We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ensor Hldgs | ESR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 55.50 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55.50 | 55.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/12/2016 09:06 by carcosa With an offer for Ellards already underway and an offer has received from the Harrison family for Wood's then you have to ask yourself just how much of a saving will be realised by delisting the company? The implication is that there will be a long time between delisting and final sale (if ever)But that is the problem though. They have not actually said it is a cost saving exercise. "The de-listing will improve our flexibility to complete the realisation process and reduce delay." If its such a good move then why isn't it standard practice for when other companies are wound up? And this business about "under the AIM Rules it will be required to prepare and publish a circular to Shareholders and seek Shareholder approval, which will bring delay and uncertainty to the transaction and additional costs payable to our advisers." The only uncertainty to the transaction would be if the final disposals are so blatantly cheap to be scandalous. That is highly unlikely to happen though; so this argument is hogwash. It could all go smoothly and a profit from the current share price is possible; but unless that profit was likely to be 100% upside then I don't think the risk of ultimately being shafted is worth being an investor at this point in time. FWIW I believe a realisation price of ~62p/share is likely if management do the right thing. Carcosa |
Posted at 02/12/2016 14:16 by davidosh I agree with Dangersimpson2 and when I read the delist RNS my first thought was that a tender offer at somewhere around say 58p would be a reasonable time value fair exit point for those who wanted to tender rather than sell in the market in a rush to exit a delisted entity.That option would also mean that those who are able to wait would presumably gain a little more of the value rather than the market makers currently stealing it with a spread of 10% !! If anyone wants to sell I am happy to buy them via my broker and meet at the mid price if that helps as the spread looks to be 50p to 55p and sadly falling but widening the spread which is awful for investors. |
Posted at 02/12/2016 10:17 by cockerhoop I talked to Roger at the Agm and my take was that the Tender was pulled due to HMRC not giving the assurance that it wouldn't be treated it as income - which is subtly different. They felt it was too risky with their 54% holding.I am disappointed they haven't taken into account that many investors holdings are in ISA's and SIPP's so the de-listing process will be disruptive for them. Personally I have a mix of ISA and non-ISA holdings so it will be fairly straight forward for me to transfer across accounts at the same broker but I may then be liable for CGT on any capital gain above the transfer price depending on which tax year the returns are eventually made. |
Posted at 02/12/2016 08:56 by cockerhoop Hi guys,I listened in on the conference call (thanks to David for organising). Roger and Marcus were on the line along with approx 10 investors. Roger and Marcus outlined their reasoning for the de-listing the prime one being not wanting to delay the sale of Ellard by approx 5 weeks to allow shareholder vote. As in the recent RNS the sale is advanced, when pressed February was mentioned as a possible date of completion. The Brackley land could also complete at a similar time. Quotes for liquidators have been obtained and will cost 10's of thousands. Roger was asked whether he was happy with the sale process and said he'd been frustrated by the time taken, caused by purchasers not being willing to pay a decent price for the businesses. Attempts were made to get a feel of the level of investor return but as you'd expect Roger wouldn't elaborate on the eventual value. If you have any further questions let me know, I didn't take notes so i've just jotted down what I remember. |
Posted at 26/11/2016 14:47 by davidosh I am going to set up a conference call with the directors if any of you are interested so that they can fully explain why this is the best way to maximise value for shareholders....if that is the conclusion they have or if advisers involved ?To be honest delistings generally work as a negative for investors and many become automatic or forced sellers when this happens so we do need to fully understand this. |
Posted at 27/7/2016 13:09 by pavey ark Yes Dd I think it would be a good idea to now sit back and wait for the final units to be sold.I and others have come up with figures close to ST's estimate and it must be pointed out that any sensible investor should screen tips by the likes of ST very carefully and if they decide to buy they should take the responsibility for their actions. I bought at 71p as I thought his initial valuation was a bit rich but after much number crunching I am more than happy to be in at this level. I expect a final payout of 85p/95p and with two profitable and expanding units still to sell together with a large cash pile and freehold land there is very little downside with 20-30% upside. I don't intend to post again until there is some hard news on the disposals but I hope that people putting forward negative views back these up with figure that can then be examined and discussed. |
Posted at 27/7/2016 11:15 by davidosh That article was yesterday when Simon Thompson stated that he still expected at least 90p and stated BUY.For the avoidance of any doubt as I do not think it is good to guess these things and one paragraph is not a good way to understand his rationale I am copying it all purely because ST appears to be the reason many joined us longer term holders... When I initiated coverage at 97p ('Building up for a takeover', 22 Jun 2015), Ensor's days as a listed entity looked numbered after the board put the company up for sale. I subsequently reiterated that advice at 90p ('M&A updates', 9 Dec 2015). Admittedly, shareholders have had to be patient as the divestment process has taken far longer than I had envisaged. That's mainly because the board decided a series of trade sales would maximise shareholder returns rather than seeking one buyer. But that's not to say they haven't been successful. Two disposals announced a fortnight ago generated a total cash consideration of £12.5m on completion and Ensor also retained £1.62m of cash held by those businesses. The proceeds represent a hefty premium to the £4.6m-worth of net operating assets sold. Moreover, Ensor now has net funds of £13.3m, or 44.5p a share, before payment of a final dividend of 1.55p a share in late September at a cost of £463,000 (ex-dividend: 11 August). There are decent prospects of Ensor's two remaining businesses being sold at a premium to the book value of their assets, too: Ellard, a supplier of electric motors and controls for the automation of doors and gates; and Wood Packaging, a specialist supplier of protective covers for furniture transportation, servicing major retail groups as well as the SME markets. Both are being actively marketed and Ensor's board is in discussions with interested potential buyers, but it's not going to be a fire sale as shareholder value will not be sacrificed for the sake of an early disposal. That's worth bearing in mind because I feel there is a pricing anomaly worth exploiting here. In fact, once you adjust for the latest disposals, I reckon Ensor has a pro-forma net asset value of £19m, including net funds of £13.3m. The company has a market value of £21.8m, so in effect investors are attributing a value of £8.5m to Ellard and Wood Packaging even though both are profitable and have been growing strongly. Indeed, Ellard has increased sales at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14 per cent in the past three years and lifted operating profit by 10 per cent to £890,000 on revenues up 15 per cent to £8.5m in the 12 months to end March 2016. Wood Packaging has been growing even faster, increasing sales at a CAGR of 17 per cent in the past three years and yielding an operating profit of £628,000 on sales of £3.6m in the last financial year. So, in effect, these businesses are being valued at the equivalent of 5.5 times operating profit based on Ensor's current market capitalisation. True, US dollar exchange rates are a challenge due to the increasing levels of goods sourced and purchased in the Far East, but even so they look undervalued. A more realistic valuation of between 9 and 10 times historic operating profit values the two businesses in a range of £13.6m-£ |
Posted at 25/7/2016 10:59 by zimbtrader I think we can all agree Ensor are very "creative" with their accounts forsaking the clarity and granularity that could be gained by clearly stating each business separately. One wonders what's actually gained by doing this other than to keep investors in the dark!I have re-crunched figures a number of ways and built in several assumptions ranging from extremely conservative to highly optimistic and have a range of values between 68p and 91p with a figure around 80p occurring most often. I guess all will be revealed in time. |
Posted at 18/7/2016 13:03 by pavey ark Time to get the calculators out here chaps.Obviously current holders may not be impressed with the way things are going but for new investors things look rather good on a risk/reward basis. At current price the 90p figure (mentioned above) gives a 25% gain and as things look to be coming to a close this could be a 25% gain over a short period of time. It should be remembered that the balance sheet was in very good shape before the disposals and even with the pension liability the current share price looks pretty well covered with the two units still to be sold. In my opinion this is worth a punt at these levels but this is just my opinion and I did say "punt" |
Posted at 19/1/2016 15:21 by jbarcroftr I thought they intended to sell the four businesses separately to achieve the best pricesThat's what ST of Investors Chroncle flagged up They have bought all their pension liabilities out to ensure clean sales For what it's worth ST reckoned 115 p of breakup assets I added a few more yesterday as it looks very good value to me |
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
