We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autoclenz | ACZ | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 32.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32.50 | 32.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/9/2012 09:05 by stemis Well, EBIT was marginally ahead of £600k (£618k) but net debt increased slightly to £500k (but includes £300k or so settlement of provided claims and the usual H1 build up of working capital). My expectation, assuming no fall in profit is that year end net cash should be ~£200k. That would give us an enterprise value of £3.0m which is about 1.7 x ebitda.I don't really want an increase in dividend because of my tax position. I'd rather they bought back shares (assuming there is any to buy!) or acquired cheap bolt on. |
Posted at 27/9/2012 07:48 by deswalker Happy with those results which are marginally better than in my model. They keep converting Intangibles into Tangibles at a rapid rate. The dividend ought to be doubled IMO. |
Posted at 16/5/2012 20:46 by stemis To be honest I'd rather they bought back shares than paid a dividend, although where they'd get the shares I don't know. The point about de-listing is reassuring but why did they raise the issue then?This is more a recovery/value stock than growth; if they just keep churning out the cash then eventually shareholders will see value. |
Posted at 16/5/2012 15:31 by deswalker Formalities took 7 mins, my questions took 30 mins and we were done in 37 mins. No other shareholders there. The Board and other management had a meeting to attend at 12.10pm so it all just about fitted in.Not much to report really ... - Business is going well and they intend to stick to their knitting. - They are very comfortable that the Measham case cannot and will not be repeated elsewhere but they are not complacent and are continually making sure that all employment law is adhered to. They have had strong reassurance from HMRC that they wouldn't be interested in revisiting them for a long time. The courst case has been a real pain but has also had benefits in showing that they can't be pushed around by anybody. - They have no intention of delisting and Mr Leek said he was totally against such shennanigans. Nobody on the Board or external shareholders is interested in adopting such a route and Mr Leek said he wouldn't stay as Chairman should anything like that start to be seriously considered. To quote him "it's not fair to shareholders". - I said the way to improve the share price was to a) have confidence that this is a substantial business, b) share buybacks and c) a much larger divi. I told Mr Leek that the latter was the surest way of getting the market's attention and he said it would be considered now that Measham case and the debt are nearly history. - The Board is well aware that this floated on an EV of £18m and currently sits at approx £3m and they are clearly at a loss as to why that is so. However one of their largest shareholders thinks that a PE of about three is "about right" to which I countered that he was talking rubbish and Mr Leek agreed. - I told him that this share is on a few more radars this year than last and that a few smart PI's were now appreciating the value. So in sum, I'm hoping to see a steadily improving performance combined with buybacks and increased dividends. A delisting is not on the agenda. Des |
Posted at 26/4/2012 10:10 by stemis That's quite a big sale of shares announced today by Octopus. 467,720 is 4.6% of the company. I wonder where they went. Anyone know the background to Octopus's involved with ACZ? |
Posted at 20/4/2012 10:45 by mudbath Thanks for your response DesWalker.I could not agree more with your final sentiment.I was in no way pushing PUR over ACZ,merely highlighting the James Leek connection.James Leek has had a long term interest in Pure Wafer. Until going into Members Voluntary Liquidation in September 2008,Leek was a director of Chameleon Trust which then had a 3%+ stake in PUR.This holding was transferred to S&W Revera Dynamic Fund, from whom Leek in all probability subsequently obtained his shares on the occasion of Revera's disposal.. |
Posted at 20/4/2012 10:36 by deswalker Like SteMiS I was also intrigued and ran a few numbers but rapidly came to the same conclusion. Not only is ACZ cheaper on an EBITDA / EV basis but I much prefer ACZ's large amortization charge over PUR's large depreciation charge. Admittedly their capex is small enough but I wonder how it can remain so low against such a large depreciation.I also don't like dollar accounting, am not sure about the sector which I gather is very volatile and subject to overcapacity and see that it has just turned profitable. I'm sure you would say that these issues show it is in a sweet-spot sector exhibiting strong growth which is fair enough. My take is that it could well be cyclical, volatile and subject to very limited visibility. Anyway, it's what makes the stock market so interesting. You (much) prefer PUR and I much prefer ACZ. Des |
Posted at 20/4/2012 09:30 by stemis I can't see any delcaration of interest by Leek in PUR. PUR meanwhile is demonstrating dynamic growth and should report, in its final results, EBITDA of almost or perhaps exceeding £4million against a current market cap of just £5.3million. Yes but also has net bank debt of £15.1m so EV/EBITDA of 5, compared to 2.3 for ACZ! |
Posted at 19/4/2012 21:51 by mudbath James Leek has recently declared a holding in PUR,a company in which I take significant interest.Much has been written here regarding the potential of ACZ to deliver significant shareholder returns,notwithstandPUR meanwhile is demonstrating dynamic growth and should report, in its final results, EBITDA of almost or perhaps exceeding £4million against a current market cap of just £5.3million. Well worth a look,imo, at what,mirroring ACZ,is a pretty quiet thread. Cheers,Mud. |
Posted at 23/3/2012 13:11 by deswalker Coincidentally the now delisted JCR have just issued their Finals for 2011. They show a pre-exceptional EBITDA of £682k, net-debt of £2.363m and 13.149m shares in issue. Now I know ACZ and JCR are in different sectors but I'd suggest there is at the very least a partial read-through. Suppose x is the JCR price in pence and y is its current EV / EBITDA ratio. We have ... 13,149,000 x / 100 + 2,363,000 = 682,000 y A JCR share price of 20p (ie that immediately prior to delisting) implies y = 7.32 cf ACZ's EV / EBITDA ratio of 1.75 !! Yet those shareholders who continue to hold JCR seem to think it is good value at the delisting level. Nobody can tell me that JCR is a better investment than ACZ right now. Not even close. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
