Management Consulting Share Discussion Threads

[opodio] 11/3/2017 19:48

rathair3 Feb '17 - 13:26 - 894 of 898 0 0
Yes but screwing up like that is simply not acceptable for a National investment magazine that specialises in giving "hot tips" backed up with top quality research.
They cant have it both ways.
In his recommendation of MMC ST makes it clear he has gone to great lengths to satisfy himself and the readers that he has turned every stone and that this is a fantastic bargain poss the greatest ever.
This is what he basically states.
If it turns out he missed a pension deficit ? something that would be in the top 5 things to look at when doing due diligence then where does that leave all his readers and followers ?
Such a publication would be taken to the cleaners surely ?

Or as I say is ST correct and there is no pension deficit etc ?
Do you have any info for this pension deficit ?





good post

[spob] 06/2/2017 09:15

Okay I was right. Simon got back to me this morning.


" The NAV I state includes intangibles, so NTA is around £29.4m "


Divide that by the total number of shares (511m)

gives Net Tangible Asset Value per share of 5.8p

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:31

Maybe this deficit has been sorted when this happened ?

IC
"The key point is that this uncertain trading outlook is already fully priced in to the current valuation. In fact, having spent a considerable time unravelling the complex web of corporate transactions – and I hasten to add this was no mean feat – there is obvious value on offer. That’s because the company completed the $165m disposal of its retail and consumer business, Kurt Salmon, in early November and subsequently returned £75m of the proceeds to shareholders. When the circular was sent out in early October outlining the financial implications of the disposal, the sterling-US dollar exchange rate was £1:$1:33. However, by the time the deal actually completed the rate had plunged to £1:$1:23.
This means that effectively Management Consulting received an extra £9.6m of cash proceeds after accounting for transaction fees, non-recurring costs and tax expenses. So, after factoring in all of the disposals made since the end of June last year, I calculate that the company’s pro-forma NAV is around £76.4m, of which net funds account for £62.3m. That cash pile is worth 12.3p a share, or double the current share price."

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:29

thanks for your help rathair

good luck with your investing

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:27

Ok thanks was typing re pension.
So did ST take the £22m into consideration or is the deficit no more ?

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:26

Yes but screwing up like that is simply not acceptable for a National investment magazine that specialises in giving "hot tips" backed up with top quality research.
They cant have it both ways.
In his recommendation of MMC ST makes it clear he has gone to great lengths to satisfy himself and the readers that he has turned every stone and that this is a fantastic bargain poss the greatest ever.
This is what he basically states.
If it turns out he missed a pension deficit ? something that would be in the top 5 things to look at when doing due diligence then where does that leave all his readers and followers ?
Such a publication would be taken to the cleaners surely ?

Or as I say is ST correct and there is no pension deficit etc ?
Do you have any info for this pension deficit ?

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:24

As of the last final results the Pension Deficit was 22m

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:19

And if ST did make a ricketts of it will the IC be compensating all its readers to whom it boasted and boasted to regarding this up and coming and now with us 2017 Bargain Portfolio.
Will it apologise and compensate if it has made gross and glaring errors in its article ?
I mean you cant be an Investment specialist magazine claiming to be jam packed full of top info and advice for your readers if you lead them up blind alleys and cost them a fortune due to your magazines negligence and incompetence.
Surely such a magazine would find itself in court ?

Or as is perhaps the case ST missed nothing and stands by every single word in his buy recc for MMC

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:15

okay no problem

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:09

So am I and I ask the question seriously its not meant to be a dig toward you or anyone else.

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:09

yes very good

i'm just trying to establish a true picture of the current situation and whether or not Simon's article is slightly misleading or not.

just want to know one way or the other

nothing wrong with that

[rathair] 03/2/2017 13:03

So is Richard Griffiths wrong and he doesn't know all of this? and is buying up all the shares he can without realising he is making a big mistake ?

Or is he on the ball and knows exactly why he is buying up every share he can in the market ?

Must be one of the two ?

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:02

if that is correct, then yes these WERE worth buying at 3p

[spob] 03/2/2017 13:00

Simon gives a "pro forma nav" here of £76.4m

Does that include intangibles of £47m

if it does and you subtract the 47m, that leaves a tangible NAV estimate of 29.4m or just 5.8p per share

please corrrect me if wrong

[edmondj] 03/2/2017 11:20

So it's back to Alexander Proudfoot: anyone remember the late 1980's when Proudfoot was a roaring Christopher Mills' shell reverse takeover and Lord Stevens of Ludgate (as he is nowadays), chairman? Seem to recall the stock was 300p or better; quite representing the top of the market, before the October 1987 crash. Since then they have obviously gone round in circles and blown shareholder value, but some people got paid very nicely. Perennial dilemma with Proudfoot bid speculation is short revenue visibility (clients' productivity improvement projects being relatively one-off) and the assets being flighty executives.

[rathair] 03/2/2017 10:40

IC Bargain Portfolio tip for 2017

"This means that effectively Management Consulting received an extra £9.6m of cash proceeds after accounting for transaction fees, non-recurring costs and tax expenses. So, after factoring in all of the disposals made since the end of June last year, I calculate that the company’s pro-forma NAV is around £76.4m, of which net funds account for £62.3m. That cash pile is worth 12.3p a share, or double the current share price.
Bearing this in mind, with the company capitalised at just £33m, over 80 per cent of the fixed assets worth £53.5m are in the price for free, albeit these include £47m of intangible assets. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if predators started sniffing around given the value on offer here. Buy."

ST thinks a predator will buy them out soon.

[spob] 03/2/2017 08:49

Yes but is it the bargain that Simon portrays when you factor in the pension deficit ?

Can't just look at cash and ignore the liabilities

[cockerhoop] 03/2/2017 08:27

ST Bargain Portfolio Tip

[jimmygee2] 03/2/2017 08:26

I'm certainly not either. I followed battlebus in here a few weeks ago.

[wjccghcc] 03/2/2017 08:23

Don't know but not complaining. Maybe they're going to sell Proudfoot.

[jimmygee2] 03/2/2017 08:22

Lordy. What's happening here?