We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autoclenz | ACZ | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 32.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32.50 | 32.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 17/5/2012 12:14 by davidosh Stemis....I suspect Des will have raised the question about delisting.If they are looking to buy back stock I guess the larger investor who thinks it is 'about right' value at present might be the first place to look !Contrast the attitude of Mr Leek with Mr Lee Foods ! |
Posted at 23/3/2012 08:36 by stemis To be honest I wouldn't be too concerned if ACZ delisted and might even buy more shares if the price fell heavily as a result. Leek isn't a lifestyle investor/director and there will be an exit at some point in the not too distant future. Regardless, if the company continues at it is, then in 4 years time the net cash will exceed the market cap. At 15p (which might be a reasonable price if a delisting was announced), that would take less than 3 years. |
Posted at 16/6/2011 17:02 by wilmdav Des,Am available earlier than expected. Until a couple of months ago I have been close to fully invested for at least a couple of years. That was certainly why I paid little attention to your TMF post of March this year. I don't recall seeing a similar post this time last year but if I did the reaction would have been similar. My performance has been quite good during the past 12 months but I have little doubt that you did far better than me in 2008, from whence it took me the whole of 2009 and 2010 to retrieve the situation (excludes dividends). Your approach offers far better protection from the downside. My investing ability is based solely on the numbers and I don't seem able to smell what the retail punter wants at all. IMO CR is the exact opposite to me and is much more successful. My approach is also very numbers oriented, initially at least, but probably not always the same numbers as yours. Asset values do much less for me than cash flow and growth trends. External factors such as recovery potential and/or sector environment are also be important to me. I am much more inclined to try to anticipate what an institutional investor would look for rather than a retail punter, as it is the former which will largely determine the share price of most shares. Of course that becomes less true the lower you go in terms of market value. CR might be a canny investor but out of you and he, I know which one I would prefer to invite to a dinner party. So, do you avoid market caps below a certain number ? Avoid AIM shares ? Look at PEG ratios ? Look at Bulletin Board chatter ? I don't avoid low market cap shares but in such cases do need to be much more convinced about the upside, hence I only have a few. Although careful about AIM shares I own several. I think PEG ratios are a dated, simplistic tool, more suited to Investor's Chronicle articles prior to the internet. I detest and skip most bulletin board chatter, especially that on some ADVFN boards but pay a great deal of attention to and have learned much from a selected few contributors. I'm just bloody curious why my (IMO) ultra cheap but ultra quiet shares refuse to gain any traction whilst all sorts of stuff I wouldn't hold at current levels (such as STAF) have had such great runs. It's driving me mad :o) Hard for me to comment on your ultra cheapies because apart from ACZ the only one I looked at relatively recently was WORK but got put off by the spread. You make STAF sound expensive. prospective P/E's of 9.2 and 8.4. Yield 2.9% and 3.4%. Habit of analyst upgrades. Debt 28% of historic ebitda. True, you need to have a view on growth potential. You have presumably got your eye some other factor. I think the thing I don't understand is just how much the market is willing to pay for profit growth whilst also choosing to ignore flat profit but free-cash generative companies almost no-matter how much the valuation discrepancy between the two. It's almost as though the market equates flat profit with a dying business and hence completely discounts the share even though there is no sign of such a death from the company themselves. You may well be on to something here. Perhaps I'm going to find out with ACZ! I tend to look for companies that are growing AND have good free cash flow characteristics. I think the other thing I ignore from my invesment decisions is illiquidity. I tend to deal in very illiquid stuff which has no institutional or broker support. Better investors than me are able to see that they need to pay a bit or even quite a lot more on the metrics in order to get into a share with better liquidity and market visibility and hence see a moving share price instead of a horizontal line. Meanwhile I just sit and wait for corporate actions as the apparent only way my shares can reach their true worth and as these come so rarely there is a lot of opportunity cost lost. I can't comment constructively on this either because it is not what I do but will say that it has the smell of a very honest and accurate assessment, which must be the first step toward even a small step in the direction of changing one's strategy in search of improvement. I can't see me changing my strategy any time soon as I'm fully invested in shares that I regard to be equally cheap as ACZ, and my success or failure will be judged by what I own now not by any new investments. It's probably important not to change anything too much or too soon. We are all in the process of developing skills that suit our own personalities and capabilities. It will also be true that what you have and will work out for yourself will be far more important that my waffling! |
Posted at 15/6/2011 17:36 by deswalker Wilmdav,Good links. Thanks. I agree with you that they are likely to lose, that the settlement will not be too severe and that the share price appears to reflect a lot worse than that. Reading between the lines I believe this to be Mr Leek's view too. In an attempt to help me as an investor can you say why you weren't interested in this share when it was flagged this time last year ? I have no doubt that your performance has been much better than mine this past 12 months enjoying nice GARP type rallies whilst I sit on what I regard as ultra-cheap "special situation" type shares like this which have flatlined and hence effectively got cheaper and cheaper as the cash position has increased. My investing ability is based solely on the numbers and I don't seem able to smell what the retail punter wants at all. IMO CR is the exact opposite to me and is much more successful. So, do you avoid market caps below a certain number ? Avoid AIM shares ? Look at PEG ratios ? Look at Bulletin Board chatter ? I'm just bloody curious why my (IMO) ultra cheap but ultra quiet shares refuse to gain any traction whilst all sorts of stuff I wouldn't hold at current levels (such as STAF) have had such great runs. It's driving me mad :o) I think the thing I don't understand is just how much the market is willing to pay for profit growth whilst also choosing to ignore flat profit but free-cash generative companies almost no-matter how much the valuation discrepancy between the two. It's almost as though the market equates flat profit with a dying business and hence completely discounts the share even though there is no sign of such a death from the company themselves. I think the other thing I ignore from my invesment decisions is illiquidity. I tend to deal in very illiquid stuff which has no institutional or broker support. Better investors than me are able to see that they need to pay a bit or even quite a lot more on the metrics in order to get into a share with better liquidity and market visibility and hence see a moving share price instead of a horizontal line. Meanwhile I just sit and wait for corporate actions as the apparent only way my shares can reach their true worth and as these come so rarely there is a lot of opportunity cost lost. I can't see me changing my strategy any time soon as I'm fully invested in shares that I regard to be equally cheap as ACZ, and my success or failure will be judged by what I own now not by any new investments. Frustrated rant over. Any thoughts appreciated. Des |
Posted at 20/5/2009 22:03 by gozo for those interested, article from the motley fool.Autoclenz Autoclenz (LSE: ACZ) describes itself as the UK's leading provider of outsourced vehicle valeting and specialist cleaning services. Like a lot of small companies, it's seen it share price crucified by the bear market, dropping from 130p at the start of 2007 to only 25p. It's now a real stock market minnow, valued at only £2.6 million. That's despite a turnover in 2008 of £28.0 million. Of course, for a company whose major customers are car dealerships and rental companies, you might expect that its low market capitalisation reflects a business in considerable difficulty. You'd be wrong. Sales in 2008 were up by 3.5% and although operating profit fell, it was still a creditable £1.2 million (before goodwill and share option charges). That resulted in a bank borrowing being slashed from £3.8 million to £2.7 million; well within its facilities. This leaves Autoclenz on a meagre price earnings ratio of 2.9 (although admittedly on a zero tax charge). That hardly seems expensive, even in the small cap market. It's a valuation that's attracted the attention of turnaround specialist James Leek. Leek was responsible for the break up and disposal of E Wood PLC (formerly Torday & Carlisle PLC), delivering spectacular gains for shareholders by a combination of share buybacks and ultimately the sale of the Group. He's been buying heavily into Autoclenz and in January 2009 was appointed Chairman of the Company. Again there are no brokers' forecasts for Autoclenz. However in their latest results Leek observed: "During 2009 we are budgeting to continue this [debt] reduction and would like to see net debt at or below £2 million. There is a strong determination from everyone at Autoclenz that, despite the worst recession since the post-war years, we should strive to at least maintain our profitability at or above the 2008 level." If Leek can deliver on these objectives, the share price should rebound strongly. A share price of 50p, double the current level, seems well within reach. The company holds its annual general meeting on 21 May so we should soon find out how things are going. However Leek doesn't seem to have been put off by what he's found or by current trading, upping his stake to 9.1% last week. Small companies like Volvere and Autoclenz are often poorly research and followed. Most institutions are unable to invest enough money in them to be worth their while. For private investors that presents a golden opportunity to beat the market, although the risks are high. |
Posted at 20/5/2009 21:58 by trustman Stemis.....if you read the final results you will see that the incoming Chairman has bought himself an 8% stake.I cant see whether the 2 subsequent director dealing RNS indicate further additions....they wont open.However as I said in my earlier postMr Leek has an excellent record of increasing his share stake AND seeing the company buy back its share capital for the benefit of remaing shareholders.With any luck this could run and run.....lets see what they announce tomorrow at the AGM.BTW I own some shares,no ramp intended, DYOR. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
