Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Tricorn Group LSE:TCN London Ordinary Share GB0009716340 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +1.00p +8.00% 13.50p 13.00p 14.00p 13.50p 12.50p 12.50p 24,932.00 11:52:15
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Industrial Engineering 18.0 -0.8 -1.6 - 4.56

Tricorn (TCN) Latest News

More Tricorn News
Tricorn Takeover Rumours

Tricorn (TCN) Share Charts

1 Year Tricorn Chart

1 Year Tricorn Chart

1 Month Tricorn Chart

1 Month Tricorn Chart

Intraday Tricorn Chart

Intraday Tricorn Chart

Tricorn (TCN) Discussions and Chat

Tricorn Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
05/12/201615:51Tricorn should be worth well over 60 pence SO GET IN AT 12p FOR THE BIG RISE1,711.00
12/4/201613:55Time for change?-
08/4/201019:28TARA BUYS TRICORN@4.5p AS MARKET DUMPS.54.00
16/6/200908:55TRICORN 200611.00
15/10/200411:34TRICORN COLLINS STEWART SAYS STRONG BUY64.00

Add a New Thread

Tricorn (TCN) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
11:51:5013.994,000559.60O
11:38:2513.484,932664.88O
08:35:0513.495,000674.50O
08:34:1913.505,000675.00O
08:30:1213.066,000783.59O
View all Tricorn trades in real-time

Tricorn (TCN) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
06/12/2016
08:20
Tricorn Daily Update: Tricorn Group is listed in the Industrial Engineering sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker TCN. The last closing price for Tricorn was 12.50p.
Tricorn Group has a 4 week average price of 10.48p and a 12 week average price of 9.92p.
The 1 year high share price is 13.50p while the 1 year low share price is currently 7.13p.
There are currently 33,795,000 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 67,086 shares. The market capitalisation of Tricorn Group is £4,562,325.
20/11/2016
15:34
discodave4: Perhaps you should re-read your posts, and mine, as it's clear you do not understand the meaning of sarcasm, I am anything but confused by your posts!.You have posted more than once that this could not be taken over and that they do not care about the share price - which you have also mentioned a couple of months ago, that does not constitute a "flippant" remark and I also fail to see the irony.DD
19/11/2016
13:17
discodave4: meijiman - 10 Nov 2016 - 10:02 - 1694 of 1700 - 0"..... and they can't be taken over, they may not be bothered whether the share price is 2p or 20p."Slightly confused - 1) why can't they be taken over?, Roger Allsop is 73 and must be thinking about retiring and possibly offloading his shares. If someone took them off his hands they would have to formerly put an offer in for the Company.2) may not be bothered whether the share price is 2p or 20p?, The BoD have share options and LTIP's from 17.5p to 20p and beyond. Think they are sufficiently incentivised to not only keep taking their salaries but also to drive the share price up in order to exercise their options.DD
11/11/2016
11:00
meijiman: I agree with alter ego! In fact I was thinking about when the shares were once high flying (over 30p)-don't recall them using their paper to do deals. Obviously there are lots of reasons why a company would like the share price higher-but one of the factors which differentiates TCN is that it can't really be taken over.
11/11/2016
10:44
alter ego: I agree with meijiman - all he said was they are not bothered about a low share price as they don't use their stock for acquisitions. Nothing there that says they should IMO.
10/11/2016
10:02
meijiman: Aleman-If the company agreed with these numbers (which certainly seem sensible) wouldn't they tell their adviser to put out a note with them in it. What concerns me is that as they don't use their paper for acquisitions, and they can't be taken over, they may not be bothered whether the share price is 2p or 20p. That hardly represents an alignment of interests with shareholders. Still things may be finally looking up here.
10/6/2014
13:53
rivaldo: Not been a holder for a while (to declare my position). The results were in PBT terms slightly better than I expected, but I certainly won't be buying back in for a while. This is because: - gearing is now up to 50%, so is a little weighty, especially as - the outlook is completely unclear/opaque from today's results. The groundwork has been laid, and the opportunity is clear, but there's absolutely no sign given in the outlook as to whether trading is good, bad or indifferent, merely that they're well "positioned" and that progress is "expected". If anything, underlying demand appears weaker in both Energy and Transportation, whilst Aerospace has been suffering. I can't see the share price doing much on today's news except drifting/falling, so will hold fire until the company deigns to signal how it's actually been trading since the year end - which is already 2 1/2 months ago!
11/12/2013
18:10
apad: Expecting Value has it pat: Sunday, Dec 08 2013 by ExpectingValue 1 comment 2 I've held Tricorn (LON:TCN) in my portfolio since May of this year, and the shares spiked at a price about 70% above my buying price in late September. I had a look and decided to continue to hold then; a decision I might come to regret as the shares drifted down from that week-long peak, and dropped further upon the release of their results this week. They now sit at 28p. As ever, then, the question is how to interpret the drop and results; is it an attractive entry point forged by market misunderstanding, a worrying turn of events, or - and this should always be the default option - the market pricing in the news. Having spoken to Tricorn's management before, I got an email from their nominated adviser and broker asking if I wanted to have a brief chat once again (prior to the results, I should note), which sounded, as always, like a nice chance to get their take on events. I'll present this post as a sort of two-parter, then; I'll briefly talk about my gut, immediate reaction to the results, and then talk about what management said by way of explanation. The results There's not really any escaping the fact that the headline figures are pretty bad; net debt is up to £3.6m (when I first talked about them I pondered what they were going to do with a £3m cash pile!). Revenue is up 15%, and gross profits are up with that, but a far higher level of operating costs means that the company posted a £.281m operating loss and a £.324m loss before tax in the first half of the year. This is a non-trivial loss for a group with a market cap of sub £20m and net tangible assets of about £6.5m. It's also over £1m worse than last year's figures. That's first glance, then. What are potential mitigating factors? In essence, when looking at a company which has just posted figures below market expectations, the question you want to ask is the nature of the disappointment. Does it call into question the structure of the business, the way it operates, or its potential future cashflows - or is it just a temporary blip because of one-off factors? The latter is annoying but hopefully transient. The former should make you seriously rethink your valuation. Well, there's two obvious ones against last year's comparative figures. First is the enormous expansion the company has seen in that time period. The company has widened out its burgeoning operations in China, and they also completed a large acquisition - out of administration - of an American business in the same line of work. Expansion generally has a short-term drag on operating profits, as costs exceed revenues while the business is setting up; you have to get the structure in place before you can ramp up to a profitable level of production. The second drag, an expected one, is the loss of the contract which kicked the company's share price down to the level I bought at in the first place; the aerospace division lost £111k this year, against a profit of £121k last year. The company identifies £528k of non-underlying items for exemption. I don't really have the problem with the classification of any of these except for share based payment, which I'd rather add back in as I think it's simply another form of remuneration. This brings adjusted operating profit to about £.22m for the half against £.783m last year. It's not great, but it's not as bad as at first glance. What management say The tone I got from management - from the call and from the statement - was rather matter-of-fact, actually. In that I mean the concern about the operating loss (and outlook) - which was undeniably a good amount below market expectations - seems minimal. It is for investors to decipher whether management confidence in the execution of their strategy, regardless of what they likely to consider are temporary blips, is well-placed or not. They put the operating loss down predominantly to a poor performance in the UK. The contract loss was a drag that was expected, but perhaps not so expected was an energy & utilities segment which continues to run considerably below its historic level both in terms of revenue and in terms of management expectations. Economic uncertainty, they believed, meant their customers were producing significantly below 'normal' levels of engines/generators/assorted end products. Key here is your judgement on this; if management are right regarding the segment's potential figures in a more normal environment, given operating leverage, the contribution the segment makes to group profits is at a level many multiples higher than the current one. This has been the case in the past. If they're being overly optimistic, or the trend continues downwards, the UK looks a lot more precarious; given the aerospace contract loss and inferring figures on the transportation segment (their one other segment, which includes a huge chunk of US revenue), returns on capital have dropped significantly. Special Offer: Invest like Buffett, Slater and Greenblatt. Click here for details » The really interesting stuff is still regarding the US and China; manufacturing facilities which combined have more sq. feet than the entire UK operations and currently make a far smaller contribution to group revenue. The US operations bought out of administration are operating about break-even at a profit before tax level, they said, which strikes me as a pretty creditable performance given the disruption administration causes. Notably easier than building from scratch, but buying out of administration suggests at least some operational problems, and also suggests prior customer relationships will sustain some spillover damage. The China operations are losing money at the moment as they ramp up. Again, the specifics of manufacturing something like this are not an area of any competence of mine, so I struggle to pass informed judgement. Management weave a very good story from a strategic perspective, though; again they noted that the growing Chinese operations will grow as more and more of their end users migrate manufacturing over there; the vast majority of their product end destination is overseas, though intermediate stages are perhaps in the UK or Europe. There is a clear benefit in localising supply chains. Net debt, they said, was more or less at a peak level, since the bulk of investment was now behind us. I don't find £3.6m hugely concerning. A judgement The bull case, then, comes from lots of different angles. The UK operations can pull back to levels of historic profitability, most obviously. The US operations growing and meeting management's expectation of similar margins to the UK in 3 years would also do the trick, particularly if revenues grow significantly as they have potential to. Finally, the Chinese story is probably the most open ended. Management believe they have a sort of first mover advantage in their production in China vis-a-vis their competitors, which could prove advantageous if the trends they're banking on do turn out. In exchange for that potential, there's evidently more risk. When I first looked at the company, it was a UK based manufacturer with a small Chinese operation and £3m of net cash. It now has sizable operations on 3 continents and £3.6m of debt. There is clearly execution risk here given the speed of the change, and there is potential for funding to become a constraint if things either take a downturn or significant further investment is required for whatever reason. I think my first glance was overly harsh. I hate the phrase 'transformational' period, but I think it's reasonable here. My best judgement is that the balance of risks is still favourable at the current, sub GBP 10m market price.
28/11/2013
14:58
rivaldo: I sold a while ago only because I thought there might be a bit of a downturn prior to and perhaps after the 3rd December interims, given the slightly downbeat outlook on profit in the trading statement. For a while the share price seemed well supported. However, that appears to have ended now and I can now buy back well below my sale price. I haven't go any doubt that the share price will climb back at some point, but that point may not be for a little while yet. It's all about the timing....which can go right or wrong.
05/8/2013
15:09
rivaldo: Meanwhile...the share price is at new recent highs and gunning for the March'12 levels.
12/6/2013
11:09
apad: I researched the Quantas issue at the time and it was clear from the engineering reports that it wasn't a primary manufacturing problem. There were no engineering press comments about quality issues so I came to the conclusion that it was a pricing issue and that Avingtrans could have a poisoned chalice. From personal experience I know that Royces check minor supplier's prices relative to inflation in a proactive sort of a way. Obviously works for Royces - check their 10 year share price. apad
Tricorn share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
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:30 V: D:20161206 12:12:13