Globaldata Share Price (DATA)

Share Name	Share Symbol	Market	Type	Share ISIN	Share Description
Globaldata	LSE:DATA	London	Ordinary Share	GB00B87ZTG26	ORD 1/14P

	Price Change	% Change	Share Price	Shares Traded	Last Trade
	+0.00p	+0.00%	600.00p	17,500	08:00:00
Bid Price		Offer Price	High Price	Low Price	Open Price
580.00p		620.00p	600.00p	600.00p	600.00p

Industry Sector	Turnover (m)	Profit (m)	EPS - Basic	PE Ratio	Market Cap (m)
Media	121.7	-0.8	-2.1	-	613.42

Related Shares
Sky (SKY), Relx (REL), Mirada (MIRA), Gotech Group (GOT)

Globaldata (DATA) Latest News

Globaldata News

Date	Time	Source	Headline
24/4/2018	13:14	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Result of General Meeting and AGM
29/3/2018	13:56	ALNC	GlobalData To Buy Research Views In GBP100 Million Deal (ALLISS)
29/3/2018	08:06	ALNCF	Alliance News Flash Headline
29/3/2018	07:01	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Proposed Acquisition
26/2/2018	10:58	ALNC	GlobalData Cuts Loss As Revenue Rises, Agrees Acquisition With Shares..
26/2/2018	07:01	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Possible Acquisition
26/2/2018	07:01	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Final Results For The Year Ended 31 December 2017
21/12/2017	16:44	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Transaction in Own Shares
14/12/2017	16:37	UKREG	GlobalData PLC Transaction in Own Shares
08/12/2017	14:04	ALNC	GlobalData Buys MEED Media From Ascential For USD17.5 Million In Cash

More Globaldata News

Globaldata Takeover Rumours

Globaldata (DATA) Share Charts

1 Year Globaldata Chart

1 Month Globaldata Chart

Intraday Globaldata Chart

Globaldata (DATA) Discussions and Chat

Globaldata Forums and Chat

Date	Time	Title	Posts
20/4/2018	10:37	GlobalData plc	187
06/5/2014	09:53	ADVFN DATA DOWNLOADS GONE???	-
06/2/2013	10:43	Data Feeds & Charting Packages	4
20/8/2010	07:36	Datacash: a good prospect?	1,651
14/11/2007	20:01	Still undervalued!!!!	1

Add a New Thread

Globaldata (DATA) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time	Trade Price	Trade Size	Trade Value	Trade Type
10:56:23	597.49	2,500	14,937.25	O
10:48:21	597.49	2,500	14,937.25	O
10:02:07	595.00	2,500	14,875.00	O
09:49:12	597.49	10,000	59,749.00	O

View all Globaldata trades in real-time

Globaldata (DATA) Top Chat Posts

Date	Subject
25/4/2018 09:20	Globaldata Daily Update: Globaldata is listed in the Media sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker DATA. The last closing price for Globaldata was 600p. Globaldata has a 4 week average price of 572.50p and a 12 week average price of 547.50p. The 1 year high share price is 625p while the 1 year low share price is currently 477.50p. There are currently 102,236,422 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 7,442 shares. The market capitalisation of Globaldata is £613,418,532. Read Full Thread Reply
08/12/2017 13:58	littleredrooster: http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/globaldata-DATA/share-news/GlobalData-PLC-Acquisition-of-MEED-Media-FZ-LLC/76259190 GlobalData PLC Acquisition of MEED Media FZ LLC 08/12/2017 1:45pm GlobalData Plc is pleased to announce its agreement to acquire MEED Media FZ LLC ("MEED") from Ascential PLC for a cash consideration of $17.5m. MEED provides premium business information content with an industry focus on infrastructure and projects in the Middle East. The business services its growing client base principally through annual subscription contracts. Background to the Acquisition The acquisition of MEED supports the Group's strategy of expanding its premium subscription based services into global markets and adds a further vertical industry to the Group's offering. MEED has quality proprietary content and brings deep regional and sector expertise to the Group. For the financial year ended 31 December 2016, the revenues for MEED were $18.7m with an EBITDA of $1.7m and it had net liabilities of $1.7m, largely as a result of its deferred revenues. The cash consideration will be financed using the Group's existing bank facilities and the acquisition is expected to be earnings accretive in the first year of ownership. Commenting on the acquisition Bernard Cragg, Executive Chairman, said: "MEED gives the Group the opportunity to further expand into a key region and adds an additional industry vertical to our offering whilst maintaining our disciplined investment criteria of premium proprietary content and strong renewable subscription based revenues. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our new colleagues to the Group and wish them every success for the future within GlobalData." About GlobalData Plc 4,000 of the world's largest companies make better and more timely decisions thanks to our unique data, expert analysis and innovative solutions delivered through a single platform. At GlobalData, our mission is to help our clients decode the future to be more successful and innovative. We are now one of the largest data and insights solution providers in the world. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
30/11/2017 11:06	littleredrooster: Naspers paid $34 million for its current stake .. that is now worth about $170 billion hxxp://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/11/29/after-34-million-investment-in-tencent-africas-naspers-is-one-worlds-most-valuable.html After $34 Million Investment in Tencent, Africa's Naspers Is One of World's Most Valuable By Alexandra Wexler Published November 29, 2017 JOHANNESBURG – Africa's most valuable company is now suddenly one of the world's most valuable companies, too. On Wednesday, Naspers Ltd. -- a media and internet firm little known outside South Africa and Silicon Valley -- reported a surge in half-year earnings, bolstered by its 33.3% stake in Chinese internet giant Tencent Holdings Ltd. The performance sent shares up 0.8%, bringing its gains over the last year to 84%. That has suddenly made it the world's 65th largest listed company by market value among the Stoxx Global 3000 index. Last year, it wasn't close to breaking into the top 100, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. The stock market gains have been driven almost entirely by Tencent's own soaring share price. Back in 2001, Naspers paid $34 million for its current stake. Based on Tencent's current market capitalization, that is now worth about $170 billion. Investors have baked in a discount for Naspers shares, though, because of a dividend-withholding tax that would kick in should it ever sell out. Naspers market cap ended Wednesday at about $121 billion. Apart from Tencent, Naspers holds stakes in a host of other portfolio companies, including Mail.ru Group, a Russian internet company that runs two of the country's three biggest social networks, Delivery Hero, a food delivery company in Germany, and Flipkart, India's biggest e-commerce site. "The market is actually paying you to take on all these other great assets," said Philip Short, an analyst at Old Mutual Equities, in Cape Town. Naspers said net profit for the six months ended Sept. 30 rose 98% to $1.1 billion, while revenue rose 5% to $3.1 billion. That came from dividends it receives from its Tencent Holdings and profits at its e-commerce businesses, especially its global digital classified businesses. Its holdings in Tencent also gives Naspers an almost-unrivaled position as what has become essentially a silent partnership in some of the tech world's splashiest recent investments. Earlier this year, Tencent bought a 5% stake in Tesla Inc. and a 12% stake in Snap Inc. Last year, it bought Finland's Supercell, maker of the "Clash of Clans" mobile game franchise. Last year, Naspers opened a venture-capital outfit in Silicon Valley to be closer to the tech-innovation hub. Recently, the company has been quietly taking on much bigger rivals. The company launched a streaming service called ShowMax across Africa in 2015, just ahead of Netflix Inc. Naspers is also going toe to toe with Craigslist Inc. in the U.S., with a mobile app called LetGo. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
12/9/2017 10:03	littleredrooster: companies with high capital spending tend to underperform http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/AMZN/share-news/New-Amazon-Headquarters-Should-Alarm-WSJ/75624748 New Amazon Headquarters Should Alarm -- WSJ 12/09/2017 8:02am Dow Jones News By James Mackintosh This article is being republished as part of our daily reproduction of WSJ.com articles that also appeared in the U.S. print edition of The Wall Street Journal (September 12, 2017). The list of warning signals for shareholders includes diversification into new industries, changes of business model, massive hiring programs, unfettered CEO power, distracted management, and high capital spending. But top of the list for many is the construction of a new headquarters. Hubris, meet Amazon.com. Amazon has achieved extraordinary feats, most notably in speed of expansion. It hired more than 30,000 people in the last quarter alone, and in the past three years has tripled its head count to 382,400. It appears to have managed this without a hitch, even as it spent billions of dollars on Hollywood productions, launched a hit gadget and ramped up its spending on research and development. Investors are betting that CEO Jeff Bezos will keep his magic touch, and that money plowed into expansion today represents big profits to be made some time in the future. History and human nature are against Mr. Bezos -- and may eventually prove a headwind for much of the rest of the market too. The lesson from the long term is that companies with high capital spending tend to underperform. Kenneth French, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, calculates that shares in the 30% of U.S. companies with the lowest investment returned six times as much as those with the highest investment since 1963. Human nature provides a story to back up the findings. CEOs like to expand (not coincidentally, CEOs of bigger companies earn more), like to chase new ideas (putting them on the front of popular magazines) and like to do what shareholders want (boosting the value of their stock options, at least in the short run). The three come together when a company or sector is in vogue, as shareholders give it cheap capital and cheer on plans for growth. Often it turns out that the premise for the expansion was mistaken, and much capital spending is wasted. Remember peak oil, the race to dig new mines to satisfy forecasts of endless emerging-market growth, or the vast overinvestment in shipping to prepare for global trade's inevitable expansion? Those early in the expansion are right to invest, but as more capital is deployed it can drive down prices and destroy the very opportunity shareholders hoped to exploit. Other times CEOs just fritter the money away, as in the dot-com bubble. If you exercise little control over management and actively encourage them to spend money as quickly as possible, you shouldn't be surprised if much of it is wasted. The rise and rise of Amazon has come as the patterns of the past seem to have been suspended. Since the start of 2009 the runaway success of big tech stocks and big dividend payers have helped companies with the most and least investment do well, while middling companies underperformed. Calculations by Goldman Sachs' chief U.S. equity strategist David Kostin suggest shareholders have shifted again in the past 18 months, rewarding capital spending with bigger share-price gains than for dividends and share buybacks. If it continues, CEOs will get the message and corporate investment will pick up. Amazon shareholders might argue that the company won't fall victim to misplaced capital spending because it is exploiting disruptive technology, investing in growth and spending heavily on R&D. If the past is any indication, these offer up only a glimmer of a hope. History offers plenty of examples of disruptive technologies leading to investment booms, but those caught up in the spending spree usually lose out horribly. The British "railway mania" of the 1840s is a classic example: money poured in from excited shareholders, railroad companies found ways to spend it and were rewarded with ever-higher share prices, until investors discovered just how much of the capital had been wasted. The winners were the broader economy and those who entered early or sold out in time. But much capital had to be written down as profits were competed away or overestimated. Investing in growth is more plausible. Academics have shown that higher R&D spending on average is followed by better stock performance than for companies with lower R&D spending. For this to justify further increases in Amazon's stock price means assuming investors are once again underestimating the future profits from its R&D spending. Given how hard it is even to work out how much the company is spending on R&D -- it is lumped in with "technology and content," where $5.5 billion was spent in total in the second quarter -- it's impossible to come up with a firm view of how well it is spent, or what profits might result. The share price might well be underestimating future products, but might equally be extrapolating the past successes of the web-hosting division or the voice-controlled Alexa device to unknown future products. Amazon expects to hire another 50,000 staff earning on average more than $100,000 a year at its second HQ over a decade and a half, adding $5 billion a year of pay to the more than $5 billion capital cost of "HQ2." Amazon shareholders betting on it bucking history have to hope that by the time HQ2 is completed the company has both grown enough to justify its vast scale and found a way to profit from all its capital and R&D spending. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
01/8/2017 14:52	littleredrooster: I come to the party via IBG (shares possibly bought when IBG was valued at less than £1m). hxxp://www.azam.info/tmn-group-buy-ibg-affiliate-future/ IBG (Affiliate Future) sells to TMN for no premium Posted by Azam Editorial Team as Performance Marketing Some shareholders in IBG, parent company of AffiliateFuture, have expressed concern about the decision to effectively sell the network to direct marketing company TMN Group (formerly TheMutual.net). The reason is because the acquisition values each IBG share at a miserable 12.75 pence and the whole of IBG at a mere £9.84 million. This compares to a share price of 28 pence six months ago on 20 June, 2007 and talk of IBG shares looking to hit the 40 pence mark. “I think what has happened over the past 6 months is a bloody disgrace”, says a shareholder who goes by the name Omlaysause on the ADVFN.com stockmarket forums. “First off we get that ridiculous RNS saying we MAY have a problem with profits and then to say it could be effected for 2 years, which as we all know, killed the share price there and then. Coupled with the strategic review which turned out to be a complete waste of time. We are then told, don’t worry lads, we’ve got some great ideas and you’ll all reap the benefits if you stick around for the next 2 years. Then a few months later, do you know what, we’re just going to sell up with no benefit to the IBG shareholders in the deal, it’s a simple swap of IBG to TMN.” Most IBG shareholders have expressed similarly negative views on ADVFN.com as they’ve felt that, by selling when the share price is at its lowest point in years, and by selling without a premium, they’ve been let down. However, some of the biggest losses will be incurred by IBG Directors who hold substantial holdings in the company. As recently as 7 August 2007, Non-Executive Director Nicola Costa and CEO Maziar Darvish bought £99,755.84 of shares between them at around 16.5p. The buyout/merger ends a year which has seen a number of affiliate networks and what could be more or less described as affiliate companies come together. Examples of notable tie-ups include TradeDoubler and The Search Works, Buy.at and Lightstate, Linkshare and TrafficStrategies.com as well as CauseLoyalty.com and AffiliateFuture and NetFreeStuff. The two CEOs, Maziar Darvish and Mark Smith, are both astute businessmen and will have made the decision with the best interests of their ‘babies’ at heart: the greater size will bring cost savings and there will be the potential to cross-sell services. With email marketing companies always hungry for campaigns and with affiliate networks always desperate for means to market their advertisers, this could be the perfect marriage of convenience… even if there is discontent about the amount of dowry paid. You can read the full buyout/merger statement below: “TMN – Nil Premium Merger with IBG 14 December 2007 .... •TMN’s services include email and website marketing (TMN Media), full service digital advertising (EDR), online fieldwork solutions (iD Factor) and research analysis (ICD Research). For the year ended 30 April 2007, TMN reported revenue of £16.1 million and operating profit of £3.3 million. For the six months ended 31 October 2007, TMN reported revenue of £9.0 million, and headline profit before tax of £1.4 million.. •IBG’s operations are divided primarily into the following three divisions: AffiliateFuture (a Performance Marketing network), IBG Media (brokering traffic as well as publishing a variety of websites), and E-commerce (websites retailing product lines across several sectors within sports and lifestyle). IBG is today announcing its preliminary results for the financial year ended 31 October 2007, reporting revenue of £16.4 million, profit before share based charges, interest, taxation, depreciation, amortisation IFRS share based charges and movement in investments of £1.6 million, and profit before taxation of £0.92 million." Read Full Thread Follow Reply
23/6/2017 12:08	littleredrooster: Amazon Web Services alone making almost 90% of operating profit in the first quarter http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/WFM/share-news/Blind-Faith-in-Bezos-May-Sting-Investors-WSJ/75099223 Blind Faith in Bezos May Sting Investors -- WSJ 23/06/2017 8:02am Dow Jones News By James Mackintosh This article is being republished as part of our daily reproduction of WSJ.com articles that also appeared in the US print edition of The Wall Street Journal (June 23, 2017). Investors think Jeff Bezos has the magic touch. Few companies other than Amazon.com Inc. could announce a nearly $14 billion takeover of a mature firm, give no details of why they are buying the very business model they're trying to disrupt, and have their market value rise by more than the takeover price. Since Amazon said last week that it would buy upscale grocery chain Whole Foods Market Inc., multiple theories have circulated about what it is up to. Some think it is about convenience shopping. Some that it is about customer data. Some suggest logistics, the grocery supply chain, or an extra distribution channel for the company's growing range of own-brand electronics. Still others think Amazon hasn't really got a strategy yet. What all seem to agree on is that Amazon will make it work, and other grocers should be cowering in the their freezer cases. Amazon doesn't inspire the near-religious fervor found among Apple's true believers, but the online-shopping-to-movie-studio conglomerate does depend on faith, hope and charity. Faith in Mr. Bezos's inventiveness provides the essential underpinning for Amazon shares, while investors hope that he doesn't really think of the company as a charity to finance wacky new ideas. Amazon -- like Google and Facebook -- has a successful core business, pays little heed to shareholders and plows its spare cash back into expansion and research and development rather than dividends. In the 20 years since it listed, it has made a total of $5.7 billion in net income, more than half of that in the past two years. It has spent $64 billion on R&D in the same period, including $4.8 billion in the first quarter alone. Mr. Bezos set out his principles in 1997. "We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions," he told shareholders. Investors have bought in to the idea that by not maximizing profit in the short term, Amazon can maximize profit in the long term -- even if, 20 years later, the long term still hasn't arrived. At most listed companies, the exact opposite is true, with management under constant pressure to boost dividends and buybacks. "It's become easier to invest as a private company than as a public company," says James Anderson, a partner at Edinburgh-based Baillie Gifford & Co., whose biggest holding is Amazon. "There's a small number of companies that appears permitted to do this, and it's very difficult for most other public companies." Holding shares in Amazon requires the belief that Mr. Bezos will find enough good investments to offset the mistakes -- such as cash Amazon put into Pets.com, the epitome of badly-thought-through dot-com bubble catastrophes. So far, just one of his successes would cover a lot of mistakes, with Amazon Web Services alone making almost 90% of operating profit in the first quarter. Investors also need to believe that eventually Mr. Bezos will start paying out some of the cash. The value of a company ultimately comes from future dividends -- and Amazon has yet to pay a cent. The long-term danger is that instead of paying dividends, the cash is wasted. History is littered with examples of chief executives indulged by shareholders who become so enamored of their own brilliance that they fritter away shareholder money on wasteful expansion. So far, the founders of the big tech stocks have mostly made good decisions, and while they aren't exactly humble, hubris isn't apparent either. But their secrecy -- on display again with the lack of explanation of the Whole Foods deal -- shows a degree of contempt for investors. The short-term danger doesn't involve Amazon, but its shareholders. Investors seem to have suspended disbelief. However brilliant Mr. Bezos is, it is extraordinary that he is able to launch a big takeover without offering any strategic or financial rationale. The same glass-half-full attitude was behind shareholder acceptance of nonvoting shares in Snap Inc.'s initial public offering. When doubt returns, as it always does, Amazon shares will suffer. In many ways, Amazon is an exemplar for investors. In most companies, shareholders should encourage more R&D spending, worry less about quarterly targets and tell managers to focus on the business, not the share price. In Amazon's case, the willingness to accept no explanation at all for a $13.7 billion purchase suggests faith has run too far. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
23/5/2017 16:23	littleredrooster: My estimate is that an early investment in IBG has significantly outperformed Google but the real star has been Amazon, and I would expect that I have benefitted from the rise in the Amazon share price via my investment in a global technology fund (and probably other such collective investments). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/amazon-20-shareholders-have-gained-49000pc-others-lost-94pc/ Amazon at 20: some shareholders have gained 49,000pc, others lost 94pc James Connington 20 May 2017 • 7:23am Investors who stuck with Amazon over the past two decades would have enjoyed a return of nearly 49,000pc, despite a 94pc collapse in its shares when the tech bubble burst at the turn of the millennium. This week marked the 20th anniversary of the online retail giant’s public listing. The stock has been “split” multiple times over its lifespan. Share splits involve investors being given, for example, 10 shares for each they already own. This dilutes the value of each share but prevents them becoming prohibitively expensive. Adjusting for share splits, Amazon closed its first day of trading on May 15 1997 at $1.96 a share, after a 30.5pc rise that day. Today the stock trades at $959. However, the ascent of Amazon's share price has not been smooth. During the 1999 tech bubble it hit a high of around $107 before collapsing to $6 by late 2001 - a 94pc loss. Many retail investors own Amazon through funds, as it has become a perennial favourite of professional investors who target growth. Of the 3,636 funds included in the classification system of the Investment Association, the trade body, 113 have Amazon as a top-10 holding, according to data service FE. A constant cause of concern for many investors is the company's valuation, and whether it can be justified. On a price to earnings (p/e) basis, it has repeatedly looked untenable. The p/e ratio measures share price relative to annual earnings per share. At times Amazon's p/e has registered in the thousands, and its average since 1997 is 236. Today it sits at 182 according to data service Bloomberg, compared with 23 for the wider US market. These valuations have not prevented the share price from rising, and many investors see Amazon as unique and almost impossible to imitate. The business is notoriously guarded in terms of explaining its investments - even to fund managers - but many investors believe in its ability to innovate and disrupt existing sectors to continue to deliver growth. hxxp://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082715/if-you-had-invested-right-after-amazons-ipo.asp If You Had Invested Right After Amazon's IPO By Investopedia \| Updated May 15, 2017 — 11:09 AM EDT "Today — May 15, 2017 — is the 20th anniversary of Amazon.com Inc.'s (Nasdaq: AMZN) initial public offering (IPO). Those in the investment industry know that Amazon has been a hot stock for quite some time. However, this was not always the case. When Amazon first went public in 1997, its stock was priced at just $18 per share. From that modest beginning, the online retail giant has seen its stock skyrocket, despite a rocky period during the dot-com crash. In fact, if you had invested just $100 in Amazon's IPO, that investment would have been worth $63,990 by close last Friday. On the 20th anniversary of its IPO, the stock price opened at $958.68, slightly under the all time high the previous week at $962. Hidden Growth It is clear from the figures above that even a modest investment in the company in 1997 would have turned into a healthy contribution to anyone's retirement savings. In fact, the stock has multiplied almost 491 times, using the split-adjusted close of $1.96." Read Full Thread Follow Reply
23/4/2017 13:17	littleredrooster: http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/TSLA/share-news/What-Is-Tesla-Really-Worth-Heard-on-the-Street/74347159 What Is Tesla Really Worth?--Heard on the Street 16/04/2017 7:26pm Dow Jones News By Charley Grant Tesla Inc. is valued as though it will soon conquer the U.S. auto market. Now, it has the small task of actually doing so. Tesla shares have been unstoppable ahead of the Model 3 launch, having gained 40% this year. The upstart auto maker is more valuable than Ford and slightly less valuable than General Motors on a market cap basis. The crux of the excitement is the all-electric Model 3 sedan that Tesla says will start at $35,000. Production is scheduled to begin this summer. Tesla now trades at 271 times projected 2018 adjusted earnings, according to FactSet. Ford and GM, in contrast, trade at less than seven and six times the 2018 estimate, respectively. Tesla gets that valuation because it is expected to upend the auto industry, while earning big profits that would bring down the multiple. But to actually earn enough profits to reduce Tesla's multiple to something in the realm of reasonable would require almost heroic assumptions. First, the basics: Say Tesla's valuation should be 10 times higher than GM and Ford's, and say Tesla's share price stays constant at about $300. That means Tesla would need to earn $4.29 a share in 2018, which equals $700 million in total net income, assuming the current share count doesn't change. For perspective, Tesla sold about 76,000 cars in 2016 and lost $675 million on sales of $7 billion. Now the assumptions: CEO Elon Musk forecasts Tesla can produce 500,000 cars in 2018, while analysts, a bullish lot, peg the number of deliveries at 302,000. Let's say the delivery number is 380,000. Pencil in an average selling price of $50,000 -- Tesla will still be selling high-priced Model S and Model X vehicles along with the Model 3. That scenario yields just under $21 billion in automotive revenue. Add another $2 billion in sales from its residential solar and energy businesses. Tesla has never generated a positive operating margin for a full year, but assume it gets savings on battery costs and realizes economies of scale. If Tesla gets the same 5.4% operating margin that GM and Ford averaged last year, it would generate operating income of $1.1 billion. Subtract $200 million for interest expense and tax the remainder at 25%: The result is $700 million in net income, giving Tesla a multiple roughly 10 times bigger than GM and Ford. To get there, the company would have to quintuple the number of cars it sells, earn margins equivalent to those of its highly efficient competitors and not sell new shares. Tweak any of these variables -- lower sales, lower margin, lower selling price -- and Tesla doesn't come close to earning enough to get to 10 times the multiple of its bigger rivals by the end of 2018. Valuation has never mattered before for Tesla's investors and it may not matter at the end of next year. Shareholders may be willing to wait five years instead of two for Tesla to generate big profits, or they may continue to figure that valuation doesn't matter for a game-changer like Tesla. Tesla's cars have always outshone its financials. That needs to change soon for its valuation to make sense. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
02/3/2017 17:17	littleredrooster: GlobalData's share price has roughly tripled over the past year. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
10/2/2017 13:17	littleredrooster: hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/aws_bigger_than_the_next_three/ AWS cloud cash share: Bigger than Microsoft, IBM, Google COMBINED Cloud democratising IT? Nah, it's shared by even fewer players 7 Feb 2017 at 12:25, Gavin Clarke AWS sucked up over one third of all cloudy infrastructure sales globally in the closing quarter of 2016 - more than three of its next biggest rivals could muster together. The total IaaS sector grew by a whopping 49 per cent year-on-year to $10.3bn in Q4, according to analyst house Canalys, as a raft of businesses continued to shun capital intensive refreshes of on-premise server estates. In its tenth year of operation, the web services division of Amazon accounted for $3.48bn of sales, giving it a 33.8 per cent market share, while Microsoft, Google and IBM SoftLayer had to make do with $3.17bn between them. “Continuing demand is driving the adoption of cloud infrastructure services, which accelerated the cloud data centre expansion among key service providers,” Canalys stated. In the quarter, IBM rented some rack space from a local data centre provider, as did AWS and Microsoft. All of the American giants are trying to convince UK customers their data is safe in their hands but rather than building new facilities in the country, has chosen to buy extra capacity from someone else. Enterprise IT provider Oracle lagged behind e-commerce giant Alibaba, on 1.7 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively. The latter has been on a drive to attract enterprises and startups to its cloud with roadshow events in London. AWS is the undisputed IaaS kingpin but revenues of $3.5bn in Q4 was below Wall Street’s expectations by about $100m and so the parent company’s share price took a few knocks. Meanwhile, Synergy Research Group agreed that AWS is king, and said Microsoft, Google and IBM "are gaining ground but at the expense of smaller players in the market." 23 Comments Read Full Thread Follow Reply
09/9/2007 09:24	scburbs: Those who have done well holding DATA might want to take a view as to whether to hold on results day (25th September). Perhaps a strategy of selling and repurchasing post results if there are no problems would be wise and would lock in the good profits you have made. I am short and expect that the interims may disappoint at the eps level. I may be wrong, but I just wouldn't want to hold this one long across results day. Current share price 265.5p Market cap £243m Historic eps/PE 8p/33 Prospective eps/PE (current year) 8.63p/31 Why is it a good short? 45m new shares were issued at 136.5p in May 2006 to acquire Proc Cyber for £61.3m. The current value of those shares is £119.5m. At the same time the number of options were doubled as this represented 50% of the share capital at the time at the vendor wanted the right to retain 50%. Wow, the share price has nearly doubled since. Was that a really good acquisition? Unfortunately not! "Proc Cyber is a provider of risk management, payment processing, payment out solutions and financial reconciliation services predominantly to the online gaming markets" http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200605080700055686C Investec estimated that post the acquisition US gaming accounted for 30% of group sales and 40-45% of profits! As this is referring to the combined group the proportions in the acquired business would have been higher. The share price promptly plunged from 220p to around 130p in response to the Safe Port Act. This was the company's statement on this. http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200610021552478169J However, the current share price is 21% higher than the pre-Safe Port price. This would represent a massive increase in sales and profits of the remaining businesses if the rating pre-Safe Port was correct. What do the directors make of all of this? This one is pretty clear! Immediately post the issue of the final results for last year (which were good as largely unaffected by Safe Port). 18 April David Bailey sold 100k at 247p 18 April Andrew Dark sold 10k at 247p 19 April Gavin Breeze sold 1.5m at 242p No acquisitions other than low priced option exercising. No substantial sales until shortly after AGM statement at the end of June which said: "The Group has seen good growth in both revenue and transaction volumes so far this year. Revenues lost from the fallout in the US are continuing to be replaced as our customers expand their operations in other countries." http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200706271427001402Z 6 July Ashley Head sold 1.2m at 240p. A strategically important sale as Ashley Head was the 50% shareholder, but by selling these shares he now holds less than 50%. The AGM statement is no doubt accurate, but possible paints a misleading picture as the acquired business was only included for a small part of the comparative period. This good growth is now being spread across twice as many shares (just how good is that growth?). The reference to continuing to replace also implies they may not be fully replaced yet! Next news is interims on 25 September. Turnover growth and profit growth should be superficially attractive as the acquisition wasn't in the comparatives (other than for a very short period). However, the massive share issue will hold up earnings progress. The main effect of Safe Port will be felt in H2 this year as the business performed spectacularly in H2 largely due to strength in US gaming. As indicated above the growth required to replace this business is substantial. A business that was worth £2.20 per share before losing 40-45% of profits less than 1 year ago is now worth £2.655 per share. The directors have made bullish comments interspersed with subtle references to the impact of the lost business whilst raising millions in share sales. To me the share price looks set to disappoint when reality start to kick in. Also the share price has held up well within recent turbulence so a very nice entry point for anyone wanting to short. DATA is a solid business with good prospects, however, IMO there is a need for the share price to adjust to reflect the reality of the impact of Safe Port. Read Full Thread Follow Reply

Globaldata share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

LSE

GKP

Gulf Keyst..

LSE

QPP

Quindell

FTSE

UKX

FTSE 100

LSE

IOF

Iofina

GBPUSD

UK Sterlin..

Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

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

ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil

ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico

ADVFN France ADVFN US Finance Manila

P:43 V: D:20180425 20:29:54