Ant Plc Share Discussion Threads

[chrisdgb] 23/8/2012 07:47

Disappointing to see the good revenue figure offset by poor licence sales......really is time to get this business takenover....cheap cash...

[cfb2] 22/8/2012 11:48

Proverbs 22-7

OK...to me that comes across as just weird on this thread. I looked it up on the online bible and don't see the relevance. Any chance of an explanation?

CFB

[wh1spa] 21/8/2012 19:55

blimey are you preaching the epistles to the apostles?

[hastings] 21/8/2012 18:46

Proverbs 22-7

[hastings] 15/8/2012 12:51

I take your point about cowley rd, but rents are much higher on the share price
Having said that, they are in a shared building, so maybe the best of both worlds.

[cfb2] 15/8/2012 00:17

Science park is more upmarket in the Cambridge area. Cowley road is a bit of a dump - a long road with some buildings running along it. My last company accountant had a managed office on Cowley road. It's the same reason that Google have opened offices along the london "silicon valley" roundabout - it's the place to be seen.

Interestingly, if you type "ANT Cowley road" into Google you end up looking at a PDF on ANT's live website which has their old address embedded in it. It's lots of small things like this that a dopey management team are guilty of. The first thing a proper company does when they change address is ensure ALL available documents contain the new address to avoid confusion!

CFB

[hastings] 14/8/2012 22:25

Clearly you are not alone in your conclusions. What I find interesting apart from the obvious, is why they moved onto the science park in the city, from cowley road?

[cfb2] 14/8/2012 20:04

varies: This is exactly why I'm interested in the ratio of development to licensing. For ANT to be profitable they want to spend less on the Generic R&D.

However...

There are "x" amount of technical staff employed at ANT and they will either be attributed to developing the overall software (Generic R&D) or porting software/assisting licencees. I would bet that those staff will be working on the Generic R&D if there is insufficient work for them in porting software. In other words, we would prefer them to be porting software as once that is done that generates a steady stream of money from license fees.

I get the impression that if there isn't work generated by porting software for new licensees and the staff weren't working on the generic R&D they'd be sitting twiddling their thumbs. ANT could reduce the technical staff to reduce costs but that puts them on the backfoot if they ever get lots of new licensees. Maybe they could use consultants to cover this scenario.

But all of the above is a side show. The crucial factor is the margins, which have been falling. If the margins were sufficient then ANT would be profitable.

If I started a software licensing company and said that I give money to every company that licenses the software you'd think I was mad. By having insufficient profit margins that is exactly what ANT are doing. It's all very well to do this initially to increase your share of the market but at some point you need to make a profit. I attribute this ongoing situation down to poor management of the company.

I think you'll understand now why I'm keen to see what ANT looks like in a month or so. One possibility is that it is just not possible ANT to operate a profitable company that only gets money from licensing (and porting the software to new hardware). If I were CEO of ANT I would consider other revenue streams that generated money from software that wasn't squeezed by the manufacturers. For example iPad/iPhone/Android software that talked to the ANT software running in the boxes that they could sell directly to the end customers.

Sorry, this is starting to come across as a bit of a rant now. I'm just frustrated at the amount of money being paid out to the management of the company that are just not up to the job.

CFB

[varies] 14/8/2012 18:05

cfb2
Thanks.
for what this effort is worth I have delved again into the latest annual report and mention a few items :
note 20 : operations under operating leases.
During 2011 ANT relocated to their present premises taking a ten year lease with a five year break clause. A minimum of £787,467 is payable in rent (presumably over these 5 years).

note 6 : research & development costs
Customer funded R&D of £550,102 is included in the Cost of Sales figure of £808,253 and Generic R&D of £2,060,521 is charged against profits.
Leaving aside the former, Generic R&D represents over 46% of sales which is a very high proportion indeed. The reason, I suppose, is that ANT is, after all these years, still in its development phase but if Generic R&D had come to "only" 40% of sales in 2011, ANT would have made a small profit
.
Service agreements : SW's is terminable on 12 months notice and PI's on 6. So I suppose they will be getting about £250,000 between them as golden good'byes. Their share options are of little value.

Last year the interim figures came out at the end of August. Let us hope the recent disturbances don't cause a delay.

[cfb2] 14/8/2012 14:57

varies: You're welcome, I hope it helps your investment decisions. I watch quite a few companies but don't post much on these BBs. If new management is brought in then perhaps this is the time to invest. There is nothing worse than having management in a company that just waft around waiting for their next pay cheque.

So, no lingering appeal, just the possibility of new management and a turnaround has piqued my interest.

CFB

[varies] 14/8/2012 14:39

cfb2
Many thanks for your useful post; I wish I had put ANTP to the same test 5 years ago myself.
There must be some lingering appeal for you, however, or you would not still be following the share !
I did write to the chairman on receiving the latest set of accounts to complain that large parts were printed in pale colours on a pale background and, therefore, very hard to read. Needless to say I got no reply.

[cfb2] 14/8/2012 14:36

When the company floated back in 2005 I posted my thoughts from the prospectus on a different thread. I think most of those points are still as valid today as they were back then:

[varies] 14/8/2012 12:47

Like most of us I am in two minds about ANTP, a share where I must have lost overall half my investment.
Out of curiosity I have just tested the market. I could buy 50,000 at 18.1p but could not sell even 25,000 without leaving leaving the shares on offer.
I deduce that we shall see a lower price soon and that any takeover bid is far from imminent

[hastings] 14/8/2012 11:42

Well,i totally agree with your comments and it should be interesting to see the numbers. I do hold, although only a small amount and would add once the picture becomes a little more clear. The truth here thus far is that Ant has been chasing a business that has been unfolding but unlike othersinthe field have failed to make a mark. There are certainly signs that the area is now experiencing growth and I think the major players are well aware of that and wish to capitalise on opportunities. Whether that is with a refreshed team at the top or being acquired by another player, time will tell.

[cfb2] 14/8/2012 11:27

hastings: I think the trick is to consider the possibilities in preparation for the results and act according to what is reported. The figures I'll be watching closely are:
Margin,
Ratio of Licences revenue to Professional Services,
Loss before tax and drilling into figures that varied from previous 6 months results.
Double check that they are still carrying the loss forward.
Obviously, read through the outlook.

I would expect clarification about what is going to happen September time with regards to the FD leaving and a CEO replacement. First indication of Kestrel's direction, for whom I believe Simon's departure resulted from, will come out in such a statement.

CFB

Disclosure: I currently hold no ANTP shares.

[hastings] 14/8/2012 10:40

So, no volume, no dumping from institutions and the people at Ant very tight lipped.What has Kestrel got up its sleeve, i wonder?

[chrisdgb] 09/8/2012 08:03

Good point about the tax losses....I think the Kesterl guys know Amino well from their Peel Hunt days....

[hastings] 09/8/2012 07:05

Given that kestrel have been buyers for a fairly short period and I suspect are movers in the what has been going on they will want a return. Still favour some new people coming in followed by a tie up. How about Amino, Kestrel and one or two others hold there, it uses Ant software, it is down the road from Ant and has plenty of cash, just a thought.

[cfb2] 09/8/2012 00:44

Wh1spa: Some quick calculations...

Cash in hand at end of year:£4.24m
Shares issued: 21,557,870
So, cash per share: 19.66p
Looking at historical cash in hand, and their attempt to stem the flow, suggest the interims will be around £3.9m
So, cash per share (Est): 18p

But...they are also carrying a tax loss of £11.7m forward, which can be offset against future tax on profits. So in theory you could reverse a company into ANT, grab the cash, dump the products and staff and use their loss against the new company's profits. Is that hostile enough for you? :)

As for taking on their existing software and contracts, without looking at the actual text in them, it's impossible to say whether they could be novated under hostile conditions. All the contracts I've negotiated that involve IP include clauses for takeovers. In terms of Cisco that might taint the value of ANT and the corollary is that I guess the premium on such an offer would be small.

CFB

[magpie99] 08/8/2012 20:57

And what of this Cisco talk?

[wh1spa] 08/8/2012 20:53

would this not be a perfect opportunity for a hostile T/O?
cfb2 hastings anyone?

[hastings] 08/8/2012 19:36

Agree with your summing up of the situation. I rather favour the latter of your thoughts, as I think the FD probably has another position to start.

[cfb2] 08/8/2012 19:08

I'd have thought she'll be there until they find a replacement CEO. I wouldn't expect to see ANT without both a CEO and FD.

...which suggests to me that there may well have been different views on the way forward or the like.

That implies that there is someone else in the company with sufficient authority to disagree with Simon and that has a view of where to take the company. Surely ANT should be employing that person as CEO? No, I think it's just a poor set of results to come and major investors kicking up a fuss.

As you quite rightly said, Simon has had plenty of time to implement any plan he might have had. When the company originally floated the money raised was supposed to be used to purchase other companies. What it has actually been used for is cash to pay wages as the company fails to ever make a profit, which is what I feared at IPO.

The replacement CEO has a tough job ahead of him/her. That means it will be expensive to get someone good that is prepared to damage their reputation if they can't turn the company around.

One other possibility is that they already have a replacement CEO in waiting and they are going to use the interims to give the new CEO a buffer by exaggerating the losses.

CFB