Gold_or_Silver
05 Jul 2018
BUY Could be signs of Improvement Starting to look as If this BOD may have . At long last ,began to get their act together . Time will tell ,if good news remains an additive . Best of All
Ash666
04 Jun 2018
Regent Gas Very interesting to have a look at their filed accounts at Companies House - £36m in cash, very profitable and specialising in Gas supply and recently water - what a great fit.Lots of questions!
Ochs
16 Apr 2018
Re: TV Clip Thanks for the link. He comes over quite well.I have the misfortune of holding a few of these... now that it appears all the bad news is out (hopefully!) does anyone have a view about averaging down, or do people think a discounted fund raise is likely to be needed to sort out the bank and balance sheet?
Dino78
23 Mar 2018
TV Clip Good morning,Short TV clip with Utilitywise CEO following yesterdays re-admission to AIM and results announcement:www.fmp-tv.co.uk/company/utilitywise-investor-news-and-videos/
winningstreak
01 Feb 2018
RNS RNS today re banking facilities does not seem to tell us all.To me it looks like a severe curtailment on the amount of money UTW can borrow from hereon. In short, the Bank isworried. IMHO,ws
appamama
22 Jan 2018
You only get cooked books nowadays.... The new accounting standard changes how and when the revenue is recognised. The previous reports cooked the accounts in one particular way, the new ones will do it in a different fashion, cooked they will be all the same.I doubt if this company is much different from others in reporting numbers. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the issue of accounts. We will come to know about the rest in a couple of weeks.
winningstreak
17 Jan 2018
Simplest would be.... Simplest IMHO would be to say: "Sorry, we have been cooking the books."ws
jaxonsax
03 Oct 2017
Re: Paul Scott's view Feels like Paul Scott makes up the facts to fit his argument which tends to question the credibility of his article. His bio hardly inspires confidence in his judgement. From what was posted i dont think its factually correct as the last RNS outlined a major change to more closely align the revenues with cash flows and was a significant improvement over the previous policy although its still not as prudent as I would like. The point on the share sales is clearly factually incorrect.I have been very critical of their accounting practices in the past but at that time the share price was around 140p. Once the effects of the new policy are understood (hopefully when the results are out on the 17th) then maybe the fog will clear and we can see the effect in real numbers. At under 60p I'd say its probably worth a punt.
appamama
03 Oct 2017
Re: Paul Scott's view 'No wonder Directors overall have been massive net sellers of the shares, over the years,' wrote Paul Scott. I tried to check that. On directorholdings.com, I could locate only two sales in last 3+ years, one in May 2015, and another in December 2016. Total director buys were 2,040,078 shares or so, and total director sales were a paltry 460,000 or so From Feb2014 till today.I wonder where Paul Scott got the impression that directors were massive net sellers over the years or am I missing something?
IOMINVESTCOM
02 Aug 2017
Paul Scott's view My opinion (Paul) - it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that this company hasn't really made much money at all in the past. A lot of the historic profits seem to have come from imprudent accounting policies, which the company is now being forced to correct.A lot of investors forget that profit is not a black or white figure. There is often a wide range of possible profit figures which any company could report. This is because profit depends often on a whole range of assumptions & estimates. So an aggressive FD can flex the numbers around to suit the requirements of the CEO, and shareholders.Cashflow is much harder to manipulate. When a company Inflates its profits, it leaves a trail behind, for us to spot, and follow. Profit in the P&L is a Credit, so the way double-entry bookkeeping works, there has to be a corresponding Debit on the Balance Sheet. That will normally be cash - because the customer has paid for the goods or services. However, if no cash has been received, then the only alternative is to book the Debit entry somewhere else on the Balance Sheet.Normally, this will be either somewhere in Receivables /Debtors, or Intangible Assets (or it could be a negative entry in creditors). So all you have to do, to spot inflated profits, is to carefully scrutinise all the Debits on the Balance Sheet. In both the cases of Globo and Quindell, it was blindingly obvious that the profits had been overstated, as their Balance Sheets were groaning with unusual, and out-sized assets - in receivables/debtors, and intangibles. Those debits were largely fictitious obviously.Some of Utilitywise's receivables also turned out to be fictitious, which I reported on here in Jun 2017, when it had overstated assumptions about energy usage by clients.Where does it end? UTW's profits have been shown to be at best, dependent on aggressive accounting policies, and at worst, could be considered largely fictitious. No wonder Directors overall have been massive net sellers of the shares, over the years.Where do things stand now? As I see it, the company's profits are highly dubious. However, you could argue that its debtors should eventually be received, as the parties owing the monies are the large energy companies.Will today's announcement be the last skeleton in the cupboard? Or could there be even more accounting issues to come? I might have been prepared to have a punt on it, as a special situation, if it was debt-free, and had a nice pile of cash in the bank. However, sadly that's not the case - it is heavily reliant on bank support. For me, that's a deal-breaker. Why risk a possible 100% investing loss, when you don't have to? Can the company & its management actually be trusted? I don't know (although I'm leaning towards a clear "no" to that question).So where there's any doubt, I just don't get involved in things like this any more. This share has been a disaster to date, and you'd have to be brave or foolish, or both, to get involved now, in my view.[link]
winningstreak
24 Jul 2017
Re: Phoenix? Qerberos - When it looks too good to be true, is possibly is too good to be true.INSE is qualtiy, UTW is dubiosiality. IMO,ws
Qerberos
23 Jul 2017
Phoenix? While the recent disclosures have been disappointing, I can't agree with the diatribe below.Looking at recent metrics, for a start UTW is now trading certainly below NAV and a ridiculous PE of 4 or so. Oh and a dividend yield of 9.3%. Hello.I don't agree that the balance sheet is in poor shape, I make net debt 50% of just 1 year's profits. Or a debt/EV and also debt/equity ratio of 0.2. And this is taking only cash & receivables against total liabilities. Debt is not a problem here.The profit as a % of EV (market cap) is an astounding 33% (or just 3x profit = market cap). Yes I hear you say - but all the above depends on that profit figure which is currently overstated, making the metrics look great. But even if the profit was 1 third or less of recent levels the metrics are still very good.All we know is that the profit figures have been stretched out a little further. Some of the recent 7.6m in overpaid commisions may find its way back to UTW, as 7m is the expected max.On the plus side their website update is excellent, and better than INSE in my opinion. And the business model is recession proof in many ways.
claude reins
29 Jun 2017
Re: Woodford and UTW From their website. NB last updated 4.4.17, so he has presumably just below the figure where he may have to make a bid for the company, or am I getting mixed up? The figures ate some months ago but he does tend to hold stocka for the long term, doesnt he?Company ShareholdingsThe Company’s issued share capital consists of 78,479,436 ordinary shares of 0.1p each (“Ordinary Shares”
, each share having equal voting rights.The Company has been notified, in accordance with the Disclosure and Transparency Rules, of the following disclosable shareholdings representing 3% or more of the voting rights in the Company’s issued share capital:Significant shareholders (3% and above) Woodford Investment Management – 22,884,413 (29.16%) River and Mercantile Asset Management – 4,809,400 (6.13%) Miton Asset Management – 3,028,462 (3.89%) Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers (EO) – 3,006,079 (3.83%) Hargreave Hale stockbrokers – 2,980,042 (3.80%) Baillie Gifford – 2,710,382 (3.45%)Directors’ shareholdings Geoffrey Thompson (direct and family trust) – 8,559,414 (10.91%) Brendan Flattery – 60,000 (0.08%) Richard Laker – 0 Brin Sheridan – 0 Simon Waugh – 0 Kathie Child-Villiers – 0 Richard Feigen – 10,000 (0.01%) Paul Hailes – 35,001 (0.04%) Jeremy Middleton (direct, company, pension) – 3,287,559 (4.19%)Number of shares not in public hands: 18.26%Link to London Stock Exchange page for Utilitywise plc.Last updated: 4 April 2017
IOMINVESTCOM
29 Jun 2017
Paul Scott's view My opinion - there's a load more detail given in the RNS today, but I wouldn't bother reading it. The company now has zero credibility.Myself and a few other commentators believed that the accounts were dodgy, and that has now been proven correct. Therefore I would treat this share as a bargepole job. If you can't rely on the accounts, then it's uninvestable.Does it actually make any real profit at all? Given that so much profit booked in the past has now turned out to be bogus (i.e. based on incorrect assumptions), then I think this share is now impossible to value.I wouldn't count on the high divis being maintained either - because the company has significant net debt. If you write off intangibles, and a chunk of the debtors, then the balance sheet doesn't look great.
Haggis48
29 Jun 2017
Woodford and UTW Does anyone know what numbers of shares of UTW are held by Woodford in his various funds? Has there been any recent changes? Presumably he must have had insight into these contractural problems?Thanks for any information!
