Holders Technology Share Discussion Threads

[cjohn] 29/1/2010 12:04

Yes, brilliant, Donemyhomework! thanks and confirms what the HDT FD had already told me on the phone! I should visit this BB more often!

The FD also said that the deferred consideration relating to profits made at JKC over the next three years is simply a % of those profits, (the % decreasing yearly). He said that they believed they could turn JKC around and make it comfortably profitable. ALso that HDT would make further such acquisitions, if they could. But that they didn't see themselves as an acqusitive company and the emphasis remained on conservation of cash and a very strong balance sheet.

[cjohn] 29/1/2010 12:04

Yes, brilliant, Donemyhomework! thanks and confirms what the HDT FD had already told me on the phone! I should visit this BB more often!

The FD also said that the deferred consideration relating to profits made at JKC over the next three years is simply a % of those profits, (the % decreasing yearly). He said that they believed they could turn JKC around and make it comfortably profitable. ALso that HDT would make further such acquisitions, if they could. But that they didn't see themselves as an acqusitive company and the emphasis remained on conservation of cash and a very strong balance sheet.

[cjohn] 29/1/2010 12:04

Yes, brilliant, Donemyhomework! thanks and confirms what the HDT FD had already told me on the phone! I should visit this BB more often!

The FD also said that the deferred consideration relating to profits made at JKC over the next three years is simply a % of those profits, (the % decreasing yearly). He said that they believed they could turn JKC around and make it comfortably profitable. ALso that HDT would make further such acquisitions, if they could. But that they didn't see themselves as an acqusitive company and the emphasis remained on conservation of cash and a very strong balance sheet.

[donemyhomework2] 25/1/2010 07:54

Cjohn hi,

Save you ringing them!! JK Components is co 02781890 and filed February 2008 accounts with CH which show fixed assets of £6k, stocks of £160k,debtors of £211k cash of £3k and creditors of £340k leaving net assets of £38k. If they made a loss of £40k the net assets came back to nil. The abbreviated balance sheet suggests they may have made a loss of £10k the previous year.

They have since changed the year end to November.

Hope this helps.

[cjohn] 24/1/2010 18:39

Sorry Donemyhomework2, I was being ironic: ie I thought they'd got themselves a bargain. They are committing some 175k of capital to the new acqusition, which is I suppose the limit of their risk, plus the usual time and attention to the new baby.

I'll ring HDT shortly and ask about assets and debt of the new acquisiton. I ssume there's negligible debt ( or tangible asstes9 as they mentioned neither.

[donemyhomework2] 21/1/2010 14:02

Mitzis hi,

Its two trades; there is 1,000 buy on 83p on Plus and any big ones which may be reported late.

[mitzis] 21/1/2010 13:28

Up 5p on one trade incredible.

[donemyhomework2] 21/1/2010 11:08

There were just to buys one for 2,000 which gave a 1p rise on the bid and then 1,000 buy on PLUS and the offer goes up 4p!!!

Most strange; they are either VERY short of stock or there is an unreported buy.

[donemyhomework2] 21/1/2010 09:57

CJohn,

I dont think so somehow.

Deferred consideration is only payable if they make profits.


The distributorship will complement HDT's activities.

Time to move to £1 I say.

[cjohn] 20/1/2010 11:00

I wonder if HDT have overpaid for JK Components: 1 pound. (There is also a deferrrd consideration based on net profits in the 3 years following the acquisition.)

JK Components had a turnover of 1.1 million for the year to feb 28 2009 and made a 40,000 loss. The JKC web site gives little detail: an electronic components distributor of some 20 years standing. No info I could see about company accounts etc, debt, assets.

HDT still look very good value, but clearly the acquisition introduces an element of uncertainty.

[donemyhomework2] 14/12/2009 11:23

LPF & Gengulphus,

Yeap; makes sense to bring the dividend in the 2009\10 tax year rather than later.

And I think we are now level with the highest point of the last 12 months.

[gengulphus] 11/12/2009 10:58

Good point - yes, declaring a final dividend rather than a second interim would mean that they had just over 4 months from the company year end of November 30 to get the final results out, declare the dividend, hold the AGM and pay the dividend if they wanted to get the dividend paid in the 2009/2010 tax year. That's possible - a few companies with a financial year end of December 31st get their dividends paid before the end of April - but it's quite tight, while the second interim dividend route will do it easily.

And there may well be other reasonably big shareholders besides the CEO who are going to get caught by the top rate of tax from 6 April 2010 onwards, and so who would much prefer the dividend to be paid before then.

Gengulphus

[lpf] 11/12/2009 08:33

They're going to pay the 2nd interim divi much earlier in 2010 - March rather than May - so there'd barely be time to publish the final results, notify the AGM & hold it. Don't know why the divi date has been brought forward, but I will just note that it does bring it into the 2009/10 tax year. One might idly speculate without any basis that it might be the CEO tax-planning.

[donemyhomework2] 11/12/2009 07:13

But the CEO 47% on his own so all AGM business can be passed by him with ease.

[gengulphus] 11/12/2009 00:33

Dunno re 2nd interim. Does a final divi need AGM approval, whereas an interim divi only needs board approval?

Yes. Though why the difference particularly matters, I don't know - I'm not certain I've ever heard of a case of shareholders voting down a proposed final dividend at an AGM!

Gengulphus

[donemyhomework2] 10/12/2009 09:24

I think we are very very close to the high of the last 12 months.

[mitzis] 10/12/2009 08:22

Glad to hold.

[lpf] 10/12/2009 08:21

Dunno re 2nd interim. Does a final divi need AGM approval, whereas an interim divi only needs board approval?

[donemyhomework2] 10/12/2009 07:34

Better than expected eh?

Dont understand why they have a second interim and no final divi.anyone?

[lpf] 10/12/2009 07:25

decent enough trading update, considering the economy. Nice to have the divi, too

[liarspoker] 28/10/2009 20:57

Up dated header with a bit of new ( or old, depending on your view ) Schloss material.

Enjoy. :O)

[liarspoker] 26/10/2009 15:18

Yes, you could read it like that. :O)

Hopefully they'll keep paying a solid divi too. From the figures I see that only in 2007 & 2008 cash was over GBP 1m at GBP 1.275m & GBP 1.774m respectively so I am fairly sure that the divi will be continued. Prior to these years cash was never over GBP 822K.

[donemyhomework2] 26/10/2009 15:10

I take this to read , sit tight and you will be rewarded!!

[liarspoker] 26/10/2009 15:03

Just did a 10 year study of the net working cap position and the high and low share prices for that year.

I will list 1) the year 2) the net working cap per diluted share and 3 ) the high - low share price for that year

2008 132p 140p 66.5p
2007 105p 170p 117p
2006 98p 121p 80p
2005 96p 123p 70p
2004 84p 126p 65p
2003 66p 70p 27p
2002 69p 80p 46p
2001 78p 153p 43p
2000 75p 120p 99p
1999 68p 117p 88p

So we can see that net working cap has been increasing nicely since the turn in 2003 and apart from the 70 & 80p high prices every other annual high price has been nicely above todays level.

[liarspoker] 10/10/2009 17:04

Added Walter Schloss' interview with Barrons in the header.

Great reading. :O)