Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Indigovision LSE:IND London Ordinary Share GB0032654534 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 180.50p 177.00p 184.00p 180.50p 180.50p 180.50p 3,573.00 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Software & Computer Services 37.2 0.0 -30.2 - 13.71

Indigovision Share Discussion Threads

Showing 14426 to 14447 of 14450 messages
Chat Pages: 578  577  576  575  574  573  572  571  570  569  568  567  Older
Trouble is they've been a bid target for some time and nowt has occurred.
Yes, looking a bit more positive. Looking at the Annual Report they must have been joking by presenting the whole of the 2016 bad debt charge as exceptional - 0.3m given the overall bad debt charge of 0.4m was below last year's 0.5m. Presumably, to meet market expectations. They also ignored the exchange gain. KPMG shouldn't have let them get away with this. Last year's results were break-even. Anyway, prospects look a little better for 2017. Definitely some value here at below book value. Could be a bid target.
Meh... Sales booming but its hard to make money selling penny chews.
Blimey ..a bit of action !
Little bit of life here for a change, although on low volume - tipped somewhere maybe? Return to profitability while trading below NCAV must put this on the radar of some deep value investors.
Another US casino: hxxp://
New casino: hxxp://
Potentially 45++ GTR station ticket gates but it’s not clear from the article. hxxp://
Return to profitability with $0.3m. Of course no one believed the original $2m forecast. Still trading at a discount to NWC of probably around £1.80/share.
Indy kit on new local bridge. hxxp://
Iain123 and Dozey3 I hoped that IND would be selling its FrontLine body cameras to the police but today's London Evening Standard leads with a story of the Met issuing its officers with 22,000 body cameras at a cost of £10 million supplied by Axon, a division of the American company, Taser International. Having learnt recently that HikVision, a Chinese company, seems to be the main supplier of CCTV systems to London Underground, I am beginning to wonder whether our products are good enough to attract important customers in this country, let alone abroad.
So many wearable cameras on the market, why think IND has the edge? They have been off the pace for several years, and clearly their much vaunted software has not proved a big hit with customers. I wondered if the collapsing £ would be of benefit, but think not since their kit is probably made overseas.
I've just had another look at IND's Twitter account. @IndigoVision Oh dear - they evidently have not yet embraced the idea of having some professional help with their marketing. Thinking of cutting my losses on this one - my feeling is that the techie side might be smart but the management is distinctly "dusty" and in need of revitalising. Just an impression over a long period. DYOR
IND already outsources the production of its hardware to efficient, low cost producers. Made to IND's specifications. Its advantage is software. PP.
Nice little tick up today on negligible volume.
Ah yes, I know NAR, HDT and ARDN. None seem attractive. ARDN is very tempting, but I'm put off by the generous salary and bonus arrangements for staff, particularly the directors. HDT has two mediocre businesse in my view and may go private. NAR: there is possible value in a wind-up scenario: they have a lot of un-revalued freehold property. But the management aren't thinking along those lines. No, the market is certainly not efficient in pricing lightly-followed small caps - fortunately, or there would be no financial motive for investing. In the last couple of years, for example, IND has seemed grossly OVER-valued to me. Currently, valuation is low, but realistic. The economics are pretty poor: apart from dramatic commoditisation, the company still can't make an operating profit on 50% + gross margins. Those juicy margins are attracting in other players and are vulnerable. Why can't they make a profit with 50%* gross margins: they are a small multi-national with all the very high costs that that implies. Offices in numerous jurisdictions, local competitors in each and now the threat from Chinese competitiors across, the quality of whose product is perfectly adequate for nearly all clients. That having been said, I do accept that they are cheapish.
These are the two that I have looked at in the past: Northamber (NAR) £9.0m market cap £3.8m cash £8.1m Net Working Capital Holders Technology (HDT) £1.2m market cap £0.7m cash £2.7m Net Working Capital A quick screen on Stockopedia reveals a few more. If we exclude ones that are not trading businesses (e.g. resource stocks, Investment Companies) and foreign-domiciled AIM stocks (for obvious reasons) then P/NNWC < 1 also has: ADGO, RUR, CROS, SCHO, ARDN My general point remains though that these are all generally companies that are loss-making and/or have serious questions about their business models. If IND can return to some level of profitability they would appear to be under-priced even with the threat of reduced margins from commoditisation. For example compare IND to another company that is suffering from Chinese commoditisation and has had to outsource manufacturing to be competitive like IND has - Dialight (DIA). By championing their turnaround and convincing investors to focus on their 'adjusted' figures with all their large turnaround costs below the line DIA have persuaded them that they are worth £240m+ and a forward P/E of 38! OK they are a bigger company by sales but the idea that the market is 'efficient' in pricing these sort of stocks is highly doubtful in my opinion.
Yes, you're right, Gengulphus, I'm obviously taking a conservative attitude to the possiblity of future profitability. Therefore the deferred "asset" seems over-stated to me. A profit forecast of 2m sterling for the full year? They're going to have to kick the lights out in the second half to fulfil that, given the loss in the first half! Hi Dangersimpson, which are these other companies trading at a discount to current assets?
I would also ignore the differed tax asset. Net Current Assets are $16.47m = £12.67m. Market Cap is £11.2m. Of course you can question what those assets would be worth in a liquidation but the fact remains that very few businesses in the world are valued at less than net current assets. I can only think of 2 others in the UK. It is a sign of a business in extreme distress not just one that may be suffering from commoditisation. Given the cash balance IND are not in financial distress. But they are priced as if the business will fail imminently so they only need to earn modest future returns to be under-priced. Again one may take the view that they will never generate any profits again but that is at odds with the steer that a historically very conservative management are giving to their brokers & the press.
A note about the quality of the assets: there is a large deferred tax asset of $4.85m in non-current assets. This "asset" is unjusifitable in view of trading over the last years and, at last, it is going to be reveiwd by management and should then be written off or reduced. How justifiable it is depends on what profits are like going forward, as it has value to shareholders if the company makes profits (by eliminating the need to pay tax on the profits) but not if it makes losses. So the results of the review should give us a bit more insight into how the directors feel about that profitability - i.e. basically into the extent to which the statement "Mr Kneen said he expected a return to profitability in the second half of year, and highlighted that broker N+1 Singer has held its full year profit forecast at £2m." just before your post is expressing a genuine expectation rather than just trying to keep morale up! Gengulphus
Today's long article in the Times about Hikvision and its British operations is discouraging for IND shareholders. I had no idea that the Chinese held such an enormous share of our CCTV market acquired by undercutting the competition. Having recently acquired a delightful Chinese daughter-in-law and spent 3 happy weeks with her relations, I am very well-disposed towards the Chinese but fear that we can do little to prevent them putting many of our companies out of business. They have a great advantage over us in scale and access to capital.
Hi Michaelmouse, Good post. A note about the quality of the assets: there is a large deferred tax asset of $4.85m in non-current assets. This "asset" is unjusifitable in view of trading over the last years and, at last, it is going to be reviewed by management and should then be written off or reduced. Once, you get rid of this "asset", the discount to net tangibles is negligible. So I personally wouldn't buy in on asset grounds. Trading to me looks difficult. They are having to run fast to stay in the same place. A more than 20% decline in sales prices! This is a classic story of commoditisation. I don't believe that introducing ever more wonderful products is the way forward at all. The vast majority of businesses do not need the extra fucntionality of a the very top end of their offer.
Chat Pages: 578  577  576  575  574  573  572  571  570  569  568  567  Older
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:33 V: D:20170327 08:28:06