ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

MEG Mice Grp.

6.00
0.00 (0.00%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Mice Grp. MEG London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
0.00 0.00% 6.00 00:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
6.00 6.00
more quote information »

Mice Group MEG Dividends History

No dividends issued between 28 Mar 2014 and 28 Mar 2024

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 08/11/2013 07:42 by lord gnome
We need a new thread. The EPIC form Merlin is MERL, not MEG. I'll put one up.
Posted at 18/7/2012 05:54 by lucky_punter
Finding gold in future will become an increasingly difficult prospect according to a new report out today.
The Canadian mining analyst Metals Economics Group (MEG) said it's not that there is no gold left to mine, but that there is no "easy" gold left as discoveries struggle to keep up with the pace of mined production.
Posted at 13/8/2008 10:17 by hectorp
Dear Me - these were one of my 'strong hold's years back at 110p.
- MEG gone?
Posted at 27/6/2007 18:14 by simon gordon
I suggest you invest your time and money visiting a psychotherapist, so as to explore why you gambled and lost your capital on MEG.
Posted at 07/5/2007 09:46 by pbracken
Insitutional investors in MEG know that the debt figure will be around #55m at the half year, which is somewhat higher than expected. Equally, the cause of the rise is the need for working capital to service large blue-chip contracts - the revenue figure will show impressive growth.

The crunch question, as I say, is will MEG deliver a profit on these contracts? The market is pricing-in its scepticism that it can. This issue goes beyond the acccounting right-down that MEG recently flagged, which I believe is only a precursor to the real problem: MEG's poverty of systems and controls that disable it from knowing if its UK business is profitable.

This is what the audit review is tasked with to uncover. My instinct tells me that more bad news is on the way (and indeed, that is what the market expects); but obviously I don't know for sure and at 10p a share it may be that the downside v upside risks make the stock an atractive speculative punt.

The key to any meaningful re-rating, though, is MEG's ability to punch a big hole in the debt. That means finding a buyer for the UK division - and fast.
Posted at 06/5/2007 20:41 by boadicea
The primary problem of MEG is one of cash flow. The latest trading announcement does nothing to affect the current cash flow and I think SteMis gives the more reasonable overall view of those stated so far.

Unless there has been a large recent increase in the wip factor, the valuation problem is likely to be one of long standing which is now being recognised and corrected. The impact on profits will indeed fall in the year just ended (unless the py accounts are also restated which could reduce the current year effect).
Slightly odd is the "if required" qualification against the downward revaluation of wip. This suggests to me that the matter is in dispute with (?)auditors or banks rather than being purely a matter of company review. A normal valuation statement would, I believe, be the lower of cost or net realisable value. In the case of profitable work contracted for a solvent customer this reduces to cost (without any profit element that MEG formerly included).
The two reasons for valuing work at less than cost would therefore be either the expectation of unprofitability resulting in a loss (e.g. due to a manufacturing cost overrun) or a 'more likely than not' case of a customer defaulting on the contract thereby leaving the supplier with goods of dubious value or unsaleable in the open market.
The process of "deleveraging" the company implies liquidation of assets (a process that has been started in the sale of Sea Life and the property sale/leaseback) or issue of equity - perhaps both.
Now, of course equity holders will be nervous, the more so given the poor cash flow and long credit cycle history of the company. However, the measures being taken are a necessary part of tackling that issue and the market should be able to accommodate any profit effects this produces as a transitory measure.
What the market should justifiably derate the company for is any further deterioration in operating cash flow as this should not be affected by any of the measures which have been taken.

There are many issues with this company. For example, a question I would have about the shortfall in the Sea Life realisation against asset value is whether the company has been depreciating asset values against profit realistically. Property is usually thought of as an appreciating asset, but specialised property, such as a sea life centre, may require significant provision for maintenance and refurbishment. If the company has elected to inflate profit by failing to make sufficient provisions then we have an explanation for both the shortfall in the sale value of an under-maintained asset and the poor conversion of (inflated) profit to cash flow.

Rewriting the balance sheet does not weaken the company - that has already happened - it is just a recognition of this fact and arguably the necessary first step in putting things on a more truthful and sustainable footing.
As StemMis points out, the trading statement did not impinge on the previous assessment of trading beyond the downward revaluation of wip "if required". The reference is to a possible corresponding reduction in profit, not to a resulting loss and there will be no effect on cash flow.

In these circumstances it is irresponsible to parade conjecture as fact.
Of course, it is wise to point out the possible pitfalls of investing in MEG, the most likely imho, being the likelihood of a placing/rights/open issue of equity. However, it is as easy to lose money by unnecessarily panicking out of a share at a bombed-out price as it is to lose it by unwise bargain hunting.
One could have wished for a somewhat more comprehensive statement from the company that narrowed the scope for misinterpretation and possible misrepresentation.

The current gross overvaluation of the pound is having an adverse effect on any British company which incurs cost in sterling to be set against income in foreign currency. The strong pound has already continued for rather longer than I would have thought likely and may yet continue for some time. It will probably correct itself just when expectation of a correction has died - we don't know when, but one day. For MEG that time cannot come too soon.

For those who find this peroration too lengthy, I will summarise -
Bu99er the profit, what's the cash flow?
Posted at 05/5/2007 19:53 by pbracken
Be careful with MEG.

Working capital needs have seen debt mushroom to around #55m, AFTER the recent sale and property lease-back. The silver lining is that business is booming - but is it profitable? That is what the Review will tell investors, and its findings will dictate the short term movement in the share price.

In the medium term, if MEG can find a buyer for its UK division then one can envisage a recovery in the stock; if it can't, investors will need to buy some wool and knitting needles, because the long haul awaits....
Posted at 05/5/2007 10:50 by joshalexander
Besbury

I do not hold, neither do I have a Short position here.
I traded MEG several times in the late 90's.

My only reason for posting is that I believe many have been far too
optismistic about MEG's prospect of recovery and I see strong echoes of Photobition here, which luckily I never held.
I hope my postings may have saved people some money or least given them pause for some thought. I am more than happy for others to reach a different conclusion on MEG's future.
Posted at 05/5/2007 10:05 by wiganer
Besbury
I am not a current shareholder, but have been in the past, and MEG is and has been on my watch list for a while. I am interested in trading MEG again, but I want to be sure I'm not punting on a dead pig. Not sure though why its relevant whether folks are holders or not- I thought the purpose of a BB was to share thoughts. Stemis was certainly not shy of commenting on FWY even when he didn't hold, for instance... :-)
Posted at 04/3/2007 15:03 by scburbs
erstwhile2, You are quite rightly describing the historical m.o of PE. Things are changing in the P.E world and it no longer solely goes in for regearing lowly geared companies and taking back out their acquisition funding. The PE market is much more competitive and the early easy wins of this type have gone already.

So the easy wins have gone, but the PE funds have more and more money still seeking returns of 15-20% p.a. This is why they are hitting the press more and more because they are moving beyond their historical m.o. and into a wide variety of businesses where their target 15-20+% IRR's can be met. The potential IRR is the key driver for them as the ability to simply regear to make 15-20% IRR has largely gone.

Whilst MEG probably isn't an ideal candidate for PE it is cheap and has assets that can be sold off to finance part of the initial cost.

Ultimately PE will look at the earnings yield of the target and the cost of debt to secure the company. If PE can return MEG's earnings to 4.66p and for ease of numbers lets say the takeover price is 46.6p then MEG's takeout P/E is 10 and an earnings yield of 10%.

Based on 177m shares the acquisition price would be c.£83m. A PE fund might borrow 80% of that at say 6%. This leaves there equity requirement at c.£17m for a business that would return £8.3m p.a. (based on the above numbers, this is not a forecast it is an illustration based on an earnings yield of 10%). Of that £8.3m, £4m would go to servicing the PE funds new debt. This leaves £4.3m return on £17m equity or 25% p.a. This is well within the sort of return acceptable to a PE fund.

The reason MEG doesn't fit squarely in the PE model is that it doesn't have working capital under control and profits and cashflow do not currently match. Also the lack of forward visibility as illustrated by the recent TS would also be a problem for PE. However, the relative ease in which a 25% p.a. return could be forecast indicates that PE may well want to closely look at MEG and whether those particularly problems can be resolved. So IMO the truth in relation to the PE potential for MEG lies somewhere between the views expressed above.

I agree with erstwhile2 that the current main drawback is the lack of predictable free cash flow, but PE may consider they can solve that with better working capital management. In truth they are probably a better fit with a competitor (certainly not for them to buy a competitor though!!!) to spread central costs over a larger volume of business to improve margins.

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock