|Clyde Process Solutions
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Real-Time news about Clyde Process (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|electronica: We were warned.
Back in May Chairman McColl told the FT .........
""On any rational valuation, this company is worth 85p a share," said Mr McColl, who added that the low share price ruled out using the company's paper for acquisitions. "I am not prepared to sell a pound for 40p.""
85p would have been a better start.|
|cockneyrebel: Here's the bit from the Indy a fortnight ago - actually found it now rather than a reference to it in Sharecast:
From the Indy a fortnight ago:
"Clyde Process Solutions
Our view: Buy
Share price: 55p (+1.5p)
With a silly name like Clyde Process Solutions, you would think this company made its living from software or technology, where such titles are commonplace. Not so. Clyde is, in fact, an engineering business. It is also, if one looks beyond the name, an interesting investment story.
Yesterday, the AIM-listed Clyde cheered investors with news of a £1.2m contract with a major Chinese steel company. Its subsidiary CPS Asia designed and installed the injection system in one of the world's largest blast furnaces for the customer last year. The new contract will see it providing a coal-injection system.
The ability to win repeat business like this is significant at a time when orders are generally picking up. And the shares are not pricey, trading on about eight times forecast earnings for the year to February 2011, while yielding just above 1 per cent.
Resilient through the downturn, with quite high levels of debt reduction, we think CPS is worth investing in and could yet yield to a bid (rivals have attracted fancy multiples). Buy"
|ed 123: The recent trading statement was positive, and was followed by an announcement of more contract wins. So, why then, has the share price dived?
Anyone out there know anything?
more on this link...
Low share price hindering Clyde's ambitions
"We are frustrated with the share price if you value it on any logical basis. We would, in a private equity type world, easily be looking at 85-90p a share.|
|rathkum: Unfortunately I hold a large chunk on Interbulk Group whose share price has been very depressed and in which Jim a director has a holding of 5.5%.|
I too have been looking at Clyde Blowers website and it is very informative, and I particularly like the fact that it is up-to-date and clear.There is the potential to bring all 4 "Divisions" together as one Holding Company because the geographical spread and operational and business synergies are paramount.
However, there may be control reasons for maintaining the 4 entities.It looks like a Jim McColl run group but in fact consists of 2 AIM-listed companies within the Clyde Blowers umbrella, namely CPSP and Interbulk Investments.I think Jim McColl owns 8.3% of INB and a shunk of CPSP, but not sure about the other two.Neither CPSP nor INB ,share price wise, have done well but ever since I stumbled across Clyde Blowers and the track record of the Team am convinced of the potential.They may be suffering from the "Stephen Dean company" reputation and the less than transparent look of the management structure( some shared directors and personnel between the 4 companies).
Plenty of potential and upside.|
|tiredoldbroker: A few observations about CPSP, or PRH as it was known.
Far from being out of the Stephen Dean orbit, CPSP's registered address is still Hilden Park House, 79 Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, which is the address of a host of Dean businesses. Though Dean and Nicholls are leaving the Board, the new "independent" non-executive director is Bill Thomson who is (oh gosh) Chairman of Interbulk Investments plc, where he sat on the Board with Dean and Nicholls, the company having been floated by Dean's Griffin operation. Investors have seen the Interbulk share price down more than 60% since Nov 05.
Why would some of the UK's less "client protection orientated" brokers be pushing this stock to you at 2.75p ? I'm sure it has nothing to do with them having taken stock in the recent placing of 100 million shares at 2p (or the 9 million shares allotted in lieu of fees), because that would mean they were taking a 37.5% mark up.
The method of acquiring CMH and the valuation attached to it both seem a little strange. The first 3.9% (approx) was bought by PRH for £750,000 cash on 28/6/05; except that when PRH announced its figures on 30/11/05, the cost had risen to £826,848, because they ran up £76,848 expenses on the deal - and I'd suggest most of that went to Dean/Griffin for "helping". Anyway, the price ex-costs valued CMH at £19.23m.
Then on 27/6/06 PRH announced it was buying the rest of CMH. The acquisition of 91.9% of CMH cost £6.5m down, with a possible further £9.5m in earn-out if it met certain targets. The £16m maximum only valued 100% of CMH at £17.41m (and maybe as little as £7.07m), in any case less than it was valued at a year earlier. But PRH also bought the remaining 4.2% of CMH, owned by a private company called Dane Holdings.
Interestingly, PRH had made a loan of £800,000 to Dane Holdings prior to all of this (shown under Debtors in the PRH accounts to 28/2/06); yet interest receivable during that period was only £5,677 - on £800K of cash, from a flotation 11 months earlier ?
Now, it may be that the original flotation document for PRH made clear who owned Dane and on what terms money was loaned to it, and I'm sure I'm overly suspicious in noting that Dane is an anagram of Dean. I'm sure they couldn't have floated an investment company, then loaned its cash on favourable terms to a private business owned by the promoter, which then bought shares in PRH's acquisition target on terms favourable to that private company. They couldn't have.
Except that the acquisition of CMH involved buying 4.2% of CMH from Dean - oops, sorry, Dane, for £850,000, valuing CMH at £20.24m not only a higher valuation that PRH had paid a year before, but a higher price than PRH paid to the other shareholders in CMH. Yet it seems possible that Dane may have bought its CMH shares with money loaned by PRH on terms which don't appear to have been quite clearly commercial. And Dane got its entire sale price up front, with no earn-out related to future profitability. Better terms (again) than the other CMH shareholders.
Once again, the RNS regarding the purchase by PRH of the outstanding shares in CMH failed to make clear who owned Dane or who might benefit from it selling its shares in CMH or from having borrowed money from PRH.
I certainly wouldn't want to impugn the commercial management which came in with CMH, I just think there are a number of quite fundamental questions about the history of PRH (CPSP as it is now), how it has been managed in the past and for whose benefit, the loan to Dane and the interest received, the ownership of Dane, the costs involved in buying CMH (as no figures have been announced about the recent deals) and the independence of its non-executive directors. And you know, the CMH people must have been aware of, or friendly with, Dean and Nicholls for at least a year (during which the PRH/CMH deals were done), and at the end of the day, you will be judged, in part at least, by the company you keep.|
Clyde Process Solutions share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange