Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coca-cola Hbc Ag | CCH | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2.00 | -0.07% | 2,738.00 | 11:51:51 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,732.00 | 2,714.00 | 2,744.00 | 2,740.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| BEVERAGES |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 21/5/2019 11:49 by philanderer Deutsche:CCH’s share price reaction (down 7-8% initially, -5% now is overdone in our opinion considering (1) the attractions of the standalone investment case (and upcoming capital markets day), (2) a CCBA deal seemed unlikely on a 6-12 months view anyway, given the recent special DVD announcement, (3) today’s news doesn’t rule out KO refranchising CCBA at some point in the future (KO is and remains committed to a franchise model). We believe the shares have overreacted on the news, with possibly some short term 'event-money’ coming out of the stock, and we would take this as a buying opportunity. Goldmans Mispriced for growth: We continue to believe CCH is undervalued for its ngrowth advantage to the sector. The shares currently trade in line with the broader European Staples sector (c.23x on 2019E P/E) despite offering organic sales growth that is c.200bps above peers (FY19-21E organic growth +5.8% vs. sector +4.0%). Further scope for margin expansion: We believe current company guidance of n+11% comparable EBIT margin is conservative for 2020E. CCH delivered FY18 EBIT margin of +10.3%, a 70bps increase from 2017 (in line with the 5-year average annual margin expansion). We note the current guidance implies c.40bps margin expansion p.a. to 2020. Benchmarking CCH to other Coke bottling peers also suggests there could be scope for over-delivery of CCH’s 2020 target as well as potential for margin expansion beyond 2020 (the average EBIT margin for listed Coke bottlers was c.12.7% in FY18, with best-in-class CCEP at 13.7%). We therefore assume 2020E EBIT margin of 11.3% and 2022E margin of 12.6%. Balance sheet optionality provides additional upside: CCH’s FY19 net debt to nEBITDA of 1.1x (on our estimates) remains materially below both the European Staples sector at c.2.0x and the 1.5-2.0x target outlined at its last Investor Day (2016). This is despite the announcement of a special dividend of €2.0 per share at its 1Q19 results, the equivalent of €730mn total consideration (and 6% special dividend yield). We continue to believe the company’s lean balance sheet provides scope for additional upside to the shares from cash use: Special dividend: If the company chose to lever up to the top of the provided otarget in 2019, we see scope for the announcement of a second special dividend for a total consideration of c.€1bn (or c.€2.7 per share); this would imply a potential net gain (special dividend yield less EPS dilution) of high single digit. Generic acquisition: Levering up to the top of the provided target range oimplies high single digit to low double digit 2020E EPS accretion (assuming different levels of synergies), on our estimates. The company has indicated during its 1Q19 results conference call that while the proposal of a special dividend does increase the company’s FY19 leverage ratio, it does not affect it pursuing M&A. |
Posted at 09/9/2015 16:38 by lionelh Not sure Mr Fosset is that bothered. To use a mining analogy, this company is on "care and maintainance", ie just enough is being done to keep it going in the event of it emerging from its coma after 8 years, probably not that likely in all honesty. Mr Fosset is presumably drawing a salary? That the limit of his interest?Shareholders have an interest in this company recognised by law. Starvation of information for investors over such a protracted period of time is deeply shocking. Why can they not tell us what the up to date legal position is? Is it nothing to do with us, really?! Has process actually been issued in the courts by Bank of Dubai, for example, has it been seen by any judge to date? If it has not it is not sub judice so there is no obstacle to telling us. What's the matter with these people? |
Posted at 24/4/2012 12:50 by moormoney Interesting that you received anything--nominee holders are left swinging in the wind! I would guess no one to account to now so they can pay what they like--to hell with their investors and yes I'm bitter!! |
Posted at 18/3/2012 01:03 by moormoney Still no word from the robbing bar stewards that disappeared into thin air with a chunk of investors money! No way to contact them. Where are the Fsa when you need them! Erin Nil hang your head in shame. |
Posted at 01/1/2010 09:52 by soggy Hi!I was going to type Happy New Year...but perhaps in this context it's a bit hollow....! I too didin't think it was a deliberate scam, and it was right at the start of the crunch when banks just drew in every piece of cash they could, even if it did mean busting a golden egg laying goose. But the end result is that investors did get shafted. The mystery to me is how none of the authorities felt it was there remit to investigate when clearly something wrong had been done. But we are where we are. Thanks for the info re the meeting and the gist of the contents. I haven't received anything, perhaps I need to contact them as I held via TDW and they've removed the listing. At the back of my mind, I seem to recall that the bulk of the company's money which was transferred to Erin for £1 was actually held by the subsidiary, CCH Gmb and that what we were shareholders in was the parent company which only had a few thousand in it's accounts. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember. So, any distribution might therefore only be of that remaining rump of cash, not the big bucks which got hived off. Hope I'm wrong. Darn it! Just can't resist....have a Happy New Year anyway! |
Posted at 31/12/2009 11:18 by hvs As long as the shareholders have not got the hump.Personally I never thought this an out and out deliberate shafting of investors, more an unfortunate sequence of events caaused by the ineptitude of the Board. Is it not neligence if you raise money and then loose it on behlf of shareholders ? |
Posted at 31/12/2009 11:06 by lionelh Just had about a nine page communication through the post re CCH. EGM on 29.01.10 proposing three special resolutions, the main thrust of which concern re-registration as a private limited company by the name of Oiax Ltd. At the premises of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, 35 Vine Street, London, starting at 10:00am, if anyone wants to go along and give 'em a barracking. Says still seeks to redistribute funds to shareholders when "able to secure a release from its guarantee obligations". Also "in order to increase the amount of any dividend paid to minority shareholders, Eren Nil has agreed to transfer his entire shareholding in the Company to Richard Fossett to hold on behalf of PLC with a view to those shares being cancelled". Co is still apparently subject to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers until 2017 which might give us some reassurance. Personally I never thought this an out and out deliberate shafting of investors, more an unfortunate sequence of events caaused by the ineptitude of the Board. The current financial climate was a massive contributor as well let's not forget. No Board in any company anywhere could change that. No timeline again but perhaps all is not lost. |
Posted at 21/10/2009 20:08 by soggy Like the playground bully used to say, "wot you gonna do about it??" I guess there are so few investors compared to the block owned by Nil that there isn't that critical mass of people to make enough trouble. And so, since they can get away with it, they will. We are, after all, just a handful of tiny investors in what is effectively now a private company. But at the same time, it stinks - to high heaven. And I've never understood why from day one there wasn't some kind of police involvement in this whole sorry debacle. I've written off my money, but at the same time, I'm ever hopeful that something might turn up. Can anyone remember now what the deal was - after how long was it that the main company holding could/would be returned to the company??? It's all so dim and distant now... |
Posted at 06/5/2008 19:19 by mg78 moormoney - I agree, you and fellow shareholders should at least all bring this to the attention of the FSA. Suspension has been going on for too long - especially as updates re. progress etc are virtually non-existent.For a start off I think you have to expect the worst here and more or less write off your investment. I don't think you will be seeing your money again - but all the same it should be reported. One of the problems is that Nil holds virtually all the stock - it's not as if the PI's, collectively, hold any kind of weight in this company...:( I held this on the run up to results and sold out on the spike - even then it was a struggle to sell the stock, which made me very wary. I insisted to my broker that I wanted them sold and turned him back to the mm's - eventually he came back to me (and got a half-decent price)....but it is always a concern when mm's are reluctant to take the stock. The very best of luck. Other PI's who are in here should at least show vocal support to moormoeny's intentions. mg. ps. Have you tried contacting lemming investor as a starting point? |
Posted at 28/12/2007 16:04 by lionelh Mrion. I don't know anybody, bankers and non bankers alike, who have seen anything like the current credit squeeze in modern times in a modern economy. That to me at least is the commom meaning of the word "unprecedented". If you can remember something like it, Mrion, remind us. There has certainly been nothing comparable that has affected the entire global economy (worst yet to come). I agree that banks should guard against the problems it can cause in its business model. Only one actually has (Morgan Stanley I think) and made an absolute killing hedging. They are the only one to my knowledge.I did buy CCH at 3p and sold a tranche two years later at 90p so I have nowt to grumble at. Wish I'd sold the lot at 90p but life's not like that very often is it? Sold a larger tranche before at 25p which nobody could complain at.I do not agree that CCH have been in anyway dishonest. Naive and silly possibly. I cannot in all honesty say this was a bad investment for me even if I lose my remaining smallish stake! I wouldn't mind a few more like it! Exciting it certainly was! What do investors in CCH make of the letter from CCH dated 24th December received today? CCH is apparently now debt free. Funds repayed to the bank has got to be good news. Another phrase does rather jump out though: "It is difficult to envisage a long term future for the company". That does no sound to me like they intend to continue trading, or, if they do, they will take it private without a listing (as now). The company wishes to "maximise the return to minority shareholders" which to me means the same thing. No future as a public company, private in the hands of major shareholders if it continues, with a payment to buy out investors. The only real question to me then is how much per share. An optimistic scenario to me is 5-10p per share but I do not think they have got that sort of money (last Annual Report EPS about 2p). Any other observations on the circular? |
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
