||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Real-Time news about Yorkshire Grp. (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|hosede: Don't know, but the share price seems to be subsiding again back towards the bottom at 4p. This company is a real frog! The chance of it turning into a prince looks more and more remote, but my holding is worth so little now it's scarcely worth selling!|
'pg' now looking at 'mta'.
however mngmt seem to be doing
the 'break up' & 'technology transfer'
without his help.just wish the potential
were reflected more fully in the share price !!|
Been watching Yorkshire Group for a while, but looks too risky to me right now. Could go bust if assets not sold off in a reasonable time frame.
Peter Gyllenhammer followers may be interested to hear that he has just bought a 6% stake in Indigovision (IND) which looks a much safer bet with 70p net cash v 41p share price. Results soon should give an indication of viability of business. DYOR.
|shawzie: bird of dawning
Thank you for your posting above. I have had a look at CEU and note the following from the Annual Report of the Company :-
Net Asset Value
The net asset value per share (NAV) at 31 December 2001 on a diluted basis was
45p per share. However, following the surrender by Choice Hotels International,
in March 2002, of all their ordinary and preferred shares, the NAV based on the
31 December 2002 balance sheet has increased to £1.36. The ordinary share price
of 33p as at 9 April 2003 represents a discount of 76 % to the Group net asset
value at 31 December 2002.
I intend to take profit on some Yorkshire and invest in CEU but think the ordinary shareholder nav is near 65p/share.
With regard to Springwood (SWO) :-
Based on our current trading, the market values of our properties are likely to
be below book value of £75 million. However we believe that the income streams
deriving from those properties are likely to be restored over the longer term as
market economics stabilise and as the development potential of a number of our
properties is realised such that their value in use is at or above their current
Depends on how much below book value. If the value in property is mainly the cost of fitting-out the premises, then value if sold for change of use could be much less than book value.
But thanks for bringing this one to my attention.|
|bird of dawning: Shawzie,
This item probably better belongs on the CEU thread.....CEU share price still at a discount of over 400% to NTA (advfn data). Two years ago before its rise from 19p to 44p (when the preferreds were suddenly cancelled at a stroke) it was selling at a 900% discount, albeit with negative working capital.....but who cares at that sort of discount! I've noted that currently Springwood (SWO) is selling at an 800% discount to nav.
YOR shareholder stake building looks more interesting right now.
|shawzie: ten times the current share price equals value of stock.|
|dennis russell: The Interims suggested that the business was under control, and a 2002 loss of £10M, mostly non-cash write-down, would leave nav almost TEN times the share price|
|addict: Certainly getting noticed,and those delayed trades,coupled with a rising share price suggest a strong rebound could be on the cards.DYOR.|
|master rsi: This company used to be a very well run company when the economy was going well, I invested on it several times, but for the last few years the company is gone from bad to worse.
I am not any longer a shareholder, but I would like to get in, but on reading the accounts I find out that the gearing is very high 71% at the last accounts end June 02, but looking at borrowing of £34.8 Mil. againts market cap of just over £ 5 Mil, one has to think twice before investing any money in YOR.
The good thing would be if the maket recovers strongly or manage to get rid of some assets that do not perform, in so bringing this borrowing down from this astronomical figure of £34.8 mil.
I wish you well for the future, because the share price is really at a very low price, and maybe the asset value can keep it as a bottom price 12.5p|
|rikreschem: See attached excellent bit of research
"Posted by tiredoldbroker on 29/April/2000 at 18:33:
Earlier today, I referred to YOR, where Per Gyllenhammar has just
upped his stake to 5.2% as very cheap. For anyone who's missed my
thoughts on this stock, here's the details.
Yorkshire Group PLC......................................18.4.00
price 48-53p; shs in issue: 52.3m; mkt cap £27.7m; final div 3.05p mkg
6.1p; yield 11.5%; eps forecast to 31.12.00 18.8p; p/e 2.8.........
At the start of 1999, YOR had a strong financial position, holding
over £30m net cash from the sale of non-core businesses.
Unfortunately, the trading outlook was bleak. Its UK factories only
made acid dyes for wool and nylon fibres and cationic dyes for acrylic
fibre, so it served just a fraction of the total world dyestuffs
market. It was exposed to a declining UK clothing industry, the strong
£ and cheap Far Eastern imports. It was involved in the 'commodity'
end of the market, making its own presscake (a basic form of dye),
where it could not compete on price with Chinese manufacturers. The
only reason for buying the shares was the very high dividend, paid
from cash on deposit not trading profit, and the hope that the cash
would be handed back to shareholders.
A series of strategic moves during the year fundamentally changed the
nature of, and outlook for, the company. In January 1999, YOR
announced the purchase of Viochrom SA, an Athens based manufacturer of
speciality disperse and cationic dyes for the automotive industry, for
£12.8m cash. This was a step towards positioning YOR as a broadly
based speciality dyes and chemicals business, with a geographically
diversified manufacturing base. It also provided a qualitative
improvement in its technical resources.
Then in March 1999, YOR agreed with the major Japanese chemicals
company Nippon Kayaku that it would take over marketing NK's textile
dyes in selected markets, to develop sales to new customers. They also
entered into discussions on further collaboration regarding the joint
development of their global textile dyes businesses.
At the same time, YOR announced that it was accelerating the
restructuring of its UK operations. It would cut production of low
cost pre-finished commodity products, sourcing them instead from the
Far East, with YOR concentrating on added-value dyestuffs.
There will be an exceptional gain here, not reflected in the 1999
accounts, with Crosby Homes (a Berkeley Group subsidiary) paying £6.1m
cash in return for YOR relocating plant to permit a major leisure
development on land adjacent to the Hunslet Road site. All production
on that site will now be from a single, specialised, highly efficient
Finally, at the end of 1999, came the major news, which promoted YOR
from an insignificant regional player to immediate status as the
fourth largest supplier to the world textile dyes market. The £54.1m
acquisition of businesses from CK Witco gave YOR the market size and
spread which it needed to establish itself as a serious competitor,
with a broad product range and a decent market share. The businesses
acquired were in textile dyes, serving worldwide markets including
clothing, carpeting, swimwear, hosiery and home and automotive
furnishings, and European industrial dyes, serving markets outside the
Americas, including leather, paper, wood stains, reprographics and
other speciality applications.
YOR will now be able to offer a more complete range of dye products,
adding acid, reactive and direct dyes to its disperse and cationic
dyes. It will also benefit from strong market positions, including
being the second largest supplier of acid dyes in the world, to add to
disperse dyes where YOR was already one of two leading worldwide
suppliers for acetate and one of the major worldwide suppliers for
CKW has entered into a 5 year agreement not to compete with YOR and
has retained 4 of the 7 plants supplying the dyes businesses, signing
a supply agreement consistent with YOR's policy of outsourcing
commodity products. The company believes its competitive edge is
reinforced by having a lower dependence on own-manufactured product
than any of the other major European dyestuff suppliers.
YOR was able to acquire these businesses because CKW was itself formed
by the merger of two American chemicals companies in 1999, and in the
wake of that deal they were looking to sell off operations which they
viewed as non-core. YOR has taken over 3 manufacturing facilities, in
Lowell (USA), Oissel (France) and Tertre (Belgium), the hq in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and R&D facilities in Gibraltar,
Pennsylvania, along with the European admin & IT centre in Brussels,
the US warehousing & blending facility on a 16 acre freehold site at
Greenville in South Carolina, and sales offices and warehouses in a
number of locations worldwide. Senior management will continue with
the enlarged group. The total purchase price of US$86.5m (£54.1m) was
met by US$78m (£48.8m) cash and the issue of 6,481,060 shares (12.4%)
at the then market price of 81.15p, and the businesses had a net asset
value of £62.5m.
The global dyestuffs industry has been consolidating, with YOR's move
coinciding with the merger of DyStar with the textile dyes business of
BASF. Production of basic products seems likely to continue to move to
low wage economies, but overall the worldwide balance of supply and
demand is improving. The enlarged YOR group will be well placed to
profit from the improved conditions within the industry and to exploit
opportunities anticipated from further industry rationalisation. For
example, BASF-DyStar is likely to be required to divest assets before
merger approvals can be granted. YOR now has to be ranked alongside
the dye businesses of Clariant, CIBA and BASF-DyStar, with these four
controlling more than half of the world trade in dyes.
Assuming that YOR can complete most of its integration by 31.12.00, it
will have turned itself from a regional manufacturer of polyester dyes
into one of the 4 global players in the industry within 12 months. It
has also changed from a commodity producer into a manufacturer of
speciality dyes and chemicals. Thus, the quality of earnings has been
improved. The acquisition is expected to produce cost savings of £5m
per annum within two years, whilst also enhancing earnings. It also
positions YOR to benefit from further rationalisation within the
The CKW purchase moved YOR from net cash of £27m to net debt of £19.6m
(gearing 30%) at the year end. This is a very manageable level of
gearing. Interest cover is good, and the balance sheet would support
The share price is currently at a discount of over 57% to shareholders
funds of £65.2m, as reduced by special provisions, and the market
capitalisation of the company is around 16% of annualised sales. These
two factors would indicate that the share price is currently too low.
Both the net debt and shareholders funds figures quoted here ignore
the £6.1m due on the Hunslet Road site.
The deciding issue is how much YOR can earn from its enlarged
business. In the year to 31.12.99, the small trading surplus was
swamped by a £25m provision for rationalisation and integration costs,
but at least with those expenses already covered, the current year
began with a clean slate. The company says that in cash terms, pay
back on the £25m is less than 3 years. On 12.4.00 the Chairman said
that the group had made its best start for several years and that the
combined businesses were an excellent fit. He added that cost savings
would be extracted as quickly as possible, and that demand was showing
distinct signs of improvement over 1999, helped by YOR's reduced
dependence on clothing manufacturers. The broader international spread
of manufacturing facilities should also insulate the company to some
degree against currency fluctuations.
In the year to 31.12.98, the CKW businesses made an operating profit
of £13.3m; In the six months to 30.6.99, the figure was £4.2m. Assume
that the annualised 2000 profit figure will be twice that half year
figure, i.e. £8.4m. Also assume that the original YOR business and
Viochrom contribute nothing. Knock off interest at 8% on the £19.6m
debt and apply a 30% tax charge. You're still left with £4.78m after
tax, putting the shares on a p/e of 5.8
Then start looking more closely. The CKW businesses could do a lot
better than £8.4m. With the accounts for 1999, the Chairman said, "we
are delighted at the quality and strength in depth of the organisation
we have acquired". YOR has entered into a supply agreement with CKW,
which it says will result in substantial annual savings. Worldwide
overcapacity has been reduced. Some of the anticipated £5m cost
savings will come through in months, rather than two years. The
original business and Viochrom should contribute to year 2000
earnings. Suddenly, the p/e looks likely to come out at rather less
In December 1999, the Investors Chronicle reported that Credit
Lyonnais Securities were recommending that the shares be bought at
77.5p, following the CKW acquisition. At that time, CLS forecast EPS
of 18.8p in 2001. Since then, there has been little or no City
coverage of the company - it's as if analysts, along with the market,
really don't know what to make of it. But on that forecast of
earnings, the p/e is as low as 2.8. Even if the CLS forecast is overly
optimistic, it is hard to see much further downside in the shares.
That is partly because the share price performance over the last few
months has been dreadful. From 100.5p before the CKW deal, to 81p when
the shares were issued for the acquisition, to 53p offered today. It
looks as though all the speculators who bought hoping that the company
would return cash to shareholders have been disappointed sellers, not
waiting to see what the merger delivers. Likewise, shareholders
chasing oversized dividends have sold as the company has reduced
payments to a level sustainable out of trading profit. With the fall
in the share price, even on a dividend reduced from 9.6p to 6.1p, the
yield is 11.5%. The xd date for the final dividend of 3.05p will be 15
May, payable on 2nd June, so a purchase now will even produce some
I would also point out that the 'enterprise value' of YOR (market
capitalisation plus net debt) is currently £47.3m. Yet the CKW
businesses were valued at £54.1m in December, Viochrom was acquired
for £12.8m and the Hunslet Road site brings in a further £6.1m. Even
if the original dyes business is deemed valueless, the discount to net
worth on this basis is over 35%, far more if YOR's Leeds operations
are given some value.
Therefore, whatever basis of valuation one adopts, the shares appear
cheap. Cheap compared to shareholders funds, cheap compared to sales.
Cheap on a conservative view of earnings, very cheap on an optimistic
view. Cheap compared to last year's high, cheap as an income stock,
cheap compared to break-up value. The only conclusion I can draw is
that the shares are underpriced - but by how much we will only know
when the next set of figures are published in October, or the City
starts to write about the company again. Unless, of course, in the
mean time, one of the three bigger companies in the sector decides to
take out the competition through an offer well above the market
Yorkshire Grp. share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange