Charles Taylor Share Discussion Threads

[blingbling123] 22/1/2010 10:04

".... earnings per share are likely to be marginally
lower than management's expectations."


Divi cut loomimg perhaps?

[badtime] 22/12/2009 09:49

Nice bit of buying early on

[badtime] 21/12/2009 19:37

nibbled on a few last week

[gopher] 14/12/2009 20:33

These have been weak over the last few weeks for no apparent reason. Down to 193 today but they appear in most value selections based on divis & earnings.

[1nf3rn0] 09/9/2009 18:32

Nice rise towards the end of the day. Could be a further breakout.

[warala] 28/8/2009 08:47

Good steady company.Good dividend and excellent potential.

[1nf3rn0] 28/8/2009 08:15

Profits up. Divi up. Good news. Esp for people in under 200p!

[1nf3rn0] 20/8/2009 14:55

Cheers Jamsie!

[jamesiebabie] 19/8/2009 20:30

1nf3rn0 as requested:-

A few thoughts. Red line resistance, green line support, blue lines are tend lines.

Weekly log chart:


Daily long term log chart:




Hourly chart:

[1nf3rn0] 25/7/2009 11:24

Three announcments of institutional buying yesterday and Altium Securities issued a price target of 330p. Potential for a big move upwards between now and the interim results at the end of August.

[simon gordon] 07/7/2009 13:11

Interesting comparision between CTR & HFG:

CTR
EV/EBITDA
2009 - 6.3x
2010 - 5.5x
2011 - 4.8x

HFG
EV/EBITDA
2009 - 4.4x
2010 - 4.0x
2011 - 3.5x

CTR
Yield
2009 - 7.9%
2010 - 8.3%

HFG
Yield
2009 - 5.7%
2010 - 6.2%

CTR looks cheap but when you add in the debt it ain't such a bargain. CTR also has a pension deficit c.25m.

I think for yield hunters HFG is the better play. I wouldn't be surprised to see the CTR dividend cut or frozen in 2010 if Adjusting experiences a cyclical slowdown. With Public Sector Mutuals in the deep freeze, Run Offs are the best hope for earnings in 2010. Whereas HFG have growth and the balance sheet to pay a progressive and more secure dividend.

[simon gordon] 01/7/2009 09:30

From the Trading Update:

"This ruling is not expected to affect the short-term performance of the Management division, although the Company is reviewing the future growth prospects for public sector mutuals."

"The performance of the Company's owned insurance run-off companies is
broadly in line with expectations."

--

The above two areas were/are the quickest ways to get earnings catalysts. Public Sector mutuals looks to be going into the deep freeze. Run-offs sounds tepid with no news of new deals. It looks like CTR will squeak EPS in for 2009.

I am out of CTR now, if I want a chunky yield its just as easy to buy bank paper. JTL & BEZ look far better plays on the insurance sector for the rest of 2009.

I sense CTR is turning into a Zombie company, it will probably go sideways, one profit warning could see it break 13 years of support.

[cockneyrebel] 01/7/2009 07:45

Nice statement.

RBS recently put a buy on these with a 250p target:


Royal Bank of Scotland starts Charles Taylor Consulting (CTR.LN) at buy with a 250p target. Says the trading outlook appears to be improving after a challenging FY '08. Thinks the Axiom acquisition may provide a useful new income stream. Also suggests the market is ignoring the company's attractive trading margins, the year-on-year dividend growth, and the way a combination of acquisitions and organic growth is moving the business forward. Shares flat at 181p. (ANT)

[cockneyrebel] 29/6/2009 18:40

Chart has formed a nice pennant tho.

These had a trading statement on July1 last year.

I notice directors were buying well back in May.

PE6, 8% yield - that's cheap isn't it?

ISA-able too.

Shot up to 250p in Jan.

CR

[simon gordon] 18/6/2009 12:28

BT / Hermes held 5.7m shares, 30th March 2009.

Now down to 3.9m.

No wonder the share price is going sideways.

[simon gordon] 12/6/2009 12:22

The LAML judgement was a negative, if the law is to be changed it will require an act of parliament:

Outlaw - 10/6/09



'Local authorities have been barred from joining together to form an insurance company. The Court of Appeal has blocked London authorities from forming the mutual firm, ruling that councils acted beyond their powers and broke procurement rules.

Yesterday's ruling comes despite the fact that stated Government policy is for authorities to join together to share the provision of services. The case was taken by Risk Management Partners (RMP) against one of the authorities, Brent.

Ten London local authorities joined together to form London Authorities Mutual Ltd (LAML) to provide insurance in relation to property, terrorism and liability risks. It began operating in 2007.'

=====

This will not alter forward eps forecasts but puts off by a number of years the progression of this business line.

[simon gordon] 03/6/2009 17:49

Bit of background on LAML from the Insurance Times - 11/9/08:

Town hall troubles

By Chris Wheal

The court battles arising from the new London council mutual insurer won't be settled until next year, but the roots of the struggle go back many years, as Chris Wheal reports.

Insurers will have to wait until March to find out the result of an appeal by the London Borough of Brent over whether it acted unlawfully in awarding its insurance services direct to London Authorities Mutual Ltd (LAML).

The second judgment in the landmark test case brought by Risk Management Partners (RMP) was decided in May. The High Court found that Brent had wrongly ignored EU rules on public procurement procedures by giving its insurance services to LAML – a mutual insurer for London borough councils – outside of the tender framework.

The EU framework is intended to ensure that all European businesses have a chance to win clients.

The second judgment followed an earlier ruling in the case that found that no local authority can join such a mutual if it does so to save money on its insurance.

Brent's decision to take part in the mutual was also deemed to have been ultra vires, or beyond its powers, because councils in the mutual have to pay out for the losses incurred by another council. This puts their own council tax payers' money at risk. This has already happened after a school fire in Harrow for which the mutual had to pay out £4m.

Brent had relied on a 'get-out clause' named after an Italian court case called Teckal, which effectively allows a public body to avoid competition in awarding a contract if it retains control over the running of the contract. The judge decided in Brent's case that Teckal could not be used.

Both cases were brought by RMP, a managing agency using AIG to provide cover to the UK public sector for the past 14 years.

Managing director Kaz Janowicz says: "I don't have a problem with a mutual. We face competition every day. The ultra vires decision is all very interesting but that was not what we set out to achieve. All I ask for is a level playing field and the Teckal decision will allow that. It is ironic that one of LAML's main arguments was that it wanted to increase competition to bring the price of insurance down. How do you increase competition when you simply hand over contracts without giving anyone else a chance to come in cheaper?"

Andrew Jepp, head of local government at Zurich Municipal, points to other flaws in the LAML model. "The basic principle of insurance is to spread the risk. Instead of that, what you have in London is an accumulation of risk. Floods and terrorism could affect many or even all the insured at once," he says.

But he also questions whether the savings LAML claims councils get from joining it are as good as councils could get from the current soft market. "LAML claims that councils are saving 15% on renewal prices, but given that most of these contracts were three years old, other authorities are getting much greater savings. We are the main insurer but there is a significant market with many insurers either offering a package or writing a specific risk."

Jepp, whose company faces the biggest challenge as it insures most London boroughs, echoes the view that councils should openly tender for insurance.

"Individual authorities should be required to tender on the market like everybody else. If the mutual comes out best then that's fine," he says.

LAML is managed by Martin Fone, chief executive of the non-marine mutual department within consultant Charles Taylor. He insists the Brent case does not affect the other councils as they relied on a different act of Parliament to take part. The judgment stops local authorities – which include councils, police and fire authorities – from using section 111 of the 1972 Local Government Act.

The other councils relied on 'well-being' powers contained within section 2 of the 2000 Local Government Act. A similar fire authorities' mutual shut up shop as a result of the ruling because fire authorities do not have the well being powers within the 2000 act.

And despite LAML's published literature claiming 15% savings, Fone only claims 10%.

"Councils have saved 10% but we included wider cover, such as gradual pollution cover for properties where, before, councils could only get sudden and accidental cover," he says.

And he is adamant that the mutual will not allow all London councils to join. "A key to the success of the mutual is good-quality members. All the members are at risk from the poor performance of one member, so they must be prudent about whom they let in," he says.

Zurich will help more councils. "We will insure any local authority regardless of the risk – obviously the price will reflect that but we don't cherry pick," says Jepp.

It can be argued that town halls don't like insurers. Council managers see insurers as aggressive, avaricious and anti-competitive. They depict the whole insurance industry as one of the worst excesses of the capitalist system, preying on the culture of victimhood and behaving unethically. If they had a choice, many councils would have nothing to do with commercial insurers and go back to the heady days of council mutuals – which is what many are trying to do, with all eyes on the success of LAML.

Insurers and brokers have to accept at least part of the blame for such beliefs, and misunderstandings.

When the council mutual Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI) crashed in 1993 and ceased writing new business, Zurich stepped in to take over councils' policies, providing improved risk management advice and selling direct – not through brokers.

But, with MMI's problems proving its premiums had been too low, the new Zurich Municipal hiked the price. It was just about the only insurer prepared to do business with every council in the country and snapped up the bulk of them on expensive – and lucrative for Zurich – five-year deals paying no commission to middlemen.

As those deals came to the end and council reorganisation took place, many councils called in brokers to help inject competition and give them the expertise needed to attract new insurers. This was hard because, although Zurich shared claims data through the ABI on most lines of business, because it was the almost exclusive insurer of councils, it kept its claims data secret, giving rivals little evidence to use to underwrite accurately. But seeing the profits Zurich was making was enough to interest a few.

However, brokers shot themselves in the foot with a double-barrelled shotgun. The first shot was because brokers did not explain clearly how they worked. Councils thought that brokers trawled the market for each of them and came up with exclusive best deals on an individual basis. Actually brokers were putting together packages and getting discounts by promising underwriters several council customers for their line of business.

When councils talked to each other and found that those that shared the same broker had their insurance placed with the same panels of insurers, they felt they had been misled and believed the broker had not truly searched the market but had done cosy deals with favoured insurers.

They then felt aggrieved when the Association of Insurance and Risk Management, and its local government sister body, the Association of Local Authority Risk Management, started talking about "double-dealing". This was the practice of insurers paying brokers a top-up commission for the total volume of business done in a full year on top of the individual commission for each policy sold.

Councils had agreed to pay brokers a fee, with any commission being paid back to the council. To then discover that the broker was receiving another, undeclared commission from insurers – quite possibly because the total business from the several councils sold the same policies pushed that broker's total over the commission threshold – was a kick in the teeth. To councils it presented a conflict of interest.

Insurers and brokers appeared to be deceitful and dishonest and the whole industry corrupt. Even if councils had secured huge discounts and benefited from wider covers, they felt they had achieved them through underhanded means. The insurance industry had failed to recognise that, to councils, the probity of the procurement procedure is just as important as the price paid.

The arrival of LAML has changed the market and caused prices to tumble. But insurers argue they would have fallen in a soft market anyway. The court cases have put everything on hold for now, but other mutuals may follow. The market has usually undercut new council mutuals before they start.

The question is less about whether or not the London mutual will survive, but what the industry can do to build bridges with the local authority market. The past is littered with errors. The future does not have to be.

---

How LAML works

LAML was established on 1 April 2007 with 10 London boroughs as members. It received FSA approval eight months ago. The first two authorities to buy insurance were Brent (now ceased due to court action by RMP) and Harrow (which has had a 4m pounds pay-out), which moved from Zurich. Six further councils have switched insurance to LAML, most from Zurich, some from RMP.

LAML is open to all 32 London boroughs, plus the City of London Corporation and the Greater London Authority (the Mayor and Assembly). It was initiated by the Society of London Treasurers and had funding from the London Centre of Excellence.

The 10 boroughs initially involved are Brent, Camden, Croydon, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Islington, Lambeth, Kingston, and Tower Hamlets.
LAML provides cover for property, terrorism and a suite of liabilities. It does not cover motor, personal accident, travel, marine or aviation, or commercial leasehold.

Each council must self-insure to at least 100,000 pounds, some take as much as 3m pounds. The mutual itself covers the next £1m on property and 250,000 pounds on liability and then buys reinsurance for higher sums from A-rated reinsurers. Each new council must pay about 250,000 pounds so the mutual can meet FSA requirements with premium on top. Premium income is about 7.5m pounds. Each new joiner must pass an application process and may be rejected if the council has an unacceptable risk profile or claims history.

LAMLs business plan is to insure 14 to 16 London councils by 2012. It does not expect to insure all possible London authorities.

---

Other local authority mutuals

Insurance for Scottish Local Authorities (ISLA). Shell vehicle set up in 2004/05, undercut by Zurich and never launched, on hold for favourable market conditions. Aon involved.

Fire and Rescue Authorities Mutual Limited (FRAML). Similar to LAML and run by Charles Taylor. Nine fire authorities joined. Suspended after ultra vires ruling against Brent this year as all had relied on section 111 of the 1972 Local Government Act.

Councils Alternative Risk and Insurance Group (CARIG). More than 20 geographically spread councils established with help from Marsh. On hold until Brent/RMP appeal.

South East and Eastern Regional Police Insurance Consortium. Negotiates discounts as a collective buyer â€" like a broker network â€" rather than a mutual insurer in its own right. Excludes Metropolitan Police due to its unique risk profile.

[simon gordon] 30/5/2009 16:01

Analysing CTR with Philip Fisher:

1. Excellent market potential for its products.
*Outsourcing, UK public sector mutuals, adjusting suited to a recession.

2. Management commitment to the development of new products.
*Public Sector mutuals for the UK.

3. Superior research and development relative to the company's size.
*Not particularly relevant.

4. Strong sales organization.
*Can't quantify.

5. Acceptable profit margins.
*Trading margin forecast '09 = 16.9%.

6. Commitment to the maintenance or improvement of margins.
*"CTC operates at the higher value end of the insurance services sector. This enables us to benefit from high barriers to entry and to preserve margins. We will continue to focus on insurance services of that nature, rather than moving significantly down the value curve towards segments of the market that demonstrate lower value, higher volume characteristics." Rupert Robson, Chairman.

7. Excellent labor relations.
*According to RBS key-worker turnover is low.

8. Excellent morale among managers.
*Hard to analyse.

9. Management depth.
*Newish Chairman and two NED's.

10. Tight cost and accounting controls.
*Margins are historically stable. Cash conversion: three-year average to 12/08 = 91%. Will be lower in '09 & '10 as Axiom is bedded in.

11. Competitive advantages in quality and/or cost.
*Global scale in adjusting. Mutuals are No.1 in said markets. Company reeks of quality.

12. Long-range approach to profits.
*Adjusting has built scale over 12 years. Public Sector mutual development in UK.

13. Ability to grow with minimal equity financing.
*Company has utilised internally generated cash and bank debt to finance growth.

14. Respect for the shareholders.
*Corporate communications in annual report, on website, is pretty good. Dividend has never been cut.

15. Management integrity.
*No sign of Icarus and Hubris.

[simon gordon] 27/5/2009 13:23

c2i,

I came across it years ago, I don't use it. I'm not a serious technician.

[contrarian2investor] 27/5/2009 09:54

Hi Simon,

I found this website, whilst researching another stock, have your heard of it before?

I typed in CTR and it gave the following analysis:




Yours with integrity c2i

[simon gordon] 26/5/2009 21:22

Some quotes from the RBS note:

"growth will be steady rather than spectacular"

"a percieved lack of clarity over profit drivers means CTC has been unfairly dismissed as complicated"

"CTC has been involved in the management of mutuals for more than 120 years and has been established in loss adjusting for some 12 years. It has been in the run off sector for some four years and in the cover holder sector for about two years"

"the move into the UK public sector is very interesting. The use of mutuals for local authorities is quite common around the world, with special prominence in the US, Canada and Scandinavia, and CTC believes the UK is the next major market"

"CTC's near-term revenus prospects are affected by the umderwriting cycle"

"we suspect this virtual plateau of profits from 2006 has contributed to the group being viewed as somewhat opaque, but much of this was due to external factors such as FX and investment markets and SIGNAL's loss of a significant stevedore client"

"a major contributor to the group's reputation of being complicated is, in our opinion, the fact that the results are presented under IFRS as if the group was an insurance company. This is because of the run off operation, which means it does pretty much everything an insurance company does - bar actively underwriting risks for its own account. CTC is a support services provider, not an insurer"

"the group will not significantly pay down debt in the near term as it focuses on the Axiom deal"

"we forecast a flat year for Run Off with no new deals, (any activity by the group could therefore be positive for earnings forecasts)"

[simon gordon] 26/5/2009 08:18

RBS (ABN Amro) have a 24 page note out on CTR this morning:

In reality, a straightforward support services provider

Charles Taylor is a specialist provider of support services to the insurance industry. Its product offering ranges from the creation/management of mutuals, management of claims for the insurance industry via its Loss Adjusting division, to the provision of administration services to the insurance industry. This report attempts to throw some light on the drivers and the trading outlook, which we expect to improve from 2009 onward. We believe the stock market is ignoring the attractive trading margins, the yoy dividend growth, and the way a combination of acquisitions and organic growth is moving the business forward.

Based on a basket of peers, CTC looks significantly undervalued to us

There is no immediate peer so we have created a basket'for comparative purposes. The average PE for this group is 9.5x and the yield is 3.8%, whereas CTC is considerably lower at 6.0x and the yield is significantly higher at 8.3%. This is despite the group delivering a similar or indeed higher margin. Applying a similar PER implies a fair value for CTC of 277p.

We initiate with a Buy recommendation and a 250p target price

The trading outlook is improving for CTC after a more challenging FY08, and we believe the shares are being ignored. Moreover, the Axiom acquisition could provide a very useful new income stream. Our forecasts assume normalised PTP growth of 5% in 2009 and 10% in 2010, assuming trading margins of 17%. We expect the dividend to rise 5% pa and to be well underpinned (cover of 2x).

[simon gordon] 23/5/2009 16:27

If CTR win this case it should be a catalyst for the share price:

Insurance Post - 19/9/08:

London Authorities Mutual has asked for an appeal court hearing to be brought forward as it says failure to do so will leave the local government insurance community in "limbo".

LAM is appealing against both parts of a High Court ruling in the Risk Management Partners v Brent Local Borough Council case.

The court date for the expected four-day hearing has been set as 16 March next year, however, LAM has asked for the hearing to be expedited because it says there are "key public interest issues raised on the efficacy of the wellbeing powers of local authorities".

Martin Fone, chief executive, mutuals, Charles Taylor Consulting, which manages the LAM, said: "If the case is not heard until March 2009, judgment is unlikely before May or even June which means a long period for the local government insurance community to be in limbo.

"The fact that the case was brought at all has caused a great deal of unexpected cost for the seven local authorities in membership so a swift resolution is also important on financial grounds."

Judges in the original Risk Management Partners v Brent Local Borough Council case found Brent breached European Union procurement procedures by awarding its insurance services to the LAM outside a tender process and that found Brent had no power under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to participate in the mutual.

=====

Opportunity Knocks:

Insurance Post - 27/11/08:

LAM looks for hope in ECJ ruling

London Authorities Mutual has said a recent European Court of Justice ruling could help its bid to overturn a High Court decision.

An appeal by the mutual against a High Court ruling in Risk Management Partners v Brent Local Borough Council, as previously reported in Post, (22 May, p3) is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in March 2009.

In the original case, the judge found that Brent breached European Union procurement procedures by awarding its insurance services to LAM outside a tender process.

The judge rejected Brent's argument LAM operated as an in-house function of the authority and could, therefore, exercise a 'Teckal exemption' - side-stepping the procurement process.

LAM has said that the recent ECJ decision in Coditel Brabant SA v Commune d'Uccle rules "sufficient control can be demonstrated to satisfy the Teckal test".

Martin Fone, chief executive officer of Charles Taylor's non-marine mutual department, which manages LAM, said: "All the case law relating to the so-called Teckal exemption relates to cases decided in the ECJ.

"We regard this as being very helpful to our cause and reflects what our understanding on this point always was."

Risk Management Services was unavailable for comment.

=====

Looks like a growth push is on in the States:

Insurance Post - 16/3/09:

Charles Taylor Adjusting has announced the further expansion of its global network with the opening of a new office in New York.

The New York premises, located in Broad Street, will focus on managing large energy, property, financial institutions and business interruption claims. In addition, the operation will seek to manage national and global insurance programmes.

Chairman of Charles Taylor Adjusting, Joe McMahon, commented: "This new operation in New York provides us with an excellent springboard from which to expand further in the North American property claims market. We already have offices in Miami, Houston, Dallas and across Canada, and our plan is to further build up our presence over the next 12 to 24 months, creating a strong network of offices throughout North America, serving the larger and more complex losses."

=====

Good endorsment of CTA:

Insurance Post - 6/4/09:

Charles Taylor Adjusting has become a preferred service provider to the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers.

Andrew Jackson, managing director of Charles Taylor Adjusting – non marine, said: "We are delighted to be able to support Airmic and believe that Charles Taylor Adjusting is uniquely positioned to provide Airmic members with loss adjusting expertise on complex losses across all areas from aviation and energy to marine and non marine, and with offices around the world we can provide that expertise on a global basis.

=====

Bit of background on LAM:

Insurance Post - 25/7/08:

LAM attracts new member ahead of court battle

London Authorities Mutual says it expects a recent High Court ruling to be overturned as Islington Borough Council joins its ranks.

The authority, which joined on 1 July, is the seventh council to join LAM. The others are Croydon, Camden, Haringey, Harrow, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets.

Later this year, LAM is set to appeal against both parts of a High Court ruling, in recent case Risk Management Partners v Brent Local Borough Council, which found that Brent breached European Union procurement procedures by awarding its insurance services to the LAM outside a tender process and that found Brent had no power under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to participate in the mutual.

Mike Curtis, director of finance, Islington LBC, said: "We've reduced annual contributions to the insurance reserve by embracing risk management and being prepared to innovate.

"Collaborating with like minded authorities to reduce cost and drive savings through pooled insurance risk through LAM was what we wanted".

LAM chairman Nathan Elvery, executive director of resources and customer services at Croydon LBC, said: "There could be no better proof that despite the recent court decision in RMP v Brent LBC, LAM is going to continue to attract councils that want to cut the cost of insurance premiums for its members and therefore its citizens by as much as 15%.

"We are challenging that decision in the Court of Appeal in the autumn and are not alone in expecting the lower court's verdict to be overturned.

"Parliament intended local authorities to use their new wellbeing powers to save the citizen cost and to reduce their risks. That is what LAM does.

"The rapid growth and development of LAM shows how we are demonstrably serving the appetite of London for meeting stringent efficiency targets while enhancing risk management.

"The new company has no shareholders, so all surpluses are ploughed back into the business, further reducing premiums for members and costs for council taxpayers. It has also increased competition in the local government insurance market, which was limited to just three providers".

LAM's adviser, Martin Fone, chief executive of Charles Taylor's Non‑Marine Mutual Department, said: "The concept of a mutual is very simple; the members insure some or all of their risks with the mutual instead of directly with commercial insurers. They pool the risks and share the costs. The mutual then reinsures those levels of risk - over and above the level of risk it retains itself - in the conventional marketplace."

=====

Bit of background on the structural changes at CTA:

Insurance Post - 3/5/07:

CTC aims for global growth after divisional re-brand

Charles Taylor Consulting has re-branded its global loss adjusting business in a bid to grow its £35m revenues.

The group's five loss adjusting divisions, Bateman Chapman, CTC Aviation, CTC Marine, CTC Non-Marine and LCL Loss Adjusting will collectively trade under the name Charles Taylor Adjusting with a combined office network of 47 offices and 420 staff. Loss adjusting services made up 45% of the group's revenues in 2006.

Joe McMahon, CTA's chief executive, told Post the firm had no plans to cut staff but may realise efficiency savings in finance and administration functions.

He added that the firm's ambition was to grow in key geographical areas, such as the US, Latin America and the Far East. "We have created a platform for expansion with a unified board for the first time. We are looking to take on new people and around the world there are opportunities to acquire businesses. Some office consolidation will be necessary where we have two offices in one location, but we don't anticipate losing anyone. However we will also look to open up in new locations, such as New York."

*CTR took a £1.8m charge in 2008 for relocation and reorganisation.

[simon gordon] 23/5/2009 12:50

Negatives:

~Net debt - £30.6m + Axiom.

~Pension deficit - c.£20m.

~CTR have not actually warned on profits, just skillfully managed down expectations - hence share price has gently fallen since '07.

~Mutuals for the public sector could drag on for years.

~Axiom could turn out to be a dead duck.

~Dividend yield too high, could it be cut or frozen in the future?

~Management aren't getting much traction with top & bottom line growth.

~Is the business so specialised that they're not a suitable take over candidate - no bid premium in the price?

~Share price looks knackered, chart ready to keel over.

~Share is illiquid.

~Doesn't seem to be much Fundie interest.

~Do they need a fresh CEO to reinvigorate the culture and accelerate growth?

~Is this just a stagnant share that is under the radar, has a flaky capital structure and can't get growth moving?