Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Comptoir Group Plc LSE:COM London Ordinary Share GB00BYT1L205 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 7.375 7.25 7.50 7.375 7.225 7.38 2,469 08:00:24
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Travel & Leisure 12.5 -8.1 -6.6 - 7

Comptoir Share Discussion Threads

Showing 51 to 72 of 200 messages
Chat Pages: 8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1
UKNEONBOY - post #3. The Treasury seems to have decided that AIM Property Companies can't become REITs. Whilst they may well recant, at present that's a given. They've also put very strict limits on the number of shares allowed in a single holder, and in this respect COM loses, with over 50% in directors' hands. In fact, I don't think I would want to be in this club: whatever the unlocked value, control is too tight for my liking.
I'm not convinced it is reasonable to make a blanket claim that commercial property yields are in the 4-6% bracket now. If you register at propex.co.uk for example, you can view details of all sorts of commercial property in the SE of England, many with yields over 7%. The lower yields usually apply to larger buildings in prime locations, whereas the smaller developments in fringe towns which COM goes in for usually have rather higher yields. Note that their St Johns Court building in High Wycombe was sold on a 7.47% yield. Also I might suggest you look at the IPD website http://www.ipdindex.co.uk/results/indices/uk_annual/index_uk_annual.asp - their annual index survey of UK property returns has been going 20+ years and they reckon at end-2005, the "all commercial property" yield was 6% and that the outlook for 2006 was for this to rise, reflecting higher interest rates. Again, the 6% average is made up of lower yields on large prime properties and higher yields on smaller properties outside prime locations. The last set of figures didn't give an entirely clear picture, though they did say that "other operating income" of £6.3m was primarily rental income, but this could easily represent a capital value under £100m gross - for example, on a 7.1% average yield, the capital value would be £89.15m. They stated net debt at 31.3.06 as £51m, so I think it may be fairer to state NAV at about £38m. That still makes the shares cheap on asset grounds but not by the amount suggested above. COM isn't the only quoted property company tightly controlled by its directors and this accounts in part for the general lack of interest in the shares, the wide spread between bid and offer prices, and the general lack of a liquid market. Nor is it the only such company to deliberately obscure NAV by classing most property as Current Assets in the balance sheet - and this can go on for donkeys years, so that the real NAV per share is never revealed. SO while I think COM is probably quite cheap, it could carry on being so for a long time.
I understand your thought process, but I'm not necessarily convinced the value gap is as wide as you suggest. I do think it's decent value now, but am being greedy and hoping to get in cheaper. Btw, I know you like property value plays- do you hold ART?
Wiganer,yields on commercial property are now in the range of 4-6%. 10 years ago,10% was the norm.They only need to bring in 7m pounds at 5%.In effect,if you have £140m of property, with a yield of 5% in todays market,that is the cash amount a buyer would to pay to get hold of it.Comland has debt that has to come off of that,[of £54m or so.] so £140m -£54m = around £86m.Todays value is £18m with the shares at 412 pence each mid price. As above tax has to be sorted. Do you understand now?
I am unclear how you arrive at 350% upside. If their properties are really undervalued to anything like that degree then how come they are only bringing in £7m a year in rental income?
Well,the spread is large, but if you do the sums at £4.50 to buy, huge profit is still in the offing.That gives a 350% upside.[in what could be less than four months time ie Jan 1st.]When and if, the revaluation is done it will be to late to buy in, and some here may be pig sick!!!Myself, with all the sites posted up on the net, bidders must be looking, at, an, instant, clean, acquisition, [that shows growth over the up and comming years.]Looking back at the share price over last few months,around 12,000 shares have been sold, putting the stock down a pound. That is the way stock markets work, however we all know the commercial property market has gone through the roof, over last 5 years.In turn when buys start, £2.00 a day jumps may be the norm.
The killer here, is the current massive bid/offer spread. Having said that, I'm guessing it will turn itself into a REIT next year - then (and only then) do a full property portfolio revaluation UKNEONBOY :-(
Yes,This share seems to offer about £16.00 of property for £4.00 a share.If we look at "The Future" [in the accounts]"We have seen the value of our portfolio increase signiticantly in the year." Fact is this does not show up in the accounts. Reason is that they hold property as stock, not at todays value but at the price paid ,often many years ago.I have to say,the web page for the company is great it tells you all the property they own and run.All in good areas around M25, M40, M4,NW of London.One could drive round them all in a day or two, to see what you are buying into.The yield they are getting is 10%[,twice the going rate,] which in effect doubles the value of the company on the open market. ie true value of stock if sold now might be 130m pounds not the 65m odd in the accounts. Yet more value will show up as and when they get planning on 11 yes 11 sites.A very large lump of tax would be due,but REITS could save the day here.2% of 130m pounds is a very nice gift from MR Brown[.A hell of a lot less than 30%cap gains.] Web page is www.comland .co.uk
Results out - any views?
Any views on the following? :-- 1 Why does this share have such a huge spread? It doesn't exactly encourage buyers, does it? 2 Why is it drifting down like this on such low volume? Oh yes, and does anyone know when we might see any results? tia
Nickcduk, thanks for the above,a few points to add.First,you have pointed out that some of Comlands properties would sell on a much lower yield,but you have not added that to the share price. I put that at least 50p per share. They also have 10 sites in the planning stage, this I would say would add at least £1.00 per share. [The increase in the land value alone could be worth a lot more, without development profits] Now we have the tax that would be due, [worth in your view around £2.00 per share] Two ways to get over this, cut the gearing to save part of it, or better still sell up and let the new buyer convert to a REIT [within a larger group that would meet the new rules.] This all adds up to £11.20 per share.I may be wrong however, if now we go for a yield of 5.75% ie half way from your idea and mine we get a big uplift to around £13.00 per share. The commercial property market as you know is red hot at this time, to get hold of a good property company any bidder would have to pay a full price.Get six or so bidders in the frame[as seems to be the case with other firms that are being bought out at this time}we may then see if you or I were anywhere near the mark.I am not saying they will be bought out,but if I can see value, as you do, [but to a lesser extent]then others will, given time.
I think you may be being a little optimistic on your valuation for Comland. The 5% yields you are referring to doesn't apply to most of Comlands portfolio. Yields that low tend to come with properties that have AAA tenants with long leases. Comland has a few excellent tenants at its Mercury Park development, but if you read through their RNS over the years you will see that the tenants who signed up for 15 year leases signed up around £26-£28 per square foot. They then struggled to let other space and ended up letting the rest at between £21 and £26 per square foot. A few of their leases are also only for 5 years which diminishes the property value if it were put on the market. The fact that these properties on the whole have limited scope for rent increases (current rents are around the £25 per square foot for the thames valley), suggests that a more appropriate yield rate to use would be around 6.5% when trying to ascertain the real value of the portfolio. The annual rental income is circa £6.2 and using a 6.5% yield across the board would suggest an overall value of £95m. The uplift would be around £29m. You suggested they might convert to reit status and avoid capital gains tax. This is unlikely as they wouldnt meet the criterion set out by Gordon Brown on the interest cover front. Their gearing is way too high even if they revalue their properties. Once CGT is deducted from the revaluation gains the NAV of comland is roughly £35m or approx. £7.70 a share. This is probably an underestimate because some of their properties will demand a lower yield such as the woolworths store in their portfolio. The stock is cheap compared to the rest of the sector but not particularly so when compared to historical valuations afforded to property companies. Its gearing is also very much higher than the rest of the sector and whilst that helps when the property market is going up it equally doesn't help if it stagnates. Its focus on secondary retail and offices leaves it vulnerable to a slowdown in the economy.
Just read the chairman*s statement they have got 10 future development schemes on the go.That must be worth a few extra bob.
I have had these shares for years,done great for me.
How cheap is this company? It has rents of 6.5m comming in p/a. Property in the books [at cost] 65m pounds.Todays Going rate to buy commercial property is on a 4.5/5.5% yield. If the lot was sold off on a 5% yield it could pull in 130m pounds.This would give 65m pounds of uplift to add on to the 15m nett assets in the accounts. That gives us around 80m pounds. Less a big hit of capital gains tax, however if they change over to a REIT in Jan 07, this will fade away into a little 3 m pound hit So we are left with 77 m pounds = A share price of £16.90p. Todays share price is £5.50p to buy ie just one third of what the real value might be.
Business Focus The dotcom boom is back. Will it last this time? Less bubble less squeak. The web is now in the hands of big players less likely to get caught in the mouse trap By : Tony Glover - Technology Editor January 22, 2006 THE GROWING NUMBERS OF investors convinced the dotcom boom had returned got the fright of their lives last week. Their nightmare started when a little- known Japanese internet company, Livedoor, was raided by Japanese investigators last Monday. So overwhelming was the panic caused by the news, which added to worries about oil prices, that the selling of Japanese technology stocks forced the Tokyo Stock Exchange to close its doors for trading – for the first time in a generation. The Nikei 225 Index fell nearly 6% on Tuesday and Wednesday. Fears that the good run in technology stocks over the past year might be about to come to a painful end quickly spread to Wall Street and other markets. The Dow fell 213.32 points or 1.96% to 10667.39 on Friday erasing all gains for 2006. It was the worst session since March 2003. The S&P's 500 shed 1.83% to 1261.49. The Nasdaq slumped 2.35% to 2247.70, its biggest decline since August 2004 as the markets succumbed to mounting fears about earnings. By Monday, it is likely that traders will have relaxed and reverted to their previous belief that a new tech boom has just started. But for all investors, the events of last week raise a fundamental question which demands an answer: will the new dot.com era last or will it turn into a bust like the previous one, wiping out hard-earned savings and dashing the hopes of millions? This is an especially important question in Japan where share prices in Tokyo surged by 40% last year. Livedoor had been a favourite stock among small investors in Japan. Investors panicked on hearing that the company was being investigated by Japan's Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission. Its offices in Tokyo's Roppongi Hills were raided after allegations that it had mis-stated losses from its 2004 results and spread false information to boost its share price. Television pictures of the raid were flashed around the world, spooking investors. Frightened Tokyo brokers stopped accepting Livedoor shares as collateral and demanded that investors cover their trading positions with cash. As clients were forced to sell in a falling market, other technology stocks were dragged down. Japan's dotcom flu soon started to mutate into a global pandemic. Lower-than-expected profits from Yahoo and Intel last week were seized upon as evidence that tech stocks were in deep trouble. News of good earnings from two other technology darlings, Apple and eBay, were also viewed with suspicion by investors; even Google, the world's favourite dotcom stock, suffered. The Wall Street Journal, although noting that Google's profits are still climbing and that analysts are generally upbeat about its prospects, added this warning to its report last week: "But few investors are focusing on the growing number of restricted shares and options that Google is handing out to employees which will emerge as a sizeable expense in the next few years." By the end of the week calm had partly returned in Japan. The panic was over and the consensus among analysts was that investors had over-reacted to the Tokyo crisis. By Thursday, the market was even able to keep its poise even after absorbing disturbing news that 38-year-old Hideaki Noguchi, a senior adviser to Livedoor, had been found dead in a Tokyo hotel. The Nikkei Index recovered around 2% with internet and technology stocks leading the way. But there were plenty of scars left -- and in the US at least the worst was yet to come. The first signs of trouble ahead was when Yahoo's share price fell by a hefty 12% on news that fourth-quarter earnings had missed analysts' average estimate by 1 cent a share. Earnings had come in at 16 cents a share against the 17 cents expected, hardly a disaster. Far from being a dotcom promise that was not delivered, Yahoo had managed to grow annual revenues by an impressive 47% from $3.6bn (£2.1bn, E3bn) to $5.26bn over the year and its profits had risen by 126% from $840m to $1.9bn. Figures like these would normally be a cue for celebration and for sending the stock flying to new highs, rather than provoking a sell-off. To some sellers Yahoo's latest figures were interpreted as an indication that the stock may have reached, or be nearing, "maturity", another way of saying that growth rates on this scale cannot last. Growth is certainly slowing: Yahoo doubled sales between 2002 and 2003 before tripling them in 2004. But Yahoo's decline was only a taste of things to come. On Friday, Google's share fell 8%, leading a severe decline in the US markets on fears about earnings, energy prices and just about everything else. With a bit of luck, the markets will recover this week but questions will continue to be asked about the durability of the current boom. The most bullish analysts argue that the recent resurgence of the technology sector has several features that distinguish it from the late 1990s boom and subsequent bust. At that time the internet, e-commerce and web publishing sectors were untested concepts. Young dotcom entrepreneurs convinced venture capitalists to back their business plans. Because few investors understood what they were up to, a brash culture arose that declared it was creating "new economy" stocks. The Nasdaq, which lits shares of technology stocks, has doubled since October 2003, but is still only half way to the heights (5132.52) of October 2000. US interest rates have been rising steadily but there is lots of cash in the US parked in real estate that has not yet migrated into shares. Higher employment has returned to Silicon Valley (mostly in software), though there are still a quarter million fewer tech jobs from the 2000 peak. Attitudes have changed. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed Silicon Valley residents now prefer salaried jobs with established companies, rather than huge stock options with risky start-ups. Another indication Silicon Valley is more mature is the increase in spending by American venture capitalists, 25% of which ends up in Valley firms. A total of $4.21bn in venture capital was invested in the Valley in the third quarter of 2005, compared with $6.09bn for all of 2004. In 2000, in a blind frenzy, investors poured $30bn into thousands of dotcom start-ups. Virtually none of them made a profit. By the end of 2001, an estimated 80% were out of business. Tens of thousand jobs were lost and $2trillion in share value wiped out. The tech sector has revived since those dark days and the current boom has a different look, the most notable being that mergers and acquisitions have become the way for start-ups to cash out, rather than initial public offerings (IPOs). VCs are looking for fundamentals not visionaries, cashflow more so than hype. Harry Dent, an economist who predicted the last tech boom and bust in his 1992 book The Great Boom Ahead predicts a bigger boom growing over the next five years. But there is a sting in his tail. Dent sees the Nasdaq rising to 13,000 (it is now at 2,258) by 2010. "We see a broader tech boom, including biotech, resuming now that we're over this crash," he told an interviewer at Wired.com, another survivor from the last crash. "Businesses have cut costs and expanded their ability to grow with past investments. Now, businesses are going to have to catch up and reinvest to keep up with consumers, who never stop spending. Businesses will come back big-time, and that money largely flows into information technology." Dent, however, predicts a crash at the end of 2010 worse even than the previous one in 2001. He says this is largely because there is no large Baby Boom generation coming up to pick up consumer demand, which he attributes to the tech revival. "You've got a smaller generation following the largest generation in history," Dent said. Rather than thousands of start-ups, the current rebound is confined to established online advertisers such as Google, Yahoo and AOL, electronics firms such as Apple, as well as biotech, telecoms and software developers. "It is more isolated than last time," says a leading analyst. "[The rebound] is not insignificant, but it is in smaller pockets." The market still sees Yahoo's big rival, market leader Google, as the leading internet growth stock. Most analysts believe Google is firmly in a growth phase, while conceding that its shares are highly valued. Google trades at roughly 90 times current earnings. By contrast, Yahoo's shares trade at around 60 times earnings. But analysts believe internet stocks like Google have room for faster growth than non-tech companies. According to Cyrus Mewawalla, analyst at Westhall Capital, internet companies have substantial growth potential while traditional telecoms stocks are overvalued. "There will not be overall growth across the sector. Already, clear winners and losers are emerging. Telefónica, for example, probably bought O2 at the top of the market. "The bottom line is that telecoms operators like Vodafone derive about 80% of their voice while internet players such as Google [and now Tesco] are starting to offer voice [telecom] services on the web that are virtually free," said Mewawalla. "Internet stocks are set to benefit from customer losses that will severely impact traditional telecoms operators." France Telecom's profit warning earlier this month was attributable to loss of business to internet-based services and evidence of a shifting power base from old communications suppliers such as the former national telecoms operators to the internet-based economy. According to a survey, 592,000 France Telecom customers ended their fixed-line contracts with the phone operator during 2005 – six times as many as the year before. The survey also revealed that 2005 saw a spread of alternative phone operators, with a further 2.23m customers switching to other operators for the internet and other services, but retained a fixed-line contract with France Telecom. Ian Lobley, a senior partner in 3i's venture capital business, said he believes the balance between old and new communications players will shift dramatically during 2006. "Investors will start to find companies' roles increasingly confusing during the course of the year," predicts Lobley. "We are already seeing TV companies selling phone services and phone companies becoming TV companies." Overall, the view is that today's technology sector is different from the dotcom bubble seven years ago and that the boom has barely begun. JP Rangaswami, global chief information officer of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, says the internet is entering the second stage of its evolution and that the medium, like the early days in Hollywood, is "only just at the Keystone Cops stage of its development". Speaking to entrepreneurs in London recently, Julie Meyer, founder and chief executive of Ariadne Capital, an early business development adviser of internet voice specialist Skype, was bullish about prospects for 2006. She likened the recent evolution of the internet as comparable to other periods in history that brought about sweeping social change. One venture fund manager attending the event said: "The buzz is just like it was at the start of the last dotcom boom. We are only at the start of the next cycle – 2006 is going to be an incredible year."
come on guys...still time to join the party...its only just started
'Twas the season to be merrily shopping online By Dominic White Communication Industries Editor (Filed: 14/01/2006) Internet shopping came of age this Christmas, with many of Britain's biggest retailers seeing explosive growth in their online retail operations, according to trading figures this week. Millions of consumers shunned the high street crush to order gifts such as cameras, mobile phones, video games and perfumes from the comfort of their own homes using higher speed broadband connections. Boots revealed that its online sales are now bigger than those at its largest store in London's Oxford Street due largely to people buying its health and beauty products. While the high street chemist's underlying same store sales were up just 0.3pc, sales at boots.com soared more than 40pc. Carphone Warehouse saw a similar surge. The mobile phone emporium's online business saw revenues rise 40.1pc to £55.5m in the 12 weeks to December 31. While selling over the internet remains a relatively small part of most traditional retailers' businesses, it is growing fast as consumers become increasingly confident about using their credit or debit card details to order online. James Roper, chief executive of IMRG, the e-retailing industry body, said: "People also find going to the shops a hassle at Christmas. The weather's bad, you can't park, the trains are rubbish, and there are queues everywhere.'' Consumers are also less scared about late deliveries. ''There is a lot room for improvement,'' added Mr Roper. ''But retailers have got better at not selling stock they can't deliver on time.'' Argos, part of GUS, said sales ordered on the net increased by 37pc, contributing 6pc of sales. Jessops, the camera chain, said that direct like for like sales, covering mail order, telesales and the internet, rocketed 74.3pc. Game Group, which got a huge boost from sales of Sony's new PlayStation Portable, said web sales shot up 70pc to represent 4pc of total revenues. HMV, which saw same store sales slump 5.5pc, said sales at hmv.co.uk, it's online CD and DVD ordering business, were up 78pc. Even the Body Shop benefited. Despite a disappointing 1pc rise in same store sales, The Body Shop At Home - its internet and door-to-door shopping unit, saw sales rise over the Christmas period. Nevertheless, Mr Roper said the take up of internet retailing by big high street brands continued to remain ''patchy''. ''Some are brilliant at it, some are very bad, and some have just plain missed the boat,'' he said.
AFN letting the trio down...maybe a santa claus rally tomoro?
come on advfn you are letting the side down...how about a little rocket tomoro?
Wall Street analysts estimate that Skype will have revenue of between $50 million and $60 million this year, which means eBay is paying at least 50 times revenue for the company.
Chat Pages: 8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211021 19:25:51