|The first of four new UK submarines to carry Trident nuclear missiles will be named Dreadnought, a decision inspired by famous ships from the past.
|TPG seems to be trading in a narrow 1 X revenue + or - 5% and will continue to do so until there's a reason to move out.|
|O.5m loss for 2017. Another shocking admission from the deluded one. As for being cash rich it obviously came at a massive price for those existing shareholders. Where has this money gone. Seems only the strange one knows the truth. The plot is thickening.|
|If the company can achieve "a compound growth rate of at least 50% for 3 years", such progress in the making should attract notable interest from a variety of analysts advising institutions and private individual clients, as to where they might invest their monies.|
|I'm afraid I "surfaced "too soon and to make matters worse I read the latest nonsense from the strange one but I did say that I would correct the more obvious mis information so it serves me right.
Most of you will have noticed by now that Edison are a useful source when it comes to analysing current (hard ) data.
Like this from April 2016
"We continue to adopt a very conservative approach in our sum-of-the-parts estimation of fair value. We still consider the loss-making energy businesses to be worth zero, choosing only to attribute a value to TPG Maritime and TPG Managed Solutions. If, as we expect, TPG Design & Technology and TPG Engineering move into sustained profitability, the value has upside potential. Nevertheless, our peer-based sum-of-the-parts currently returns a value of 8.7p.
When it comes to forecasting future results they hardly shine and are often 20%,30% or more out and never in TPGs favour in spite of the strange one claiming that their figure come straight from the company.( they do say they are very conservative though)
They had had a stab at 2017 and have producedan EBITDA figure of £1.9m which by any standard is miserly and almost bizarre given that the D&T losses have been falling at a considerable rate and the company has spent almost a million in 2015 to reduce these losses further, they have INCREASED their guesstimate of loss to £1.1m from £1m.
The recent write-up by Sharewatch states a loss of £0.5m in 2017 and the guy was in conversation with Cartmell.
Never the less this very low figure of £1.9m is the EBITDA figure given and as we know a much better indicator of cash flow.TPG is cash rich, pays no interest or tax but if you throw in the D&A figure it falls to £0.8m
The £1.9m even though it is almost certainly too low is a pretty good measure of cash flow.
This cash flow will continue to swell the already large cash pile.
This is a low comparatively low risk cash rich business which is capable of producing excellent returns over the foreseeable future.
Based on my very reasonable and detailed explanation of the share price from mid 2015 to mid 2016 I suggested that a buyer of these shares in that period would have been very unlucky not to have an entry price of c.3.6p and if we take the start of this year as the starting point with this 3.6p price I am confident we will see a compound growth rate of at least 50% for three years.
I note that I did not take February lows as my starting point.|
|Cant believe some posters on here are allegedly inventing forecasts. I don't think i will be able to take any of PA's comments seriously any more.
Thanks Prophet for pointing out the cash flow. Makes me think the current mcap is on the very high side for a company like TPG. I'll wait to see if other large holders bail here like they did when it went to 2p. If 1 has done it already don't see why another 1 wont bail.
Keep up the good work prophet and oversight of PA's posts.|
|spook7Good, least your happy!You make me laugh as well with your 'non-profit', never heard that one before so it really cracked me up!( PA style 'hint', think SRT is up something like 150% for the year, nice!)|
|you make me laugh non-profit.|
|Ah, 'manic' added to the list from PA.All water off a duck's back to me PA, poor, even by your 'standards'.I'm sorry you get so upset with those beastly boys at Edison. Can't think why TPG pay them to represent the company's market expectations. How awful they don't just 'phone up PA and ask for his forecasts and print those instead. Or could it just be that Edison are the mouthpiece for TPG and choose to put something sensible in the market place? Perish the thought!You know, that Edison report is a mine of information, I feel I've hardly scratched the surface.There is a school of thought that says the best measure of a company's worth is cash flow. Profit is a subjective value that can be manipulated in many ways. So let's look at cash flow.Interesting in the last set of interim results the +ve cash flow was only achieved by not paying creditors or pushing payment out. As someone on the thread at the time said no harm in TPG management maximising cash flow in such a manner. But it's a one off and not sustainable trick.Moving on to forecast cash flows, TPG is forecast to be cash flow to the tune of £1m this year. All well and good and most welcome to the long suffering TPG shareholders. But here is the real shocker, the Edison note, with figures supplied by TPG, forecasts a decrease in cash flow to £0.8m next year!Don't blame me, I'm just reading the company's figures as transcribed by Edison.How much would you value an engineering company with forecast cash flows of £1m this year (with half of that pulled off creditors) and £0.8m next year? Suddenly that £25m or whatever market cap looks a bit heady.Don't forget, these figures are absolutely nothing to do with me and are all there in black and white in a report dated 13th September.If you think that's good value, fill your boots whilst stocks last!No doubt PA will respond to these company approved figures with more bluster, 'hints' and snide remarks. Or invent another of his wishful thinking forecasts. And who can blame him, where else is there to go with this rag bag of disparate bits and bobs, loss making divisions, central overheads and the 'jewel in the crown' margin constrained on its main contracts.No wonder the guy is going to lay low for a while!Tell us about one of yer Lakeland walks PA, is that where you dream up all your non-verifiable figures?Have a lovely week-end, I know I am.|
|As most of you will have noticed it is always the manic that tells you to "chill"
Our particular strange person is however closer to victory here than he possibly realises. The more observant of you will have notice that I have tried to counter the more extreme distortions put forward with facts figures and what I hope is reasonable argument only to have most of the detail ignored and forced to read through posts filled with "Cartmell bad man"and little else.
When I stop to consider that this person has no shares in the company and I suspect has no intention of buying shares the question that comes to the fore is what the hell am I doing trying to have a reasonable discussion/argument with him.
Anyway, all this has helped me focus more on my investment here and even if you bought months ago things are moving at a reasonably quick pace and a year or even six months is a long time ....there is a lot going on here.( Unless you're Edison then you can quote a figure then stick to it for two whole years)
Of all the things that have happened recently I suppose the MoD contracts are the biggest so I had another look.
There are two long term contracts one for maintenance/spares one for hardware ( actual purification units)
The maintenance contract is for £28m over 7 year ( not 10 years, I remember showing this at the time but would have to go back and look)
Corac/ TPG had an existing 10 year contract similar to this which expired this year and was replaced with a one year contract worth £1.5m so we can see that this new contract was worth £4m as opposed to £1.5m. The stop gap contract must have been to allow negotiations on the long term contract and the increased value represents the number of submarines built and to be built that require TPGs sophisticated machinery.
The second contract for £22m over 8 years is for the supply of air purification unit.
At the time of these contracts the MoD was in the process of reviewing the profit margin allowed in these single source deals.
I remember seeing the specific example given that it was clearly unfair to expect a company delivering a highly complex missile system to be expected to work on the same margin as a single source building contractor working on a remote base.
Interesting negotiations these as there is no doubt that the MoD needs TPG kit but the MoD is TPGs biggest customer,....as I said...interesting.
I still expect TPG to do very well here and one can imagine the efficiencies one could derive from knowing what orders are coming in and when over the next 7 to 10 years.
A highly efficient manufacturing base coupled with the currency weakness would make the foreign orders very attractive.
I think I'll go deep for a while unless we get important news but that comes thick and fast these days.
Before I go, I see from the Sharewatch piece that there was the suggestion that the MS side is where the acquisitions might be made. I had always thought that the engineering side was where an addition would be made.
I suppose it makes sense to build up the MS unit then add to the engineering side when you can feed orders across from your Thin Prime contracts.
The Sharewatch article is certainly worth another read and certainly reads like a fairly straightforward one to one with Cartmell.........sorry...boo, hiss.|
I'm more than happy to disagree
I'm also more than happy to accept there are other ways and views of looking at it.
I could be right, I could be wrong, PA could be right or wrong
My view is to stick to official forecasts until such time as they are proven right, upgraded or downgraded.
It would be nice if other folk extended the same courtesy wrt to views on TPG, but there we go, there seems to be only one view acceptable at the PA school of forecasting and bluster.|
|Jeeeeeezus, can you both agree to disagree. I appreciate both sides here and you both put a lot of effort into digging all this info out. Time will tell when official information is released.|
|Sorry PA, but reasoned debate encompasses something much more than just agreeing with you.I'm more than happy to go with the official and TP Group sponsored figures updated as recently as 13th September.If you believe those figures to be wrong, please direct your ire and bluster in the direction of Edison and TPG.I will stick to those official figures rather than some figures supposedly told to a journalist and only available for subscribers of that publication.Presumably you think it's ok for a plc to disseminate info in that manner?FWiw I don't believe they have, as:1) I believe TPG's corporate governance is better than that2) these sort of publications are always making mistakes, as I have pointed out.You can try and bludgeon your views on the forecast as much as you like and repost your musings as often as you like. But I for one will stick with the market forecasts and that includes the p/e figures as well. Blame Edison and TPG that by the end of next year, after 8 years in charge by Cartmell, TPG are forecast to be on a p/e of 60. Those are not my made up figures or forecast. Still, perhaps that will drop to something half decent in 2018 and go some way to justifying the current market cap.Time to get your doodling pen out again, eh PA?If you're so confident in TPG just keep buying more shares rather than getting yourself all worked up.Have a nice day and chill for a change.|
|For holders of TPG, I did a bit of further reading/rereading concerning the D&A unit.
As we all know the losses have been very high, falling, but very high.
At the beginning of last year a programme of cost cutting was put in place and this cost almost a million pound.Some people will remember the outcry and snide remarks about "adjusted EBITDA" and this cost.
At the time the company said that it would reduce losses by £500k in 2015 and up to £1m a year beyond this date.
Obviously this does help the bottom line but an additional improvement should come from this specific comment from the CEO with the half year results in September
" The Group, at last, is free of the obligations of legacy Oil & Gas R&D ventures."
I can only assume that the ridiculous loss of c. £750k in H1 was the cost of the last run down of the old Corac money pit and the forecast yearly loss of £1.0m suggests a H2 loss of £250k which ties in with a loss of £500k next year ( as reported in the recent interview with the CEO)
I saw recently that there are only about TWELVE people employed at the D&T unit but if you add the revenue for the year £0.5m to the loss £1.0m this works out at £120k per person.
Obviously things are set to improve next year but without coming on all hot and heavy here I think these guys should certainly be looking to improve the situation further.
On the others hand you could say that this is a small price to pay to continue to be in a position to produce some value from the millions poured into the compressor business in the past.|
|The report gave recent figures that you did not like,you tried to say the guy writing the report got it wrong and to back up your claim you tried to prove his other figures/wrong inaccurate.
When I pointed out that the figures were in fact correct or very close to correct you resorted to your usual and tedious bluster.
( I see you pulled out that old standby ,PE ratio. I've tried to explain this to you before , more than one, but I do like to see you use it as it is a sure sign that you have nothing else.)
In the last few days you have tried to rubbish the company's break through with the army when the MS unit placed personnel to help improve internal communication, dismissing this as not significant and liking the MS unit as some sort of employment agency or something when this was very significant as the other part of the MS unit is Thin Prime Contracting and TPG now have a foot in the door with the army.
Yesterday, as I pointed out above, you tried to rubbish the report that said the losses in the D&T unit should fall dramatically next year.
As a holder of a substantial number of shares here I can tell you that the drastic reduction of losses in this unit was/ is vital and have recently posted saying that I was angered by the "eye watering" loss in H1.
Yesterday we got information that the loss in D&T is likely to fall to £0.5m in 2017.
This information came from an interview with the CEO in September and it is at odds with the only other figure of a loss of £1.1m from Edison research first published in April.
I am going to go for the £0.5m figure simply because I did not believe ( see previous posts) that management would allow these losses to continue and last year substantial and costly changes were put in place to reduce these losses.
These last few days have shown, what most already knew, that you have no interest in reasoned debate.
Your only contribution here is to respond to any news with distorted and negative comments but as you can see I am only too willing to point out your mistakes.|
|PAYou seem to be under the illusion Edison are my friends. Not sure why you persist with that, but never mind.They provide a useful service for investors and, presumably, TP Group think so as well, as they have retained their services for several years. They only print what they are told by their paymasters, so any mistakes are firmly at the feet of TP Group. They see the finished article before it is published.I'm afraid however much you huff and puff and spin the market expectations remain the same. Namely a loss for this year and a very modest profit for next year giving rise to 0.1p eps for a forward p/e pushing 60. Those are not my figures, they are Edison's.Anyway, don't mind me if I stick with the official forecasts rather than some manipulated or told to journalists figures. TPG will be measured against market expectations, end of.|
|You first "error" is insignificant and could easily come about by treatment of amortisation , depreciation or one off items.
Let's call it £3m....no harm done.
Your second "error" comes about from the company's use of EBITDA as a much more accurate performance indicator.
If the EBITDA is given as £700k I think ( from memory) the DA is in the region of £1.2m so producing a paper loss of £500k.
So we are now left with the only other explanation : the guy writing the article is hearing things or making things up.
I'm going to go with the boring but very reasonable assumption that that the guy he was talking to ( Cartmell) gave him the figure.
I am also going with my reasonable and reasoned prediction that this share is set for a compound growth rate of at least 50% over the foreseeable future.
If in doubt you could check with your old friends at Edison as I know you set great store by them.
Hint: they value the company at 8.5p a share but be careful they can get their long range forecasts wrong.|
|PA, you said:
'but at least we have it from the CEO that the compressor losses are now under control and that is certainly very good news'
Nowhere in the SCSW does it say that that info is from the CEO. You could infer that from the piece, as it sounds like the writer met Cartmell or did a 'phone interview. But nowhere in the piece is Cartmell quoted as saying the D&T losses will fall to £0.5m.
If that is the case, I would suggest that Cartmell has a duty to inform shareholders of TPG the good news, rather than the subscribers of SCSW!
This is what the piece said:
'Instead it has streamlined the headcount so that this business operates with just a dozen people and relocated the business to lower cost offices in Slough and losses, which amounted to £2.9m in 2014, will have fallen to £0.5m by next year.'
imo, it would be highly unusual for a CE of a plc to give price sensitive information that was not available in the brokers forecast.
It could just be a mistake. It might be true, but the possibility is the piece has simply got it wrong.
Here are two examples where the piece has got it wrong:
1) The piece says losses for D&T were £2.9m in 2014, whereas the TPG AR gives the losses as £3.1m. Minor error, I accept that
page 26 for anyone interested
2) A more serious error is :
'More deals mooted
All told, for the current year to end December, Cenkos is looking for a return to the black. For next year, not yet recognising the two prospective MoD contracts, the broker is looking for a £0.7m profit.'
The consensus market forecast(2 brokers) for the current year is for a pre tax loss of £0.5m.
The article is, on the whole, reasonably written but for anyone who has followed tip sheets this sort of error is fairly common-place and happens when you are writing up on quite a few companies with limited time to spend on each.|
|Grinley Boy...lol...whilst I admire PA for the work he is doing here, I think The Prophet is hardly the one to be filtering, but hey, if you only want to listen to one side of the debate, then go for it.|
|Edison seem to have their very long range forecasts wrong and have surpassed themselves with the predicted loss for D&T 2017.
Still it would appear that we should go with their April guesstimate and ignore the CEO in September.
Strange thing is that if we overlook this little error and go with their other figures it would appear they are suggesting a 45% increase in the share price next year 7.8p(not bad though)
Other thing is that Edison give a value of c.£36m to TP maritime and
an implied fair value of 8.5p/share for the company.
An increase of almost 60% next year.
The company is trading in line with market predictions THIS YEAR and this is all management have said but if they look at Edison's figures , predictions and valuations they may not get their knickers in a twist.
If management ignore the error in the D&T loss they may feel that the 2017 figures from Edison are in the correct ball park even if they are out of date they were close enough when first published.
Management, house broker or Edison are very unlikely to revise figures/predictions until much later in the financial year but at least we have it from the CEO that the compressor losses are now under control and that is certainly very good news.
Obviously management know that Edison have given a high figure for D&T predicted losses but I suspect they realise that Edison have simply used earlier figures but as Edison is giving a fair value figure of 8.5p/ share based on their predictions for 2017 I expect that management aren't that bothered.
Given all that is going on with TPG most investors would be very, very happy with a 45% to 60% price increase but most would feel that there could be a real chance of this being bettered but if not the momentum should continue into the next year and beyond.|
|Grinley Boy13 Oct '16 - 13:56 - 1321 of 1321 0 0 [Filtered}|
|Oh the peace...
13 Oct '16 - 09:27 - 1316 of 1320 3 1 (Filtered)
13 Oct '16 - 09:44 - 1317 of 1320 3 1 (Filtered)
13 Oct '16 - 09:54 - 1318 of 1320 5 0 (Filtered)|
|'In line with market expectations' , that seems a totally reasonable thing for TPG to say and the Edison note confirms they are performing as such.No upgrades, other than from PA school of forecasting, but perhaps that will come . Who knows.I would have thought most sensible investors would be happy for TPG to perform in line. Then any upside to that is a bonus rather than trying to wring the forecasts north. Just my view.....|
|I have never questioned this year's forecasts but do think they may squeeze the EBITDA over £1.1m just to say they are in profit but not bothered a couple of £100k either way.
" After a strong start to the second half of the year, the Board is confident that the transformed business of TPG will deliver profit at the adjusted EBITDA(1) level in line with market expectations for 2016 and onward to sustainable profitability."
You will notice that management is referring to this year.
For a broader outlook we have:-
"The overall result is a more capable, focused and coordinated business that is demonstrating its ability to deliver growth and move into profitability whilst attracting a sales pipeline of future business opportunities, currently valued at approximately GBP150m. The Board is confident that this momentum and strategic focus will enable the Group to deliver on its objectives and greatly enhance shareholder value."
My 60% in share price increase is based on the following fairly reasonable assumptions
1 TP Maritme making £4m
2 engineering and MS managing £0.5m between them
3 most recently a report from the CEO that the losses in D&T will fall to £0.5m
Taken at face value not one of these assumptions could be taken to be wildly optimistic.
I've spent some time looking at the proposed MoD contracts which are certainly positive for the share price going forward and I don't thing they are built into my, or other, forecasts.|