Dewhurst Share Discussion Threads

[emmo1210] 18/6/2014 19:28

LETS WAIT AND SEE, EH.

[patviera] 18/6/2014 17:35

EMMO
THE SHARES WERE 350P SO THEY FELL 50P!!
SINCE THEN WEVE HAD AMAZING RESULTS
WE HAVE 11M IN CASH WHICH THE MKT IS VALUING AT 0P
SO EVEN IF WE LOSE THE 7M BUCKS, WHICH I VERY MUCH DOUBT,WE WILL STILL HAVE CASH VALUED AT 0P
SO NO DOWNSIDE IF WE LOSE AND 50P UPSIDE IF WE WIN

PROPERTY AND CASH AND PROFITS MEANS WE SHOULD BE 4QD NOT 3QD

[coolen] 11/6/2014 21:47

A touch naughty that no reference was made to legals. New investors would have to scroll back to discover that a threat exists.

[emmo1210] 11/6/2014 12:02

Google finance shows 310p on the day, 325p a few days before. None of which matters anyway. Until the company can give some detail on the claims the risk is too open ended.

[cockerhoop] 11/6/2014 10:41

Emmo1210,

That's not correct. Before the announcement the 'A' shares were trading at 330 bid 350 offer suggesting a mid price of 340p.

Directly after the announcement there were 2 small sales at 315p and 310p which further reduced the price to 290 bid 310 offer suggesting a mid price of 300p.

This ties in with the comments from Gengulphus above.

[emmo1210] 11/6/2014 09:26

The share price when the claim was announced was 310p. The share price today is around 300p. The result yesterday had little to no bearing on the share price I believe there is much more downside than upside on the bearing of the claim result. The market has been unable to quantify the possibility of a loss due to NO information been given since announcing the claim. Hopefully they are cleared but its not a risk I will take on until further clarity is given. I certainly don't believe 50p being added to share price anyway but certainly 50p+ could leave it.

[gengulphus] 11/6/2014 08:52

If they win I would estimate a negligible to small price rise - they are trying to clear their own name, not win a settlement.

They don't need to win a settlement to increase the value of the shares - just getting rid of the threat of losing a settlement will do the job.

Look at it this way: When this legal action was announced in January, no money actually left the company - and yet the share price still dropped around 40p (roughly estimated by looking at the chart in the thread header). What had changed was not the company's actual current business operations, assets and liabilities: it was just that the market had become aware that there might be a big legal settlement against the company in the future.

I.e. the appearance of that possible big future loss in what investors know about the company was enough to cause a 40p-per-share drop in the share price. That's good reason to believe that if that possible big future loss disappears, it will have roughly the opposite effect.

Of course, if it instead becomes a definite big loss, one can expect the share price to drop further. This is a "heads you win, tails you lose" scenario, not "heads you win, tails you draw"!

Gengulphus

[emmo1210] 10/6/2014 23:43

Good luck with that. Don't like blind risk myself, prefer to know some detail. If they win I would estimate a negligible to small price rise - they are trying to clear their own name, not win a settlement.

[patviera] 10/6/2014 22:38

emmo
then you risk a 50p rise if they win !!
thats the chance you take
I personally dont want to be out of this name as it generates so much cash and is the best run company on Aim

[emmo1210] 10/6/2014 18:50

It wouldn't do any harm to at least provide information on what the accusation is in detail and their rebuttal. It is a big uncertainty which could very easily swallow up that cash. I sold when that news came out over 4 months ago and would not be prepared to reinvest until some clarity is given. Does it involve personal injury claims? $7m was previously mentioned, costs on top.

[patviera] 10/6/2014 18:28

we wont hear for a long time....these things tend to drag
gr8 figs and lots of cash
cheap cheap cheap

[emmo1210] 10/6/2014 10:31

No update on court proceedings mentioned. Anyone know anything about what is happening?

[cockerhoop] 04/2/2014 12:54

I take that as a No then :-)

No statement as normal but all resolutions passed. Doesn't appear to be a stampede of buyers exiting the meeting either.

[cockerhoop] 03/2/2014 10:00

Is anyone here heading to the Agm tomorrow in Feltham?

[cockerhoop] 03/2/2014 08:25

Filed on December 13th 2013

hxxp://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2013cv02549/826905

[patviera] 02/2/2014 22:57

obviously not good but with 10m cash plus 5m freehold property plus 4m profit pa plus fact we may note lose it means we are NOT expensive here
Im a buyer at 250p but very much doubt we fall to that price.

[emmo1210] 01/2/2014 18:17

Not good anyway. But too hard to say with the scant statement at the minute. Could wipe out a years profit and the publicity wont help

[coolen] 31/1/2014 17:32

Anyone with a view on Dewhurst's impending legal dispute ?

[cockerhoop] 19/4/2013 11:29

Very tight spread at the moment 285.5-285.6 (1000 available to Sell,5000 to Buy)

[patviera] 28/2/2013 20:33

Hi Mark
Yes the brokers were going for 42p EPS which I thought sounded too low but they mustve been guided down by the company after last figs.
I really think the latest acquisition looks great and dont forget our cash is valued at next to nothing so any profit will be a bonus.
I think we may be dead money for a while and on a market correction a seller of 5/- shares may knock us 10 pct so I would look to pick up stock btwn 250p-275p as the long term track record of this company is second to none and unlike a majority of smallers companies you aint gonna get f cked by this mngmnt(excuse the language)

[markrogers88] 27/2/2013 21:39

Pat - I made a conservative estimate of 35p for this year myself funnily enough. Might have to revise that down slightly, but really, attributable profit this year isn't as important to us as what the company will be earning in 7-10 years.

To devalue the whole enterprise by 15-20% on a stumble is really a major overreaction by the market, especially when so little growth was factored into the price of A's beforehand. No company's value should be determined by one year's performance afterall, but instead by a multiple of what it will make going forward.

A price of £28m for A's puts the company on an earnings multiple of 7-10 if shareholders make roughly £2-4m at the starting point, or 10-14% earnings yield. That's generally a fair price for a company never expected to grow its earnings in the future - but with Dewhurst retaining a large % of earnings, expanding, acquiring etc, they have a long track record of improving the earning power of the business.

More important than the share price is how the business is performing - the company certainly isn't worth 15% or 20% less than it was yesterday on this update. Would be reassuring to know "how significant" the slowdown is and importantly too, what "market expectations" were defined as to begin with. The 42.5p broker estimate?

[coolen] 27/2/2013 19:28

And free of Inheritance Tax (being AIM) !

[patviera] 27/2/2013 19:10

coolen The management own too many here for that to happen.They are also very honest and very fair so thats another reason.
Mark..They also had a prfit warning a few years back and still made expectations for the year.Im not expecting that this time as think next 2 years in the UK will be tough(first thing companies do in new buildings is not put lifts in!!0 and construction doing awfully.However we have just made a great acquisition and even if we only make 35p eps we have 11m in cash and in 5 years time we will make over 60p eps and have 20m in cash.Buy on weakness,I cant see us falling below 250p.Great tuck away with best management in the sector.

[coolen] 27/2/2013 13:51

Re the "A"'s discount to the "Ords", 10-15% used to be the difference when a larger number of companies had dual share capital.

Most enfranchishments were done on that basis.

A bigger premium used to arise if a take-over bid was in the wind or if there was a family dispute. Bear in mind that after several generations, the interests of some key family members may not be aligned to those of the minority non-voting investors.

In the Cakebread situation, a punter forced up the price of the Voters (over a long period) and then persuaded the board (also big holders of the Voters)that dilution caused by enfranchising the non-voters could be minimised by giving the voters 7 times as many shares in the new share capital. Result: Voting share price 350p: Non-voting price 50p.

[markrogers88] 27/2/2013 10:59

Coolen - I hadn't thought about index funds, that's very interesting. An artificial discount, but one that any buyer of A's can benefit from.


Pat - Make that a £27m asking price for the A's! Nothing like a vague profit warning eh, they might as well release an RNS saying "BOO!" with a picture of a spider underneath! Market is suitably scared, can't help but feel a bit more detail/guidance would be helpful to investors.

Naturally I'm more interested in today's price than yesterday's, although that also factors in today's disappointing update. No change to long term outlook.