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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Datatec | DTC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 310.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 310.00 | 310.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 02/10/2010 14:36 by humanoid TIDMDTC RNS Number : 5518T Datatec Limited 30 September 2010 ? 30 September 2010 Datatec Limited Interim earnings update Datatec Limited, ("Datatec" or the "Group", JSE and LSE: DTC), the international Information and Communications Technology (ICT) group, is currently finalising its results for the six months ended 31 August 2010 ("the Period"), which will be published on 13 October 2010. As a JSE Listed company, Datatec is required to publish trading statements if the financial results for a given period are more than 20% higher than the results for the previous corresponding period. As described in more detail below, underlying* earnings per share, earnings per share and headline earnings per share for the Period are expected to be more than 20% better than the previous corresponding period of six months ended 31 August 2009 (the "Comparative Period"). Group revenues for the Period are expected to be approximately $2.1 billion compared to approximately $1.8 billion in the Comparative Period, with overall gross margins remaining stable. Underlying earnings per share Underlying* earnings per share for the Period are expected to be between 15 and 16 US cents per share, compared to 11.5 US cents per share for the Comparative Period. Earnings and headline earnings per share Under IFRS, the Group recognises liabilities against equity for the potential obligation to buy out minority shareholders under the terms of put options held by them in subsidiaries. At each reporting date changes in the fair value of such liabilities are booked in the income statement. An increase in the fair value of these minority interest buy-out liabilities has resulted in an unrealised additional charge of $6.8 million for the Period, compared to a charge of $6.4 million in the Comparative Period. Underlying earnings per share are unaffected by this unrealised charge and there are no cash implications associated with this accounting treatment. As a result, the Board expects earnings per share and headline earnings per share to be between 8 and 9 US cents per share, compared to 4.9 US cents in the Comparative Period. Excluding the increase in the fair value of put option liabilities, earnings per share and headline earnings per share would have been between 12 and 13 US cents per share. Financial information The financial information on which this statement is based has not been reviewed and reported on by Datatec's auditors. *Underlying earnings per share excludes goodwill and intangibles impairment, amortisation of acquired intangible assets, profit or loss on sale of assets and businesses, fair value movements on acquisition related financial instruments and unrealised foreign exchange movements Enquiries: +------------------- | Datatec Limited (www.datatec.co.za) | | +------------------- | Ivan Dittrich - Chief Financial | +27 (0) 11 233 1221 | | Officer | | +------------------- | Wilna de Villiers - Group Marketing | +27 (0) 11 233 1013 | | Manager | | +------------------- | | | +------------------- | Jefferies International Limited | | +------------------- | Chris Snoxall | +44 (0) 20 7029 | | | 8000 | +------------------- | | | +------------------- | College Hill | | +------------------- | Adrian Duffield/Rozi Morris (UK) | + 44 (0) 20 7457 | | | 2020 | +------------------- | Frederic Cornet (SA) | +27 (0) 11 447 3030 | +------------------- This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange END |
Posted at 18/5/2007 04:42 by vanhalen Bloody hell ..... what are you lot doing here ??? This thread was nice and quiet .... now clear off !!! Oh i see ............. Datatec ......... i think you guys need to start another thread as this was set up years ago when DTC was the epic for Digital Classics. |
Posted at 17/10/2006 20:18 by vanhalen Johndee ......... yes the DTC ticker is now Datatec. However, all the ADVFN DTC threads including this one refer to Digital Classics as no one appears to have started a DTC thread exclusively for Datatec.Hope this helps |
Posted at 13/1/2006 22:41 by investorjon POKER: It was delayed because of a lack of sponsors and players. Just hope it doesn't cost DTC too much. It wasn't profit though it was turnover, and where DTC would never have owned it. What will be interesting is to see if there are any Board changes soon, as I do think that if you have an accident prone CEO (and not just the poker, which after all is his 'baby' ownership and all) that underperforms then sooner or later you have a different CEO. Mind you I don't think I can be accused of not making warnings about it and the manner of its being. I just hope that DTC don't cough up as sponsors just to get it going! I'd rather see it as a wake up call to encourage CH if he is allowed to stay to concentrate on DTC proper, but even his production skills are not quite as crucial now, with Box TV, but we've been there before, so when I seem unworried by the poker situation its because I never believed it would deliver and didn't like the way it was set up to deliver in the first place. It's no secret that I feel that DTC would be better without CH and especially so now and not many people could see the decline of a company over a five year period and still stay in the job, still get paid, and it's only the last few months with DE's influence that things are picking up. The difference is that at one time if CH had left, the share price would have plummmeted, with a void to be filled, whereas now I think the share price would rise and BoxTV proves there is talent for the production. I've exhausted my comments on that one and I'm not going to be distracted by the really good stuff happening at DTC which I believe will make the poker problem pale into insignificance, but where delays must have cost DTC, but perhaps a valuable lesson.What's the score with Wind in the Willows, do we actually get the money for that one, as I know people have commented that perhaps DTC don't get payments for the Sweeney Todd program, but looking at the contractual situation with people like the Beeb there must be something in it for DTC, and in any event with productions like 'Sweeney Todd' it does with respect leave some of the other ongoing productions in its wake and will, I am certain lead to even more prestigious programs and awards and PROFITS. Think it does show the value of the acquisitions in a better light now with regards to what we paid, but where their true worth is greater than the sums paid for what looked like expensive purchases in isolation. Looking at the AIM market, I think michael is right though. A lot of the AIM market is too expensive for the hope value that exists in the share price I can't say that of DTC. After the acquisitions I have never felt as confident as I do now that the shares are undervalued, and could really be the best investment out there. I rate them as a very strong buy. Take a look at the market, there are AIM shares where prices don't reflect value, but I think DTC is bumping around on the bottom, but based on the premise of yesterday's DTC and it isn't it's a radically different and better company that with the proper hand on the rudder will produce stunning performance and where there is the definite sign of another's influence at the helm. We might see exploration stocks strik oil becoming 10x bagger's, but it would never surprise me now for DTC to be in the same league. |
Posted at 14/12/2005 07:40 by investorjon Perusing details of the acquisition further, I would imagine that provided there are not too many costs associated with 'database' (don't go there) as in RM Distribution, that NBD (with the greater asset value) will also allow DTC to amalgamate its content distribution to cover a much wider spectrum. One of its failings imho was the fact that although CH's filming skills are first class, the niche market nature of some of the productions would limit scope, whereas taking in NBD gives DTC a full compliment of rights, from pop, film, documentary and classics, which would not only give economy of scale, but ensure that DTC could service ALL the content needs of its customer base.On top of this, I mentioned how I thought VITAL DTC's current dvd distributor looked a good set up, but where it was a pity we had to use someone else....well now we won't have to. So from concept, filming to licensing rights and DVD production and distribution DTC will have it covered. Yes, we do need to watch the costs, to see that past excuses are not repeated, but I'm pleased that DTC seem to be equipped (after the acquisition) with all parts of the jigsaw necessary to succeed across the whole spectrum of performing/programmi There was no doubt that DTC owned or had under its control 60% of classical type content, which is OK if there is a demand for just that type of content. In the real world however, companies want to deal with others who have access to service all their needs...something DTC will now be equipped to do with content spanning all genres. |
Posted at 08/12/2005 10:01 by investorjon I'm expecting good things of Iain Thompson too. Just ONE successful show could bring DTC to life, but I'm sorry but I'm still not sure of CH's commitment to DTC rather than to his own pocket, and David's intrigue has added further to that concern.DTC the company could and should be really successful, but it has to have a CEO committed to it, committed to using any ideas for the benefit of DTC, rather than through what has been the modus operandi further called into question by David's comments which if I'm interpreting correctly (and I may not be) suggest CH personally wanted a cut out of the MJ doc, which I find extraordinary but which I have seen nothing to confirm that, but I can't believe David would infer that without some sort of knowledge. I'm afraid it's getting all too muddy for CH, we can't keep on giving the benefit of the doubt, and whilst I agree about the last RNS and the savings are great, but if the savings of £400,000 etc. are being made, and £700,000 for a placing for a DVD subsidiary when the whole caboodle is being handled by Vital, and all the other successful comments in the RNS, then why has the loss gone up by another £200,000. Sadly it isn't savings that make a company, its profits, and DTC are actually further away, irrespective of the good news. Again we see in the comments veiled murmurs that the assets of the company are worth a lot more than is stated....virtually suggesting that the books are not accurate which in City circles does not bode that well and is would, if true be outside of proper accounting rules where the accounts are supposed to be a true and accurate picture of a company's trading position. I just don't subscribe to the constant spin spin spin, when the profits don't follow that spin time and time again. It's always been jam tomorrow, but what do we get tomorrow....further good statements, but greater losses. DTC should be THE company, it should be making wads of cash, it should have Board members and a CEO totally comitted to pushing DTC and its wholly owned subsidiaries, save in the knowledge that the best pay off will be by raising the profile of the company, by making profits, where large shareholders and small shareholders alike stand to make much more by the profitability of DTC than by going off on private money making excursions, but still using DTC as a vehicle for the paycheck. Any shareholders with the sort of holding CH has, in the position that CH has, would gain so much more by the increase in DTC's share price and possible subsequent dividends, so these apparent attempts to earn a bit on the side (on several occasions) seem pointless and send out the wrong message. I'd certainly like qualification about the comments on the MJ doc, although I am still considering giving the DTC shares away and I'd be happy for details of worthy charities. So far my favoured one is the Rocking Horse Appeal. |
Posted at 14/11/2005 23:03 by investorjon Gary how is it an interpretation, it is a fact? DTC should have had money in the bank shouldn't they...but now they haven't with the delay? DTC are paying Angela's wages? That is a loss whatever way you dress it up, as is a delay.It is not possible that they have kept to their modus operandi is it, because the competition, not directly owned by DTC is out of DTC's hands, so they can't have presold that, as it's not their to sell, the rights as Jabber's links suggest go to the founder Mr Chris Hunt, not to DTC. You then say IF DTC have kept to their modus operandi then they would not have lost out, but if you read my comments they are correct, as they say DTC has already lost out by not having the rights? That is correct isn't it after all you agree that DTC's only interest is in the production of the TV programme not in ownership of it, after all this is what you confirm in your post? You accuse me of interpreting, yet you have interpeted (against facts) that DTC have kept to their modus operandi,when that hardly seems possible does it, when they don't own the rights to the program, and are being paid for the production of the program, which hasn't taken place has it! Do you also believe the lame excuse about the Tsunami and the changed venue as a reason for the delay of the competition, when even now on WPM's own site it shows conclusively that there was only ever one venue advertised (the current one) and that there are still only 21 players and their competition requires 50? Did you ever hear of a venue other than the existing one? Yes/No Even with a venue change and excuse of Tsunami could the competition have gone ahead with only 21 out of the 50 players when the whole basis of the competition is the structure (like the golf masters competition which they quote) based on 50 players? Yes/No Your comment on accounts seems to not realise that they ARE the latest results, as those for 2005 would not have to be produced yet or indeed even submitted yet, and instead of quoting these why not check with Companies House, then you would know...but again it seems easier for some of you to have a go at me, then to take the trouble to actually find out from someone other than those who may have previously given duff information. On top of that, as there has not been any competition, which is what WPM relies on, although there have been additional expenses since, so how do suppose that WPM has earnings or assets better than the published accounts? You say "whilst you may be correct" well if I'm not post the companies house material? Post the full complement of poker players? Post details that the person on the WPM site is not actually a paid employee of Iambic, even though she has their email address? I don't know if you do want transparency, as you seem content to take an opaque view when you can easily check for yourself if you really want to? Did a post attributed to Mr Hunt to this board state effective that no money was being spent by DTC in the running of WPM? YES or NO? Is it true that on the WPM from the beginning has been an employee of Iambic? Iambic pays her wages, therefore DTC pays her wages, let alone any costs of the competition delay for a company that is not owned by DTC. So are their penalty clauses for DTC to claim? Gary, you seem to have a slanted point when you suggest and actually confirm my point inadvertently, when you state: "The deal as per the interims is to televise the tournament not take the risk of producing it. You can't have it both ways". So why if that is true is an Iambic employee using time and energy in the organisation and running of what is a totally private company? SO DTC's just televising it is it, so why are we paying the wages for an Iambic employee on that private company's site.....as you say you can't have it both ways? Do you think it was correct that this board only heard about CH's ownership of WPM on this board, months after an announcement by DTC (CH) of an agreement affectively by him as CEO of DTC and with him as owner of WPM without any disclosure? Yes or No? If the deal is only to produce the program, then again you prove another point I made about DTC losing out on the rights? It should also be noted that is where I used the term losing out too? I post here positive and negative, but some of the things that have happened with this company look decidely bad, and I'm afraid that's not me, it is the people doing it! You mention also that 'if you are wrong you are doing a serious harm' inferring I am wrong, but companies house information wasn't wrong, and apart from which it figures that if I am right. If I'm not right post figures that show it, post something that shows you were informed that CH owned WPM at the time of the announcement, post something tangible? I'm always happy to apologise, always happy to learn, but I'm not gullible either, even if some want to believe at any cost, which is their right. You may be interested to know (and not directed at anyone) that the 'asset' that most recidivist conmen possess is that they are believable time and time again, which is why they function and how they function, so I tend to be sceptical about most things and in the main this has served me very well. You want the CEO's of these companies not to have the diversion of being forced to sue every person that makes libellous statements on a public bulletin board, (are you suggesting mine have been libellous?), but apparently don't mind a CEO setting up a private company in a similar line, which could have been expected to have been within the sphere of his job as CEO, keeping the rights with a private company, then announcing a deal publicly as the CEO of the quoted company, but forgetting the minor detail that he owns the other private company, and just after the quoted company announce an extra employee to release him to give him more time to concentrate on other projects. The poker situation is hardly the only contentious issue is it? |
Posted at 14/11/2005 11:24 by investorjon jabber: Shouldn't start me off on the Poker Masters or the Poke DTC Shareholders, as I think it should be more aptly named:What is happening there is that contrary to the cheap excuse in the last message from DTC about the Tsunami changing the venues (even though it's the same venue as always appeared on WPM site), the reason you have heard nothing is because they haven't got enough competitors, rendering the first excuse about the Tsunami even more ridiculous. Go to the WPM site and you will see that they need 50 competitors and they have only got 21....So until they get 29 more there is no competition, either now, February or any other time. Competitors are currently (assuming they don't pull out): Joe Beevers, Juha Helppi, David Benjamin, Howard Lederer, Patrick Bruel, Marcel Luske, Ralph Burd, Carlos Mortensen, Dave Colclough, Surinder Sunar, Freddie Deeb, Dave Ulliot, Harry Demetriou, Ram Vaswani, Annie Duke, Robert Williamson III, Antonio Estfandiari, Jani Sointula, Bruno Fitoussi, Mel Judah and Tony Guogo. So 29 competitors short, with DTC not having the benefit of the cashflow they should, with delays at whose cost? With an Iambic employee's wages (Angela Hall) still being paid towards the running of what is a solely owned private company, not owned by DTC, thus again proving that the statement hastily sent about not one penny of DTC money being spent for WPM (not owned by DTC) proving ridiculous also. It should be noted that DTC was ONLY commissioned for the production of the programme, not in running CH's private company, and player contact cannot possibly be argued as a production issue, it is an administration issue, a competition administration issue, and should not be funded by DTC. Interesting too that DTC seem to have deviated in their modus operandi where they have always stated they are guaranteed a profit on any production, but where costs have been incurred here and where any 'risk' seems to be with DTC, who have already lost out by virtue of not having the rights, these being held by WPM, and in any delays, let alone the risk in cash shortfalls, where WPM have no money, as their accounts showed at Companies House. This is one reason I think CH should fall on his sword as CEO and concentrate more on the production (but with DTC owning it!). |
Posted at 21/10/2005 23:18 by investorjon Good post Michael. Very interesting.Now if only DTC owned the content it once suggested. No seriously, very good post and food for thought, and the sort of markets that DTC should be thinking about. I believe there is also a large Abba fan club in China now too. Nice to service the home market, but what a potential customer base there and could really change the face of DTC, even on the conventional classics that has taken a back seat to some of the Iambic content. One good deal is all DTC needs, one good deal and the undivided attention of a CEO with credibility, who can be trusted, and whose actions would suggest it is more lucrative to build DTC into a very profitable company, from which everyone would gain rather than to use time that should have been used building DTC, to covertly start up a solely owned independent private company with no assets, not divulge it to shareholders or the CIty, nor even mention that little fact when an RNS mentioning a contract for DTC with this new company, with was apparently to control content in a venture that would otherwise be expected to be held by DTC, but in a heads the CEO wins and tails DTC loses operation....as the new private company had no assets to lose and is of course a limited company too. Incidentally the accounts of WPM do not tend to indicate a trip to Asia, which presumably would have taken place if the venue was indeed changed from the Tsunami affected 'original' venue that never even made to the WPM website in the first place. |
Posted at 20/10/2005 08:42 by investorjon michael: The losses have increased, with the last set showing even greater losses? Probably why the share price has gone down with it. Or is it everyone including the city doesn't see what a great CEO CH is? Sadly Michael you seem to equate success as turnover, but it doesn't matter what turnover you make if you can't make a profit on it, and in the situation of any CEO that doesn't have the skills, is just a recipe for increased losses, and whose credibility must be in question, as it certainly appears that he has upset some on this board with his claims, assurances etc., who goes off and starts a company whilst working for DTC, publishes RNS suggesting a contract, but failing to mention either that it is with a brand new company that has no assets, or the mere detail that him and his wife own it. Let alone the fact that he claimed for years that DTC owned 3,000 hours of content, which after it was pointed out, DTC under the guidance of DE then had to amend that to 3,000 owned or under the control of, but with CH at a seminar suggesting DTC only owned 100's of hours outright. Even then when his new company was brought to attention (and not by him), some six months after the RNS, a hurried reply to this board still did not seem to tell the truth did it? Stating that not one penny of DTC monies, when a little trip to his own website showed and still shows an Iambic employee as a contact. Don't they pay employees as Iambic now? Then we have the delays in the competition, all must be costing DTC, as they can't be costing WPM as they didn't have any assets to start with? Any other organisation would have to pay DTC a penalty clause for delays outside of the control of DTC....but we've heard nothing. All we did hear was a pathetic use of the tsunami, with an RNS which was really about a totally separate company WPM, suggesting that the delay was from a change of venue, when provably even the WPM site only ever carried the location of Spain! No mention in DTC accounts about whether they have or are losing money by the delay, and why has this program not followed DTCs stated modus operandi inasmuch as they state that they never even start a production unless a profit is there at the outset (£100,000?). So where is the profit from the WPM if it is guaranteed from the start, like every other production? No sorry Michael, but I think rather than query me, you should take off your rose tinted spectacles and start questioning your aunty ch. Ask Tom and others who have posted rather more cutting comments than I, whether they have ever received assurances, and whether such assurances proved accurate, honest or reliable? On a different topic, I have noted in the past mention of the Nomad, as if they are the saviour of shareholders, and I just wondered if shareholders knew the function of the Nomad, as contrary to what some think the Nomad which is short for NOMinated ADvisor, is someone picked by THE COMPANY, and whose function is not really to protect the interests of shareholders. The Nomad is not appointed by the LSE. |
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
