Getech Share Discussion Threads

[bookbroker] 06/11/2015 21:38

Paulypilot is just some geezer whose probably lost investors more money than he has made them, the only one he got right was IND., and that was ten years ago!

[the millipede] 06/11/2015 12:05

"They don't, hence the importance of OPEC remaining United, it is in no producing country's interest to produce oil I economically! The supply/ demand balance always remains fine, just as that the pendulum is firmly in the supply camp right now!"

Bookbroker, none of them is producing oil uneconomically, but they can not fund government expenditure at these levels which is a different matter. At the end of the day if OPEC can not control the oil price then these countries will need to find other sources of revenue, just like everyone else does.... For instance, the Saudis are now issuing debt. And they could raise taxes etc etc. HTH TM

[cockerhoop] 06/11/2015 11:21

First of all Paul Scott is incorrect in stating that the £1m in current liabilities is deferred income - it's the contingent consideration for the purchase of ERCL.

And secondly he says he's considering a small purchase which would suggest he's more bullish than DD4 who as far as i'm aware isn't considering buying currently.

'Overall then, for people who are risk-tolerant, I think this share might be one to consider for a very small, toe in the water type of purchase? It's going on my possible purchases list, but I need more time to think it over. There's almost certainly no rush though. To make really big long-term gains, you often have to be contrarian, and look a fool for a while, by buying bombed out, deeply unfashionable shares, in a smashed up sector. I've no idea about timing, but at some point this sector could provide some good future multibagger opportunities. Balance sheet strength, especially cash, is everything though - as that ensures survival. After all, you can't have a multibagger if the company goes bust in a downturn!'

[pugugly] 06/11/2015 10:46

Paul scott Had a very good analysis of the cash position here on 3rd Nov but you will now need to register to read.

He is more bearish than DD - On this occasion I tend to agree with PS and suspect that the 15p target being thrown about may be closer to the outcome than the current share price 32/34 at time of posting.

[discodave4] 05/11/2015 22:12

Yump"If you're not invested, you can't gain by emphasising the negative can you"Yes I can. Because before I invest my hard earned I try, like most do, to learn from those who know more about the business than myself (there's only so much research you can do). Posting any concerns will either be explained / addressed to my satisfaction or they won't, simple as that. If postings constantly highlight only the positives and completely ignore any contrarian views then that is when nobody gains.DD

[cockerhoop] 05/11/2015 20:40

I think it's perfectly reasonable even beneficial to have conflicting views whether negative or positive as long as the board stays civil.FWIW I agree with DD4's concern on the capitalisation of dev costs which appears to be a new policy this year as last year approx £1m of dev costs were expensed. Maybe they have changed policy to obtain the R&D tax credits they talked about before last years final I'm not sure. There was £600,000 of D&A and write off's of intangibles to offset the capitalised costs but I'd prefer them to be more balanced.

[yump] 05/11/2015 16:26

I think we can all see that the BOD were optimistic about 2016 previously and now its changed into a profit warning. Nobody knows if that is a result of a quick deterioration or what. So what purpose is served by going on about it and assuming that a BOD that has up to now managed things pretty well, has suddenly turned into a hype generator ?

If you're not invested, you can't gain by emphasising the negative can you, other than proving a point of some sort to yourself ?

Lose the "GL" please.

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 21:07

The £980k as part of the annual consideration doesn't seem to stack up. The acquisition was only completed in April so wouldn't the proportion of the deferred consideration only be about £500k at best, and as you say they are highly unlikely to have achieved the profit / performance targets set.Do think you may be correct though, as you say, where else would they put it, will hold my hand up.More smoke and mirrors - Development costs £977k in the cash flow statement - inflating profits, had this been in the p&l profit before tax would only have been similar to last year. BOD are just full of hype :- "Against this very difficult backdrop, Getech has performed well in the last financial year. The Company has doubled its profits and increased revenue by 32%. Under the challenging circumstances affecting the sector, these are extremely strong figures and stand out relative to the rest of the sector.".....blah blah blah then the truth - a substantial profit warning.Sorry but my main issue here is the lack of transparency by the BOD. There are some positives I think!.DD

[cockerhoop] 04/11/2015 20:33

I'm aware of the original value but suspect the consideration has been reduced due to market conditions reducing performance.

Best to wait for the AR next week and all will be revealed :-).

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 20:22

-- Deferred consideration, based on the performance of the company over a three-year period. This has an expectation of generating a total of GBP1,550,000 over the three years if performance targets are met. The deferred consideration will be based on the profit before tax to the extent it exceeds a hurdle level in each year.The expected value of the aggregate consideration is GBP4,300,000.As I said, perhaps it is........who knows, they are not clear about anything they do or say.GLDD

[cockerhoop] 04/11/2015 20:04

Where else would the contingent consideration be placed?

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 20:01

Perhaps, but your guessing as well...... "I think the 980k......."As you say we will see.DD

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 19:58

"But if they had been confirmed the price you would have had to pay for the shares would have been higher."No offence but it goes without saying doesn't it!.The August update was full of bull.......how much bull is in the finals?.DD

[cockerhoop] 04/11/2015 19:44

I think the £980k of trade and OTHER payables in non current liabilities is the contingent consideration for the ERCL acquisition and is not deferred income.

Regards current liabilities the £4.6m of trade payables is reasonably well balanced with the £4.2m of trade receivables - both have gone up. The annual report which I understand will be out next week will shed more light on the make up of the figures but until then frankly you're guessing.

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 19:06

£4.6m trade payables seems high, nearly £1m of same as non current liabilities - deferred income.DD

[cockerhoop] 04/11/2015 15:40

:-) YumpDD4I imagine from the change in management speak from Aug to Nov prospects for the 3 major contracts may have receded somewhat. But if they had been confirmed the price you would have had to pay for the shares would have been higher.Now about that misleading deferred income?

[yump] 04/11/2015 15:18

Well done for not investing.

As you've been watching and not invested, presumably the only reason for turning up and doing your analysis, posting repeatdely out of the blue, is to show how clever you've been. So, well done.

Sometimes the temptation is too great.

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 14:52

DiscoDave4 - 07 Aug 2015 - 20:04 - 1262 of 1339 - 0Hi, not invested but inclined too, but need some confirmation on the "three" contracts that they anticipate will provide additional income for 2015/16:-1) Sonangol $5m - RNS Sept 14 stated "The work is due to start immediately and the Company anticipates that most of the income will be recognised in the current financial year." How much remains for FY 2015/16?2) Umbrella Contract - RNS Nov 2014 stated "Getech.....announces a three-year extension to an existing umbrella contract with a well-known National Oil Company. This contract is with a long standing client and provides a three-year extension to the previous, annually renewable, contract." So possibly not providing any significant additional income for FY 2015/16?.3) One of three tendering Contractors - RNS Apr 2015 stated "Getech has progressed successfully through an extended tender process and the NOC has now confirmed that Getech is one of three companies contracted to provide basin evaluation services." So still not in the bag for FY 2015/16.ThanksDDDid ask some time ago, perhaps someone can enlighten me.My guess is the answer to all three questions are: not much for 15/16 hence the sudden profit warning.Still strong balance sheet and still keeping on my watchlist.BB - Dummy (in more ways than one) and Pram spring to mind CRETIN.GLDD

[cockerhoop] 04/11/2015 14:51

You've yet to highlight the level of deferred income DD4?

[bookbroker] 04/11/2015 14:47

Just shows how bloody stupid u r if u believe WHI., they hadn't a friggin clue about their estimates, so why believe them now!

[discodave4] 04/11/2015 14:34

BBNet cash is £3.7m max. Less once deferred income unwinds.Don't cry BB.DD