Leeds Share Discussion Threads

[roomey] 31/1/2007 21:51

Des only just remembered but worth noting in your calculations ldsg paid union investment (a PG co. and employer of Ewen Wigley ) a fee of £90k on completion of the sale of leeds leasing see note 28 post balance sheet events 05 a/cs. All adds up very nicely.

[deswalker] 31/1/2007 21:39

Completing my post above:

"Continuing EBITDA" = Continuing Operating Profit + one off stock write down + Depreciation + Amortization (assuming both these are all from continuing ops) = 645k + 130k + 103k + 91k = 969k.

EV (in £mill at 23p SP) = 34.758 * 0.23 - 2.783 = 5.211.

So EBITDA/EV = 0.969/5.211 = 18.6%. Actually it is more than this as the text says that central cash is close to £ 5mill and Hemmers has traded well for three months since these results.

NAV per share = 10.875/34.758 = 31.29p. At share price = 23p we have SP/NAV = 0.735.

NTAV per share = (10.875 - 0.757)/34.758 = 29.11p. At share price = 23p we have SP/NTAV = 0.79.

Net Current Assets per share = 9.873/34.758 = 28.4p. At share price = 23p we have SP/NCA = 0.81.

[roomey] 31/1/2007 21:25

Des excellent summary of true results and saved me from typing out, seems board keen to keep price down through a little bit of clever accounting, but if read through closely you can see the true picture nearly £1m pbt.
Liked the outlook statement(cash £5m nearly £100k a month increase and strong sales)as already 2/3rd way into first half so good interim figures on the way, also the 5 acres are very interesting as greenbelt land (agricutural) £100kplus as building land between £600k - £1m an acre.
What didnt like was PG coming onto the board as he already has a representative on the board in his employee Ewen and why such a delay in releasing results.
Other than that see great potential for my 180k share holding.

[jhan66] 31/1/2007 20:39

5-year old news via Google
This site must be within 1/2 mile of Leeds International Airport


Houses and flats for old factory site
From the Telegraph & Argus, first published Friday 27th Jul 2001.

A HOUSING developer is planning to build 73 houses and six flats on the site of a former Yeadon dyeworks.

Leeds-based David Wilson Homes Ltd has submitted a planning application to Leeds City Council, for the former Scott and Rhodes Banksfield Dyeworks, off Otley Lane.

The mill closed in December 1998, with the loss of 73 jobs.

Councillor Mike Dunn (Lab, Aireborough) has sent letters to residents living near the site, giving them the address and telephone number of Leeds City Council, if they wish to comment on the plan.

He said: "It seems a little bit intensive use of the land, but I haven't seen the plan yet. The plan will also involve a change of use. If it is found that there is no possibility of employment use, then residential development is going to be likely."

Coun Dunn stressed that the plan was limited to brownfield land, not the disputed green fields of Yeadon Banks, behind the dyeworks.

Residents put together a 500-signature petition in an attempt to prevent the green belt land being designated a 'protected area of search' - which they feared could lead to houses being built there.

But Coun Dunn said a residential development on the dyeworks itself may take the pressure off the nearby green land.

Veteran Yeadon Banks protester, Alice Thompson, said some residents of Whitestone Crescent were against the plan.

Mrs Thompson, of St Andrew's Court, said she was in favour of having the factory demolished, but would prefer to see housing that might benefit the existing community.

"Something for the older people would be much nicer. I think having some bungalows would be wonderful," she said.

Mrs Thompson said there was concern that the Dyeworks development might stretch to Haw Lane.

David Wilson Homes told our reporter it did not want to comment on the plan.

[deswalker] 31/1/2007 20:27

Arthur,

Any thoughts on the figures? I´m disappointed.

I think you're supposed to be disappointed. These figures have been presented so confusingly that I suspect they are designed to keep the share price low IMO.

Hemmers made a pre tax profit of 612k in the first half and only 712k for the whole year: 840k if you add back the stock write off.

I don't think so. It's confusing but this is my breakdown.

For FY05 we have:

Hemmers Operating Profit = 741k
Central Costs = (375k)
Therefore "Continuing Operating Profit" = 366k
Hemmers Interest = (168k)
Therefore Hemmers PBT = Hemmers Operating Profit minus Hemmers Interest = 573k

For H106 we have:

Hemmers Operating Profit = 612k
Central Costs = (147k)
Therefore "Continuing Operating Profit" = 465k
Hemmers Interest = (101k)
Therefore Hemmers PBT = Hemmers Operating Profit minus Hemmers Interest = 511k

For FY06 we have (in a slightly different but necessary order. detective work necessary):

"Continuing Operating Profit" = 645k (76.2% increase yoy !!)
Central Costs = (271k)
Therefore Hemmers Operating Profit = "Continuing Operating Profit" minus Central Costs = 916k (23.6% increase yoy)
Hemmers PBT = 712k (as explicitly stated in the text) (24.3% increase yoy)
Therefore Hemmers Interest = Hemmers Operating Profit minus Hemmers PBT = (204k).

So at the PBT level Hemmers did 511k in the first half and 712k - 511k = 201k in the second half. When one adds back the 130k stock charge which was never mentioned in H1 so we can assume it's all accounted for in H2 then the actual H2 Hemmers PBT = 201k + 130k = 331k (cf 511k in H1). If this 130k is added back into the "Continuing Operating Profit" to get "Continuing Operating Profit plus one off write down" for FY06 then we get 645k + 130k = 775k which is a 112% increase yoy for this line !!

Hemmers appears to have paid 101k in the first half and only 29k in the second. The holding company appeared to have interest income of 129k in the first half and only 78k in the second.

Not so. As my workings above show, Hemmers actually paid 101k in H1 and 204k for the year meaning 103k in H2. I'm actually confused as to why it's so high. Hemmers has shown a very pleasing reduction in net debt during the year. We have:

Hemmers net debt at 30 Sep 04 = (2,188k)
Hemmers net debt at 30 Sep 05 = (2,401k)
Over this period Hemmers paid 168k in interest. Whereas:

Hemmers net debt at 30 Sep 05 = (2,401k)
Hemmers net debt at 30 Sep 06 = (1,899k) (20.9% decrease yoy. nice:)
But over this period Hemmers paid 204k in interest !?

Now I haven't been a great Euro rate watcher these last couple of years and the seasonality of the net-debt may have varied between the two years but naively i would have expected the second year's interest payments to be lower because of the lower closing balance.

I believe these results to be much better than they appear (notice also that central costs minus central interest is now negative (ie a profit) and set to make a bigger profit as costs are cut and GBP interest rate rises kick in on the central cash balance).

But I think the company is playing things down so that they can buy more shares in cheaply or so that JC & PG can have their evil way with us. I'm sick of this silly game to be honest. I have my shares and I just want them to go up. However if people get tired and sell then I suppose I'll have to buy more. Reducing central costs, increasing GBP rates and reducing EUR debt is going to give us a real kick going forward and Hemmers continues to trade well.

Comments welcome. DYOR.

Des

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2007 19:11

The interest charge is interesting too.

Hemmers appears to have paid 101k in the first half and only 29k in the second.
The holding company appeared to have interest income of 129k in the first half and only 78k in the second.

Could the large drop in Hemmers charge and the groups income be due to an inter group balance that has now been paid off?

I thought there would be more interest in the results, iii are showing plenty of trading after the results were announced so clearly quite a few people were waiting for them.

Can the company still buy back their shares now the results are announced or do they first have to get the new authority?

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2007 17:25

The Scott & Rhodes factory site was sold to David Wilson homes in 2002 for 1.85m. Perhaps there´s some potential in this adjacent 5 acre site if they can defend it from the greenies?

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2007 17:20

So much for my water!!!

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2007 17:18

Any thoughts on the figures? I´m disappointed, I thought they were going to be better. I had expected a similar second half for Hemmers as the first, what the hell happened to "our order book is fuller than it has ever been"?

Hemmers made a pre tax profit of 612k in the first half and only 712k for the whole year: 840k if you add back the stock write off.

Sales this year are similar to last year although margins have actually fallen whereas I thought they would have risen.

Further cost cutting this year should help mitigate this, although they don´t say whether there will be any costs involved.

Cash flow ok, well good since they started the year with a pile of debt and ended it with net cash. Any cash generated in the second half was swallowed by working capital and share buybacks but I don´t think cashflow is anything to worry about.

They also have 5 acres in Yeadon. Did we know about this? It looks as though they´re trying to stop this land being designated as a village green, presumably they´re hoping it will have some value, negligible value at the moment though. I´ll have to try and do a bit more research on this.

All in all, not what I was hoping for, not a disaster, but I thought Hemmers would have a much better second half and that the delay in publishing the results might even be because they were selling it.

No bloody dividend again either.

[lqs] 31/1/2007 15:31

undervalued

[the troll] 31/1/2007 15:15

jam tomorrow & risk you won't get any.

[deswalker] 31/1/2007 15:15

SP supported by further buybacks up to NAV.

Hemmers Profits hit by £130k stock methodology change (?).

Net Cash situation explained.

Satisfactory start at Hemmers with Sales the same as last year after 3 mths.

PG joins the Board.

Still looking for an acquisition.

[marben100] 31/1/2007 14:51

Results out NOW:

No Divvy.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2007 12:15

I told you you were being suckered in believing the in a week or so nonsense, they told me the same thing in the middle of December.

[lqs] 31/1/2007 11:38

The Diviner - 25 Jan'07 - 09:51 - 607 of 611

From what I can gather the results will be out in the next 7 days.

William Hill are offering less than evens on this coming true. :)

[the diviner] 25/1/2007 20:22

fwiw I was told same answer yesterday. Don't know who I spoke to but he was the only one in, so definitely qualified!


Monday is the day the, one day per week, director is in so that will be who you spoke with.

[jhan66] 25/1/2007 18:07

fwiw I was told same answer yesterday. Don't know who I spoke to but he was the only one in, so definitely qualified!

said within the next week or so.

Checking back I noticed they reported relatively late the year before last, early Feb I think. Didn't find an explanation why this was, but makes me more comfortable with current delay.

btw. hope you don't think I regularly bother busy directors. This is only the second time I ever contacted a company I hold. (Just thought they may be fast asleep)

[the diviner] 25/1/2007 17:34

Hi Arthur,

The person who told me had no reason not to tell the truth but time will tell.

I have no idea what the results will be like but I have heard that the UK operations have wound down to a virtual stop. (There is is now only a few, part time, staff and a director that puts in one day per week. (Directors never appear to do a lot for their huge salary claims)).

If this is true it strengthens the case for returning surplus cash to shareholders.

Regards,
John.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 25/1/2007 17:13

You didn´t fall for that old chestnut did you Diviner?

[the diviner] 25/1/2007 09:51

From what I can gather the results will be out in the next 7 days.

[cg1953] 25/1/2007 06:05

arthur.
no point at all.
we minority shareholders are their last consideration !!!
after there salaries and the scheming interests of jc&pg and accomplices in deception and chicanery.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 24/1/2007 17:44

A small tick up today, there´s been some buying this week. But still no results. I´d contact the company again and ask them but there doesn´t seem to be much point.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 17/1/2007 11:50

I´ve looked at psg in the past. Not an asset play obviously but it appears cheap as a multiple of operating profit.

Sorry to drag the thread away from Leeds again. Polaron is also interesting I think as a stock which looks to be on a low multiple of operating profit but lacks asset backing.

Perhaps we should start a thread for these kind of stocks or we could use Rainmakers value thread but that seems to have more of a bias towards assets.

[cockneyrebel] 16/1/2007 21:17

yep, he has others too.

AMR hasn't set the world on fire. HRR was a dog, got taken out well below his average buy price I think. He's done reasonably well in HTP, up about 30% in a year. His take in CLM looks a disaster too. All in all his reputation is greater than reality imo.

Still, doesn't mean he's wrong this time. I'll have a closer look, ta.

CR

[langland] 16/1/2007 20:43

Fair enough. Didn't know about MLT but he has been successful with Vislink.