £35M and MJ Gleeson is £174M compared to net assets of £136M.So all is not as it seems --- On that basis, do any of you consider record to be overpriced, either based on his principles, or on your own face value.I note also that the dividend is only covered 1.5 times.+ the stock dropped 12.7% on Friday.Games
mcescher
30 Jul 2015
Found this good report on REC Looking like a solid dividend payer [link]
