Carillion Share Discussion Threads

[zcaprd7] 30/7/2017 01:47

It's not ruled out. They just changed the nominal valuation as part of it... Sigh...

[grahamite2] 29/7/2017 11:16

I didn't have to look far to check - the latest RNS refers to ORD 50p shares.

With a rights issue ruled out, does the company have any options at all?

[grahamite2] 29/7/2017 11:04

Note 22 of the accounts suggests the shares have a nominal value of 50p.

As shares cannot be issued at a discount, does this not make a rights issue a non-starter?

I have not seen this point made before and maybe I've got it all wrong. But if I'm right things are worse even than has been mentioned.

[rcturner2] 29/7/2017 08:32

You can say that again.

[fenners66] 28/7/2017 21:47

Some of these comments ...... total noobs.

[rcturner2] 28/7/2017 17:09

That is the UT trade, it is not a buy.

[kulvinder] 28/7/2017 16:59

A big buy after the bell of 680,000 shares...

[bigdazzler] 28/7/2017 16:13

Surely the master investor didn't miss it aka excel

[rcturner2] 28/7/2017 16:07

Before the big crash here there were several big warning signs:

Negative share price momentum over a long period of time
Very large short position
Dividend yield very high
Overly shrill and defensive postings from some holders

All pointed out and discussed on this thread but ignored by many.

[bigdazzler] 28/7/2017 16:01

excell127 Jul '17 - 19:59 - 7223 of 7225 1 0
Good to see RNS stating that Deutsche Bank have increased their holding now to 8%.


Nice one the master investor.

[tsmith2] 28/7/2017 09:29

board gone v quiet. stops most of the utter drivel. Good news

[fenners66] 27/7/2017 20:41

In my experience Deutsche themselves make some awful calls, like a sell with a 770 target price for AHT currently around 1650!

It of course may be just Deutsche clients but if they are following brokers advice....

[excell1] 27/7/2017 19:59

Good to see RNS stating that Deutsche Bank have increased their holding now to 8%.

[bakunin] 27/7/2017 09:46

I wonder how negotiations with HSBC's Chinese clients are going?

[nomdeplume] 27/7/2017 09:30

RCT2 : It's 97.5% profitable, only 2.5%would be unprofitable. Given 2xSD takes us zero profit.

[rcturner2] 27/7/2017 08:27

nom, that's my point, the SD is high and you have to take TWO SDs to get to 95% certainty.

[nomdeplume] 26/7/2017 21:09

RCT2 : That's just a fact of a normal distribution, any normal distribution. It's the actual values of mean and SD that allow one to estimate the probability of a random contract being profitable. For example, if the mean is 4 and the SD is 1, virtually all the contracts will be profitable. If the mean is 4 and the SD is 4, then about 16% of the contracts will lose money.

I'm not sure that this helps anyone to understand Carillion - shall we call it quits?

[fenners66] 26/7/2017 16:29

nom : you are doing it again - no one is saying you initiated a discussion , what you did the first time was trying to argue that :

- we had said -

they are deliberately trying to lose money "tenders with the intention of making a loss."


they don't they just cannot get it right.

As for new CFO !!!!

He is new to the post but has been with the company for a long time. He was appointed in January and signed off both the year end accounts and the AGM statement saying everything is ok.

He may even have had sign off on some of the loss making contracts for all we know.

[rcturner2] 26/7/2017 16:18

You need at least two standard deviations to cover 95% of the outcomes in a normal distribution. That shows how tough it is. A change in the CEO is hardly going to change all the staff responsible for contract pricing and execution.

[nomdeplume] 26/7/2017 15:52

RCT : I assume you accept that outcomes will not just depend on luck. The skill of the management has to be taken into account. For example, the quality of your Skoda car depended on whether you bought it before or after the VW takeover. A set of outcomes, such as in your example will have both a mean and a standard deviation. Good management will have a mean close to the target (4%) and a small SD. Poor management will not. As they say, "past performance is no indication of future profit." I've no idea whether the recent contracts will be profitable but I think there is reason to believe that the outcomes will be better now than under the previous regime.

[rcturner2] 26/7/2017 13:18

nom

Imagine 10 x 100m contracts where the profit on each contract is as follows:

4,6,-2,5,3,-7,8,5,8,10

The average profit here is 4m, 8 were profitable and 2 were not.

The question is, what price should you pitch at to guarantee a profit?

[rcturner2] 26/7/2017 13:11

The reason why there is a very good chance they will repeat the mistakes is to do with the structural nature of the business. You cannot pitch for £100 millions of contracts on 4% margin with the variance in the costs that exists. It is simple statistics.

[nomdeplume] 26/7/2017 12:49

fenners : I responded to a post, I didn't initiate a discussion. Carillion has a new CEO (interim) and a new FO. I see no reason why they should necessarily repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.

[fenners66] 26/7/2017 11:23

nom - why are u trying to turn this discussion into something its not?

No one is talking about "tenders with the intention of making a loss."

It is their inability to control costs , cost jobs properly , build to time and tender at the right price.
It is all about their basic failings - no intention they just are not good enough at what they do.