||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Real-Time news about Healthcare Loc (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|xow98: If they don't get the 90% I will definitely be holding onto my shares. They are only investing on the expectation of a good return on their equity (enhanced by significant leverage) and they/BoD have successfully managed the share price down over the last 18 months.
Still no accounts/unadudited accounts for the year ended December 2012, two weeks later than they were issued last year.
Kate's back with a claim against the company, looking for £1.12 per share.|
|jojo_jo: Who cares?
Nothing anyone posts here will make a blind bit of difference!
They successfully locked the price at this level on Feb.6th.
I agree everything has been kept very close to the insider 'community' chest. I guess only a couple of officers in each camp are privvy to the information, and the BOD is clearly very wary of any wrongdoing after the history here under KB.
There would be little mileage in dragging it out longer, as any improvement at HLO could increase its value/price.
There is considerable kudos in being stockmarket listed. That makes me wonder if they may have engineered a way of holding nearly all the shares (eg. 90%) and staying listed. I understand companies have until 2014 to conform to the 25% free-float threshold, so they could take 'virtually complete ownership' for about 12 months, in which time they could get it back on track. They could then sell some of this increased holding at a premium early next year, and still retain control with 75% (similar to now).
The only other way they can recover their capital is by re-floating sometime in the future. They could recover it over time through retaining profits, but a flotation would give them both profits (via dividends) and capital (shareprice) gains.
Accordingly they could pitch a cash offer acceptable to the vast majority with an option for bigger, seriously under water holders like CT and Jupiter to recover their losses too over time by staying invested.
This or something similar is a possibility. Anything that avoided privatisation would be hugely share price positive, regardless.
Just thinking aloud.
Que sera sera.
|bill182: Graham!TY - I certainly concur with your thoughts on the lack of news flow and the decision by the Board to remain quiet on the indicative minimum offer.
If the shareholder who sold their large stake which drove the share price down had not done so and the recent positive news had been released via an RNS, I am sure the share price would be above the 2.00p price level today.
Let's see what the company has to say when Tosca issue their next statement next Wednesday.|
|bill182: Just received the attached from the 'notoHCLoffer' campaign. I assume the distribution is with the agreement of Craig Tibbles:
Letter from Craig Tibbles
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Further to the article in Recruiter magazine and the subsequent speculation, I write to make my position clear.
The article is correct in stating that I have not made any decision. This is because there is no formal offer.
The Recruiter article also quotes me correctly in stating "There has been far too much sabre rattling regarding HCL". This is also correct. My reference is to idle speculation and wild accusations and claims surrounding HCL since the removal of the previous Board of Directors.
In the interests of clarity, I wish to make my position clear regarding the indicative offer referred to in the announcement of the 6th February by the Board of Directors of HCL;
The indicative offer is in line with the depressed share price following the trading update issued on the 23rd January 2013. This update highlights concerns regarding 'continuing' legal action regarding US based proceedings against the company and the former Executive Vice Chairman Kate Bleasdale. In both cases, the Board of HCL have made their position clear.
The "Update on the US proceedings commenced against HCL" of the 14th August 2012 the Board stated;
"Accordingly, our legal advisors have today written to the Plaintiffs' US counsel confirming that the Company does not propose to respond to the US proceedings and informing them that, if they wish to pursue a claim, they should do so in the proper forum, namely, the English High Court of Justice. The Plaintiffs' US counsel have also been informed that the Board consider the underlying claim to be wholly without merit and that if proceedings are commenced in the proper forum they will be strenuously defended".
No further action, or filing in the English Courts has been notified as far as I am aware. The update also states;
"Since the Interims there have been no further material developments with respect to this litigation other than the initial rejection of Ms Bleasdale's application for an appeal. As allowed in such an instance, Ms Bleasdale has requested a hearing in front of a Judge to challenge this decision. The Board remains confident of its defence in both claims and will strenuously defend its position".
The update of the 23rd highlights concerns regarding the possibility of HCL not meeting its covenants with the banks in March and June 2013. There is also the reference to the possibility of a requirement for further capital funding in the next 12 months.
There have been several significant, and positive, developments in HCL's trading. The update of the 23rd makes no reference to any of these developments. Furthermore, many, if not all, of the issues that have delayed HCL in achieving its financial objectives have either been addressed or will be addressed in the next few weeks.
In my opinion, the content of the update of the 23rd January appears to be unduly negative in its overall message. The absence of almost any reference to positive (and significant) developments, many of which have been reported in the press or within internal news updates, presents an unbalanced and unduly negative picture. The result of the announcement was clear in the dramatic fall in the share price. The absence of any positive elements could, and probably would, lead any investor, potential investor or other interested party to lose interest.
My own assessment of the value of HCL and its subsidiaries is very different from the 'Market Cap'. The current share value is, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, grossly below the true realisable value of the company. In my opinion, the realisable value, after repayment of bank debt, is closer to £60 million plus cash in bank, not the sub £5 million reflected in the current share price.
Although I am, formally, undecided with regard to any possible and (as yet unforthcoming) offer, I would anticipate that this letter would enable any informed party to ascertain my current view.
I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed today! Why should I be?
I suggested Tosca&Co could consider a bid for the remainder of HLO, which has come to pass now.
Whilst I would like to have seen (and fully expected) the share price recover in due course on improving newsflow, or more substantially on a disposal, I'm perfectly happy with the safety net the Tosca&Co offer provides. It certainly allows time for things to improve and other parties to come forward.
As far as I'm aware the bidding shareholders can't vote, so a large majority of the remaining shareholders (mostly PIs I guess) would have to accept for the offer to go unconditional.
This could just be a tactic to put a firm support line under the share price. Obviously if trading improves substantially, the PIs will reject the offer and the share price should re-rate to reflect the improvement in trading.
I have no time for short-sellers, regardless of whether they're in collusion with anyone or not. They destroy businesses, jobs and lives.
|jojo_jo: Good morning. This is good news for me personally, as my average price is c. 0.50p. Not so good for long-termers unfortunately. Whilst it is not 100% firm, I think we can regard it as such, because it represents so little extra expenditure on the part of the 2 main stakeholders.
1). It puts a firm line under the price
3). It puts a 'for sale' sign up in big letters (the BOD have to consider better offers in the interests of all shareholders)
4). Short-sellers have to close technically lifting the price
5). The offerors will, realistically, have to match any price it rises to
6). Improved trading updates will lift the share price to much higher levels over time leading to either a better offer or its withdrawal (if for example the price rises to 1p+
7). It provides an absolute safety net at 0.54p
8). It removes all risk of major dilution, discounted placing and foreclosure/administration (the latter always being highly improbable anyway). So it de-risks the stock completely from now
Very good news in my personal opinion. More than happy to let it play out. I certainly won't be letting the short-sellers out cheaply at 0.54p. I'm holding for a better offer, which the 3 stakeholders will have to match.
Provides complete safety.
|jojo_jo: Research-wise I would recommend people take a look at my and once-a-broker's earlier posts assessing the situation here and most likely solution, which is very very share price positive. I personally think this is possibly the last chance to get stock here under 0.6p, as when the asset disposal is made public the share price could/should recover all it's lost ground - and more.
|jojo_jo: Well put John (once a broker),
I agree with you almost entirely. You clearly have knowledge/background in such things.
The Bank will be placated and reset covenants on the 'fair value or better' sale of assets, and the ideal assets are the Aussie ones. The company which bought the Homecare Division (Kincare) may be interested in the remainder, or parts of it. The bank would I'm sure be content to see their debt paid down by £5m - £10m in the medium term, however if they can make a major disposal (HCA) at cost or above, they could repay over 66% of the bank debt and still have a very big cash cushion. They may even be able to do a deal, whereby the buyer assumes the attached bank debt, or pays half now and half in a year. I imagine such talk is going on behind the scenes now. The Chairman, as a former Standard Chartered exec, will know exactly what will satisfy the bank.
One has to remember that the share price has over-reacted (been forced down by a vexatious seller impo), and they have £10 million in cash now, which could well see them through until July if trading remains as before. However it could last indefinitely if trading improves, and continues, as seems likely over the coming year. In the unlikely event they can't attract interest in H.C.Australia by the end of June, the main stakeholders may have to replace some (perhaps 10%) of the bank finance with their own bond (although I don't believe it will be necessary when the time comes). The matter will be resolved one way or the other. I personally believe the marketing of a business asset will do wonders for market sentiment, and the eventual sale of said asset will see the share price jump to new 12 month highs.
Thankyou onceabroker John for putting your money where your mouth is. I think you have got it near enough spot on. The potential reward vs risk ratio is very high, perhaps 3:1 or more.
This ship will right itself quicker than many think... and the share-price revival will precede it.
|jojo_jo: Driving all morning. Disappointed to see the share price collapsed by just 500,000 shares sold early on. A similarly small number should bring it back up, and we're at 0.475p mid now with a confident 2m+ buy at 0.5p... perhaps somebody knows something we don't. There's always someone ahead of the game!
The fact is the recent share price fall doesn't reflect the situation. They have £10m in hand to see them through, until July, possibly much longer. Locum placements have probably rocketed through the recent spell of bad weather so a trading update for January will likely be quite positive.
Whilst the directors are negotiating things such as the sale of assets (price sensitive stuff) they can't buy shares, for obvious reasons.
One bounce, another today off a similar low gives us a double (intraday) bottom.
I'll put money (already have and still doing so) on them negotiating the sale of an asset or two as we speak. They'll get enough to reduce substantially or eliminate the bank debt (net debt only c.£30 - hardly a Yell or Punch which had billions of debt, a stupid, scaremongering comment).
I'm not too concerned, and look forward to a full share price recovery and subsequent jump. We'll know soon, come the beginning of February.
Somebody certainly appears to know something we don't.
|jojo_jo: They're not immediate forced sellers at all.
They PASSED the recent covenant test, and have c.£3om of net debt, and £10 million in cash, so hardly desperate. They may need a few quid come April or July, but have time to get assets marketed or sold.
They only need to PUT ONE OR TWO ON THE MARKET to put a rocket under the share price! Once the share price recovers the situation will ease substantially and they will have time to do a deal. They don't have to sell immediately, just put them up for sale. They only need to raise £10m - £20m from a sale (or a sale of a stake) to resolve the immediate issue... so hardly a challenge.
I think you'll find the next announcement will confirm their intention to dispose of a business or two. That will see the share price double/triple overnight with short-sellers being squeezed to death!
Happy to be long. The problem is greatly exaggerated and easily solved as described above!
PS. I'm very happy to keep adding at this low price, and am.|
Healthcare Locums share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange