Havelock Europa Share Discussion Threads

[horridharry] 22/1/2016 21:11

Personally I believe that all this talk about delisting is irrelevant. There are benefits to both. I have a private company and I would never want to be listed. It is too onerous. If you have never read the AIM regulations have a scan, it will blow your mind. So you get yourself a nomad to help you and it's a requirement.

Then you have the other side, a listing is good if you want to raise capital, incentivises management through options. I believe that if this is a possibility then both sides should set out their strategies. Then let the owners decide not people on a BB. I have seen various strategies over the years from Havelock from kitchens to healthcare, remember that? Started 3 years ago and total revenue in that period about £100000.

This to me is twofold, are the non execs good enough. Why did Peter Dillon leave?
And secondly what is the company's strategy? How is it going to create shareholder value? When it has failed so miserably!

[clocktower] 22/1/2016 16:26

No need to take it private to remove the board just contact the major holders and convince them that you have a better plan and seek their support.

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 16:08

Another thing that stans out after reading the report is the amount of emphasis on a clear strategy. you are right they didnt duck it. different to the carp here.

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 15:17

says it all
Ordinary shares
of 1p each
30th April 2015
Number
Joe Grimmond
5,173,337
Paul Freud
1,833,333
David Low
805,000
Stephen Fletcher
72,000
they have a interest in making it work rather than a free ride. i wish they would take it private just to get rid of the lot.
A

[clocktower] 22/1/2016 14:24

neverforget, Can you tell me what it would take stakeholder wise to get rid of the board, to save me the time of doing a lot of research?

[valhamos] 22/1/2016 13:50

clocktower

Completely agree. Joe Grimmond at CRU since 2011 is a textbook example of how to do a turnaround and I think it would be worthwhile for some here to study it.

Honest about the issues and strong and decisive in facing them and a clearly articulated strategy for the future - that's got to be more impressive for a customer than a company trying to cover up and hide things away.

[clocktower] 22/1/2016 13:44

Stakeholders need to first get rid of the board neverforget, and more than £250k will be saved. Appoint a board that will work for expenses only and a huge share award upon certain levels of profit being reached and at the same time based on the market sp, then you will see things change imo.

[clocktower] 22/1/2016 13:25

If you want to grow a company it is better being listed - It seems gg and other posters here have given up wanting this to grow or know that the management/directors are not fit to do the job, and are unable to build a solid larger business from poor resources. Try raising funds to fund an acquisition when de-listed.

Go and look what JG has done over a couple over years at CRU and also look at the latest RNS and consider what you can pick up for a song to build a better business for all holders and investors.

Get the right team in here and turn it around rather than be negative and suffer further losses to keep this bunch feed and watered.

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 13:20

and that is my point!!!!!!

[jbarker5555] 22/1/2016 13:14

If they were taken private I don't see why they would ever have to disclose the loss of Lloyds to the general public. Surely it would only be by word of mouth rather than any official announcement? :)

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 12:45

not at all read my post i am talking about customers or potential customers seeing the poor trading and therefore being worried about pacing orders. yes keep shareholders informed but being listed means you have to shout about it to everyone and their dogs.
i mean Oct 2017. lloyds doesn't effect 2015 only 2016 so full accounts for 2016 published oct 2017. you have a full 23 months before it comes under the spotlight.
serious though what do you believe the issues to be?

[valhamos] 22/1/2016 11:44

neverforget

It's gets worse! Now you seem to be encouraging directors of a company to engage in disgraceful behaviour with regards its owners. With the unlisted companies I've had in the past the directors have been sent the normal interim and annual reports and informed shareholders if there has been a dramatic change in the business. Maybe the quality of management was a lot higher than some suggest is at HVE. Food for thought. I think you mean September 2016 rather than October 2017 by the way.

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 10:22

val i am enjoying this talk. what doe you believe the issues are?

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 10:21

and ab in answer to your question there is no reason whatsoever for this to be listed except for a few retail punters to try to make a quick buck instead of investing into the business. management have played with employees lives and in an area of such high unemployement should be ashamed.
first ting i would do is gt rid of the hr function and outsource big saving. 5 people in that area adding nothng to the custoemer experience.
if the smaller shareholders are selling then the new broker should be looking to place the shares. but the simple answer to that is there is no institution who wants to buy them

[valhamos] 22/1/2016 09:54

neverforget

"it would be hidden from the market by 12 months through the ability to file its accounts to real deadlines and not aim market dictated ones."

On Aim you need to have audited accounts within 6 months; unlisted it is 9 months. Are you really suggesting that hiding the numbers for 3 months is going to help? If so the situation must really be desperate!

No - all this talk of delisting is just a nonsense, a distraction from the real issues here, the sole result (or even purpose?) is to drive the share price down as small investors bail out.

[neverforget] 22/1/2016 09:18

precarious is an understatement. this is where a listing makes the company look worse. so any potential customer can now go on and see what is happening. the market is saying that this company is a dud. why would a customer then buy from them? at least if it is not listed as well as saving ridiculaous costs it would be hidden from the market by 12 months through the ability to file its accounts to real deadlines and not aim market dictated ones.
ridiculous. Management showing that they are again clueless.
this from the last announcement
David Ritchie, chief executive, Havelock Europa plc, said: "WH Ireland is a great fit for us and we are pleased to be working with a company that has a strong track record supporting businesses like ours. This is a positive step in the further development of the business."
Development? look at the share price.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 21/1/2016 23:40

These look to be in a pretty precarious state to me. Loss making, a weak balance sheet and losing ~25% of their turnover this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't last the year.

Arthur

[greengiant] 21/1/2016 18:55

Valhamos,

Absolutely agree that cost cutting is not the way to resolve the problems here. 100% agree with that comment. The way to resolve the problem here is to focus on the customer and deliver for the customer over and above what the competition is doing, find the differentiator and exploit it.

However, unless you find that differentiating factor, you are trade in the cycle of offering a commodity based produce. That is when Havelock are at the moment. This is a commodity. Unless you or anyone else can tell me what the key differentiator is that causes customers to come to Havelock in the place of its competitors. I think if you look at the revenue numbers - they tell you that there is no differentiation.

Therefore if you are competing as a commodity it is a chase to the lowest price and you have to have the lowest cost price structure. Porters generic strategy.
A listed company has a higher cost base than an equivelent unlisted company. Therefore finds itself at a disadvantage. I am not saying that over the medium term you do not want to move away from cost advantage - you absolutely do. What I am saying is that if being listed adds no value except for retail investors to trade a minimal amount of shares over the year - then there is no point whatsoever with being listed - to the detriment of enhanced profitability.

I would love this company to be flying high, reporting contract wins and reassuring the marker on performance and profit. It is not - it has reported lower revenue numbers and a loss of their major customer. Not exactly fantastic work. Now I am fully supportive of Ciaran an David, given time and guidance, they are capable of rebuilding this company. My question is just whether there is benefit in doing it with more profit and thereby cash - or whether being listed gives such an advantage that delisting would lead to value reduction.

I have heard nothing from management on this topic and the board needs to improve significantly on shareholder interaction.

Back off to serious work now, so I will be gone here for a while

Cheers
Andrew

[valhamos] 21/1/2016 14:50

Andrew

This company is listed so that the owners can trade their shares.

I'm all for reducing costs but you are way off beam if you think cost-cutting is the solution to the problems here. And if it is not the solution then it would be cowardice of the directors to go down that route - they will have shown that they are bad as the last lot. If this delisting idea is seriously considered then it will have a detrimental effect on the share price until it takes effect - most shareholders will not want to be stuck with unlisted shares.

The only benefit of delisting would seem to be to enable someone to pick up shares on the cheap and/or to give the directors an easy ride for the next 10 plus years.

[greengiant] 21/1/2016 10:59

Semi liquid market. You can neither buy nor sell in any volume
Andrew

[mikepompeyfan] 21/1/2016 10:38

No apart from having a liquid market to buy and sell your shares.