We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cozart | CZT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 57.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57.50 | 57.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 04/9/2007 15:28 by gombie I wonder if the preditor's motive is that they see an independant CZT in alliance with Philips developing superior technology as a potentially dangerous near future threat to themselvs. Hence better to buy CZT out at this stage? |
Posted at 04/9/2007 11:02 by mjcrockett So who is the third party. Philips? They already own 8.7% of CZT having recently bought more shares. You would have thought that they would not have bought these just to sell them on to a third party. Cozart would be small change for Phillips, so a very generous offer could be possible.MJ |
Posted at 19/7/2007 08:12 by jimmyloser The Times, Thursday 19thOf relevance, perhaps Gary Player the golfer, indicates that he knows for certain that some players are taking performance enhancing drugs, he claims to know of ten players but is said to believe that the figure is much higher it adds that Golf has currently no drugs testing Sport has to be a huge target market for CZT and Philips for worldwide trackside testing |
Posted at 25/1/2007 09:56 by shuisky CFB,re: Philips option at 45p The Philips option is to buy 4,971,466 of shares in czt at 45p Presumably, this would represent an issue of new shares. I know these things are sometimes seen as a 'cap' on the price, but surely the best approach is to just assume the new issuance of shares (to Philips) and factor that into any forecast EPS numbers? In other words, dilute the forecast EPS by assuming the shares have been issued? I'd be interested in your thoughts. |
Posted at 23/1/2007 19:29 by jimmyloser I agree, this is stronger than I hoped for, pre-results. I stick by my personal forecast of blowing straight through 45p by Friday close.I am fairly new to CZT but hold a sizeable chunk, am I right in believing that the main two drivers here are Philips project and USA distributor, along with the usual suspects. imo |
Posted at 23/1/2007 08:28 by keyno That must have been it WengerB. Thank you. A bit strange to release such news just before results day, rather than have a fanfare on the day with assembled notables but I'm not complaining - this has got to be very good news for CZT holders. |
Posted at 10/11/2006 08:23 by azalea The repeated buying by Ed Wallner is very encouraging and for my money continues to indicate that CZT is undervalued, results will be good and ultimately a notable rise in share price will follow. |
Posted at 05/11/2006 12:21 by azalea Clearly I am not alone in thinking that CZT could be the most likely vehicle to use if the government went ahead wth its proposal to test school children for drugs with a fully proven system already widely used by police forces in the UK. Such an application would be very hot political potato, but with significant and wide ranging intelligence gained - on hotspots, sourcing, etc. |
Posted at 04/9/2006 17:51 by wengerb Etarip: no, I don't think that CZT should be looking to change its PR company. CZT employs Financial Dynamics, a company with an excellent reputation. Whilst I'm on the subject of advisors, CZT's broker/financial advisor, Numis, also has a very good reputation, especially in the Health Science sector.But your specific question raises a more general point. I assume that most of we few who read this BB are optimistic about CZT's prospects but feel always slightly starved of insight into what's going on in the company. We've invested in CZT and would love to know whether we're going to see a return in the short, medium or long-term. Me, I'm in for the long ride. I don't believe that the really significant potential will begin to appear until late-2007, with news of the Phillips joint development. Why doesn't the company keep us better informed? Why doesn't the company seem to be more actively massaging its share price? I have a friend who's an FD in a company rather similar to CZT and he once said to me "If this was a private company in which we'd all invested, we wouldn't worry so much. We know what we want the company to achieve. We know the company's competitive advantages. We should all relax and let the company get on with things. The problem is that if you're a small, developing company we all, especially the outside investors, think that the share price is a predictor of whether or not we'll succeed. But it isn't. We all know that but we can't stop worrying that it might be." For obvious reasons, a company has to walk the tightrope of keeping its owners, the shareholders, informed of progress (or lack of it) whilst not spilling the beans to the company's competitors. CZT tells us (something of) what's going on twice a year and is under an obligation to tell us more if, between those reports, the company's fortunes take a turn for the worse or better. Forgive me if I seem to be telling everybody what is perfectly obvious but the point I'm trying to get to is that many companies, and I suspect that CZT is one of them, do not give a very high priority to its short-term share price. As a company manager, you don't want to greatly upset your shareholders but you hope that the shareholders realise that the directors' main responsibility is to maximise the ultimate value of the shares, not to waste time or money trying to move the share price from 34p to 40p when there's not a lot to shout about. Nearly 50% of the CZT shares are held by two key directors of CZT (the brothers Hand) and by a non-exec. director. The non-exec has continued to invest large sums in CZT. These people have a hugely better informed view of CZT's prospects that we'll ever have. We outsiders have the option of trusting these people or of getting out of our investment. As I mentioned yesterday, why would the key directors of a company raise the issue of possible sales developments in Germany and the US if they didn't have a reasonable faith that such developments will occur? I'm not being sarcastic when I say that when writing up the prelims, directors don't (I hope) say "This report looks a bit thin. What can we stick in to bulk it up a bit? I know, Germany and the US are big markets, let's hint that we might be doing a bit of business with them? After all, if we never get anywhere in Germany and the US, nobody will ever remember that we floated the idea." CZT places huge store on the Phillips project. I don't know whether Phillips approached CZT or vice versa but I do know that one of the world's most successful players in the medical equipment market is very actively engaged with a small company outside Didcot. The directors of CZT know how frequent are the visits to Eindhoven. They know how much resource Phillips is putting into the project. The bosses at CZT must have a feeling for how well the joint development will play out. When it was first announced, in January of this year, the initial development time was set at 18-months. That's a pretty rapid development project and almost half the time has already elapsed. I'm not suggesting for a moment that I have a good reason to believe that the Phillips joint development has a high likelihood of succeeding. Joint developments often fail. What we do know is that the main shareholders in Cozart (who just happen to run the company) do seem to be optimistic about the outcome. One might ask the question; if the project's going so well now, why wouldn't Phillips simply buy CZT tomorrow? I once asked a similar question of the strategic boss of a drug development company. He explained that great big companies are often happier to leave the risk and reward to smaller partners. Smaller partners are more energetic and nimble at driving development projects. If the big company ends up paying much more to acquire the smaller company, it's still a better bet for the larger. |
Posted at 04/9/2006 09:30 by wengerb etarip. I, too, find it very frustrating how little coverage Cozart gets. Last week The Times managed to report CZT's small profit as a £300,000 loss. I find it particularly irritating that even the FT completely ignored CZT's results. The FT's omission seems especially odd given that only a few months ago that paper gave CZT a very large write up as a company to watch. I don't think that the problem lies with CZT. The company seems to pursue a pretty active public relations campaign. The problem seems to be that CZT is still a tiddler and there are thousands of such companies, especially AiM listed ones, and such tiddlers struggle to get much coverage from analysts. |
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
