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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cavendish Financial Plc | CAV | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.60 | 5.94% | 10.70 | 16:35:03 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.10 | 10.00 | 10.10 | 10.70 | 10.10 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| TRAVEL & LEISURE |
| Announcement Date | Type | Currency | Dividend Amount | Ex Date | Record Date | Payment Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/11/2024 | Interim | GBP | 0.003 | 21/11/2024 | 22/11/2024 | 11/12/2024 |
| 15/07/2024 | Final | GBP | 0.0025 | 19/09/2024 | 20/09/2024 | 15/10/2024 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/11/2024 10:52 by disc0dave46 Tatton Asset Management (TAM) put CAV to shame!Their H1 share based payments only £843k, a mere 10% of their profit!. CAV 89%, says it all really IMO. |
Posted at 12/11/2024 14:05 by disc0dave46 fennersYes agree re NI. I used the median salary costing £900 per employee (as per the IFS), but they will be above the median as your analysis points out.Every business will be hit by the NI increase, some here believe CAV won't be!, unbelievable. |
Posted at 11/11/2024 17:14 by disc0dave46 CostiAgree.Their non employee savings were wiped out by staff costs which isn't going to reduce going forwards. Not with higher NI costs (estimates are that this will cost an extra £900 per employee on median average earnings), say £180k minimum for CAV, which will obliterate their reportable pbt when it kicks in in April 2025. |
Posted at 11/11/2024 12:31 by fenners66 kenmitch - "possibly coming their way soon" - agreed there are times of boom and bust in capital marketsbut then you would have to be looking outside of the company and seeing whether there is going to be a period of growth say in the economy which would lead to more companies getting a fund raising away. However they are saying its not this year, so far it isn't and if they really thought the future was that bright given all the rest of the window dressing ,I'm sure they would have said so. The revenue grew massively last year and they lost a packet. Its declined from the second half last year and they have broken even. The directors have lots of shares and there is cash to pay themselves amongst others a dividend , the staff get well renumerated. It looks so far as if the city spivs will do well out of the merger , but anyone else? |
Posted at 11/11/2024 11:46 by disc0dave46 QPCompletely false, Graham Neary has not reported anything of the sort. He's reported positively on CAV but also flagged some bear points.The quote you posted up here is from a comment by a subscriber NOT Graham.Looks like you could do a marvellous PR job for CAV!.From now on I don't believe a word you post.Folks DYOR |
Posted at 11/11/2024 10:45 by fenners66 "Cavendish has started the second half well, with the H2'25 revenue run rate continuing in-line with H1'25 "Which means that at that rate H2 will be 20.2% down on H2 24 H1 being 20.2% down on H2 24 already They have cut their admin costs - but only enough to make just over break even As for ignoring - "share-based payments, non-recurring items (of which there were zero in the period), share of associate profits and fair value gains on long term investments." That's disingenuous - if you don't want share based payments in the numbers - DONT make them. Incidently the cost is £1.579m which is 111% more than the same time last year - no wonder they want the market to ignore it. Saying they are ignoring "share of associates profits " how could they do that ? The figures show "Share of joint venture and associate LOSSES (135)" Employee cost has fallen H2/24 to H1/25 (it needed to ) but is still average £100k each. But although non-employee costs have fallen compared to H2/24 their percentage of revenue has actually increased from 26.7 % to 27.9% Making 1p EPS and paying 3p dividend is unsustainable - but they bought a load of cash for shares in the merger so have the cash to do so. As for producing a cash number as of 7th November that comes with no comparison for the same date and who knows how the timing of invoice and monthly payment cash flows vary from week to week.... |
Posted at 07/10/2024 09:11 by fenners66 Just checked to see when the dividend is payable - to see whether that has already come out of the cash at 30-9-24.It has not. Payable 15-10-24 will amount to about £964k, so that cannot be a reason for the cash fall in the last 6 months. |
Posted at 10/9/2024 12:52 by fenners66 So disc0I have done a little more reading and analysis. When they published the full finals they did not include the second half so have calculated it. Read (some of ) the 2023 and 2024 reports There are shall we say inconsistencies, maybe more so with the 2023 numbers produced by the ex CFO , who moved to (my guess) the non-post of COO and then left - as the previous COO left last year. Maybe the new CFO is going to be more aggressive on costs - but still has a long way to go. For instance from the 2023 - "In FY23, we paid an employee compensation ratio in excess of previous years to reward key contributors, particularly in M&A where divisional performance was good. We also want to retain employees so we can capitalise on revenue opportunities in the future. " (69%) But 2024 was 76.3% ! Note that INCLUDES share based payments which they choose to exclude from their metric - oh and guess what in 2024 the element of share based payments rose 202% - no wonder they want to exlcude it. So if 69%was really high - it was actually 72.7% how is 76.3% reflective of restructuring ? To be fair the employee cost as a % of revenue was 88.7% in the first half and 71.6% in the second ... The other problem around headcount is its quoted as "average" both at the half year and finals. It raises by 20 in the finals number so actually that looks like an increase of 40 in the second half. That means average cost only rose from £75k to £126k each not the £207k as the average of the whole year but the cost is massive. So getting to the point re cost savings : They mention an "annualised" £7m of savings - that has suggested £3.5m to come , however by that definition the £3.5m is already in the second half. So really its what would 2x second half actually look like ? Here we can calculate 71.6% of revenue as labour cost and (before non -recurring ) other admin is 26.7% add in operating costs of 0.6% and you get 98.9% of reevenue - before finance costs/income and losses from associates By my reckoning they burned through £3m of the cash they "acquired" in the second half so I would expect interest received to fall Then they plan to pay a dividend so I reckon they will be standing still at a "small profit" around £350k in the first half Should the directors and admin staff get a pay rise that may disappear So in order to actually make a profit its going to have to be from a revenue increase. Revenue in the second half was 160% higher than the first half and staff cost was still 71.6% of that so maybe 30% of any increase in turnover to pass through. This does look better than my first look , the second half being so much better than the first half but the question now becomes can they beat the £34.7m of second half revenue in both halves this year etc... ? In summary I think they have a very expensive organisation that has had lots of acquired cash to pay off the directors , they have staggered this and added cost and now look to pay a small dividend that was not supported by the earnings. They could be surmising that thinks are going to get better and reveunue will improve or they could be spending the cash whilst they have it. So its back to the economic backdrop - next budget , market moves etc. Place your bets. |
Posted at 06/9/2024 12:14 by fenners66 disco - so I have had a brief look at the Published accounts - started about 10 mins ago.Thoughts Staff costs stated as being 73% of turnover up from 69% However looking at the employee numbers there was no change in the corporate broking and finance or admin The additions came from sales and trading +18 and research +4 So arguably those that are needed to increase turnover and not the fixed overhead (other than the massive increase in directors pay , which some may describe as overhead...) Employee costs rose 58% ! Will the directors rein back - unlikely their cost rose 135% ! Which means that in order to get millions more in turnover its likely that the 73% cost of revenue is going to hold for a marginal cost. They increased revenue in the last year by 32% and the loss trading loss doubled +103% They mention staff retention as a reason for paying so high .... so they are going to continue? Assuming that further turnover gained is going to be profitable and adds no more overhead ...(really?) then in order to turn that loss to a profit at 27% they will need to increase turnover by another 32% Add in some cost savings and it can turn around - but they have had 2 years of non-recurring or reorganisation costs and the admin headcount has not changed this year. Markets at an all time high so trading should have been good - bring a company to market when times are good and all that. So what if there is a turndown and higher taxes from the new govt ? Is that a market for 32%+ growth ? IF they deliver all of that then the share could rise. But I would doubt they will make much profit next year. The directors stand to gain a lot of shares from their options and bonuses Cavendish Sec Employee Benefit Trust owns 7.2% and is the largest shareholder... - looks very generous so a dividend to them in future would be welcome. Note also the FD made reference to cash balances - "Our cash balances have increased 120% during the year, despite the cost of the merger and given the firm’s positive financial trajectory the Board is recommending a dividend of 0.25 pence for FY24" Yeah because you bought it ! So they have some cash to pay dividends ....unless or until it runs out. In summary - not convinced. |
Posted at 16/7/2024 14:45 by fenners66 Value?Not really , it depends. So they say they are expecting better and may have signalled that with the small dividend. However if Cenkos is anything to go by - I have not looked up Cavendish and as yet these full accounts have not been produced - the Directors may well own a chunk of the shares. So if that is the case getting their hands on some more by way of dividend is in their interest too. They do have cash. Because they bought it with Cenkos and issued some shares too. But can they actually pay a sustainable dividend through earnings , when the staff cost is so high? Moreover it's a very cyclical business. Markets are riding high at the moment but earnings aren't there. If a US recession happens expect a knock on effect here and markets to fall , then who would bring a new listing to market ? On the other hand if they really do take a proper axe to costs and have some serious synergies - they may get to some earnings. I want to see how much of a raise the directors got to see if any further profit is going to just fund them instead. So roll on the full accounts publication. |
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
