We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carillion Plc | CLLN | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 14.20 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14.20 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| CONSTRUCTION & MATERIALS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/10/2023 17:21 by marktime1231 I wasn't aware nor am I particularly bothered whether you were ever in or jumped ship, or were counselling from the sidelines, back then I was using another board. From memory there was a pretty even and heated contest on II between those pro while the share price was still in the £2's and those against. After the bubble burst from 10 July announcement onwards a number of posters joined in with the confidence of hindsight to say this had been seen coming, it was inevitable, how silly we had been to hold on etc. I'm not sure which group you fell in to, but I can imagine you rubbing salt in to people's wounds, no doubt to say everyone who was caught out was naive. Some people called it right, whether luck or judgement.I am happy to admit I made a big mistake, one of a number of bad investments over the years. CLLN was a deliberate dividend trap and I was suckered. All punters make bad judgements or get unlucky, just look at the naked trader for examples, maybe even you? I have done my best since then to learn some lessons, including at times digging deep past the rns headlines in to the detail of accounts. CLLN (Phil Oakley) taught us to look at the average debt being carried, in concert with movements in receivables and payables, rather than just the headline year end position. Even so, serious debt problems and project difficulties at CLLN weren't on the books, they were deliberately concealed at every level of the organisation so that even the (complacent) auditor's attention was not drawn to them. I held on because there was a chance that the known problems were balanced by the positive signals. Anyway, it has long flowed under the bridge and out to sea. On the topic of compensation, I note that KPMG settled a £1B+ suit from CLLN liquidators pwc was it last year even before FRC concluded their investigation. So creditors got some money back. A shame that the auditor doesn't admit any liability to shareholders. And we should be allowed to carry losses forward until we need them. |
Posted at 12/10/2023 14:04 by marktime1231 There is no protection fund in case a stock goes bust, so where do you get compensation. The company and former directors are broke. We could sue KPMG who do have some money, but even while they are found guilty of "exceptional failures" they are not fundamentally responsible for the mismanagement and lies so compensation would be trivial pennies in the pound. And who is going to stump up and pay for the years of legal wrangling, such as the specious argument that the auditor has no liability towards shareholders because its report is for the board.Reeves who chaired with gusto the committee enquiry in to the CLLN collapse and promised to make them pay, as she is now promising to make covid fraudsters etc pay, is not at all interested in compensation for the capitalist investors who gambled and lost. Where does the record FRC £21M fine of KPMG go? (HM Treasury). |
Posted at 15/1/2018 22:58 by mazarin pbutterworth1 - thanks for your frank disclosure above and I'm glad you decided to get without a complete loss. Looking at the increasing dividend record, I could see why you were drawn to CLLN. I've never been tempted to buy CLLN, but have taken losses when investing in other giant national companies that eventually 'went under', so know exactly what it feels like. Out of interest, I have just reviewed some of the comments posted earlier in July 17 and it doesn't make good reading. The month is full of greedy, grasping and gloating punters, shorting the backside off it. The real sad thing is that 1000's loyal workers are now in jeopardy of losing their jobs in industries that will be chastened and fearful as a result of CLLN's collapse. For us, its just a speculative loss, for them it could be 'life changing'. |
Posted at 15/1/2018 16:00 by sux_2bu Is jaf still collecting clln dividends? |
Posted at 13/1/2018 16:50 by cc2014 Thank you for your post Winston. Sorry to hear of your losses on CLLN.It's always good to hear from people who are close enough to what's going on to give us a real insight. I had always known that the issue for CLLN was going to be the subcontractor and supplier credit terms but it had not entered my head that this would lead directly to an increase in costs. All this in an industry with really tight margins. I suspect but do know for sure that this is what has led to the £300m short term liquidity problem, which the banks think is too low. I could hazard a guess but if this is going on at every site, it might take a £750m+ to inspire enough confidence in the supply chain to keep the work going. But I suspect even that is not enough now. I don't know what the liquidated and ascertained damages would be on a new hospital 6 months on Midland Met and Liverpool isn't handed over either. Maybe £50k a week? I know CLLN will try to mitigate the LAD's by blaming the client's design team but they will be wise to that. So, even if the government handed over £750m, CLLN are just going to be back with their cap in hand in a years time when the clients won't pay due to LAD's and CLLN can't get their retention money. Is it any coincidence that CLLN are asking the government to guarantee payments on on-going work on a timeframe. As they are worried they won't get paid by the client i.e. the government due to non performance on the contract. What a mess. Oh.. and then we get to who's going to provide insurance on their performance bonds and at what cost? An absolute mare. |
Posted at 12/1/2018 10:40 by cc2014 Yes, although those in the industry have known for 30 years it's been badly run, which is why most of the exposure is with the banks. Santander have rally screwed up with the reverse factoring (where suppliers get paid on time or early typically 30 days for a fee by Santander, and CLLN pay Santander on say 120 days).This is the only reason CLLN have lasted so long as the supply chain did not have to worry about the low credit quality of CLLN as they were getting paid by Santander. Effectively the supply chain give a discount to get paid early guaranteed by Santander. Of course the supply chain aren't stupid and simply raise their price to allow for Santander's fees all of which means CLLN's cost base is higher than their competitors. Which incidently may influence the government's decision to intervene if they understand that Santander will take the hit of £500m on this not the supply chain. Of course not everyone will be using the reverse factoring and I think although its only my view that this is why Santander are understood to be far more unsupportive of additional funding than the rest of the banks. |
Posted at 12/1/2018 09:21 by cc2014 A company where they need to keep the juggernaut rolling as they need cash from the next contract to pay for the current one, as in the construction industry you tend to get paid in 14 days but pay out in 30, 60 or 120 in CLLN's case.Cashflow is easy if you're expanding, if you contract you have a problem. Then came their expansion into service contracts where there are large up front costs which leach cash at the beginning and then become cash cows at the end. CLLN took on too many of these and tried to finance it from the construction cashflow. They knew they were in at a loss but needed the cash. If you go and look at the most recent analyst presentation on their website you will see charts of typical cash flow for construction and service contracts. Somewhere there is an admission they were funding the service contracts from construction contracts but I don't have a link handy. Finally there's CLLN's reputation problem. Example where they can't get paid for the middle east job where we don't even know if they can collect the £200m or owe even more. So, they have to compete on price, which is a problem in an industry on tiny margins, especially where your interest bill is far higher than your competitors. Got to go now. Need to focus on some construction companies where the share price going up. NMD yesterday up around 15%. CTO on the move over the last few weeks and buyers out again today. I know it's great to catch a falling knife and multi-bag but there are lower risk trades out there which can still multi-bag. Go look at CTO and read the last 500 posts and then make a decision. NMD too Opportunities in other sectors too |
Posted at 09/1/2018 18:47 by cc2014 I doubt the government will prop this up directly, which is why they are applying pressure to the banks.The banks are going to be in a very difficult place though. Since they provided them £140 short term which was to be repaid by the end of April, CLLN have not managed to sell assets as expected and have released what was effectively another profit warning saying margin improvement hadn't occurred as expected. We also now that CLLN are chasing their debtors as soon as they raise the invoices and offering a discount for early payment. That's going to affect the bottom line too. So... suspect outcome of tomorrow's meeting will be to meet again a week later. Bizarre as it seems CLLN still haven't breached their banking covenants... |
Posted at 21/12/2017 13:08 by jaf1948 wallywoo and CC2014,I think your statement 'they could buy some of the assets for a bargain fire sale' makes too many assumptions. Another company might want to buy CLLN now because: 1.CLLN might not actually go into administration. It might well, but it is not 100% certain 2. There is no certainty that the bidding company will actually get the bits they want in a fire sale, so it might be better to buy the whole thing. 3. CLLN could be nationalized, in which case there may not be a fire sale. Having lost many thousands this year on CLLN, there is no way I would come back in as the share price is still vulnerable to manipulation (legal, I might add) from the shorters who still hold over 60m, but that does not mean CLLN is doomed. |
Posted at 06/12/2017 10:49 by hpcg Quite reminiscent of Afren here excepting the larger number who can see the obvious made easier by the different business. CLLN is possibly trading whilst insolvent, the shares are worth nothing and there will be a D4E swap because that is the only hope for debt. Like Afren debt will be taking a big haircut. Unlike GLEN, where it mothballed zinc and copper mines causing the price of those metals to reverse CLLN has no such market power. Far from wanting to take over CLLN, competitors want it to close to have the GLEN effect for them. Debt will be desperate not to pump more money in, but CLLN has enormous working capital needs, so that has to happen. I think the refi will be structured as a new share issue, with participation rights attached to the nil value old shares, unsecured debt similarly eviscerated and forced to add new money.The tricky part is to get agreement from all classes, so it might have to be a pre-pack administration, which whilst less common in this country than the US have taken place since the 2002 enterprise act. I think CLLN would be by far the biggest? With any BK unsecured creditors, not least suppliers, get very little. Ultimately this is what will push them over the edge sooner rather than later; I'd be getting CCJs by the fistful if they owed me money. I reckon this ends 31 Jan 2018 at the very latest. Action this year would not surprise me at all. |
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
