Renold Share Discussion Threads

[roddiemac2] 17/8/2012 21:56

ST --This is not the Accsys bulletin board.,but for what it is worth, I sold the bulk of my holding in June and October 2007, making a very large profit.

CML was never in any danger.It is a very well run business.

I am quite happy to discuss any stock I hold on the appropriate bulletin board.

[roddiemac2] 17/8/2012 21:40

You are a sad man ST

[simon templar qc] 17/8/2012 20:44

Interesting analysis but you failed to mention Target Setter called it right as the price fell! He stopped being negative as the price rose!

Can we have the same anaysis on Metnor or even Accys technologies Metnor delisted and you held stock and Accys hasn't done at all well since it came to market and you fail to mention you hold as well!

Accys...



By the way its called trading calling it right on the way down and on the way up. Buying selling going short it doesn't matter so long as you make money!


This is when CML threatened to delist..



This is what the company said at the time "It is
clear that the markets in which the Group operates have suffered weak trading
conditions for some time and there is an obvious lack of demand for the
Company's shares. "

What followed was a mass exit!

You know all about delisting don't you being a Metnor holder!

You also failed to mention the other reasons why CML started to fall the way it did ie profits started to deteriorate company cuts its dividend. It was the company that caused the deterioration in the share price no one else!!!!

[rburtn] 17/8/2012 12:43

I don't know whether the QC - or anyone else claiming a disastrous pension deficit - has actually read the last annual report. It might be noted that variations due to actuarial standards on their own resulted in adding 27m to asset value in 2008 and subtracting 50m in 2010. It was also said, that without QE the overall deficit would have been 8m. Of the 180m assets of the scheme about 50% is in equities, so a 10% rise in the FT say, would immediately add 10m to the asset value. That says to me that stopping QE and a 10% rise in stocks would put the liabilities fully covered. As far as I am concerned DS in the FT has not done himself much good with this disastrous version of Renold. I might also add that the most recent RI said the profit was increasing but not as fast as the market anticipated. Well, I've just bought a few more and I do expect the purchase to be vindicated despite my reservations about managements' concern for its shareholders.

[gleach23] 16/8/2012 18:28

puffintickler...don't tell me you're casting doubt on Simon Templar QC's wisdom here...???! ;-p

[puffintickler] 16/8/2012 17:57

I am afraid I will end up like that guy.

But then so will we all.

[simon templar qc] 16/8/2012 14:55

Please yourself dont' say I didn't warn you dont end up like this guy...

[puffintickler] 16/8/2012 08:10

Simon

There are many more businesses with no pension deficit that have gone bust!

A large pension deficit is not enough to kill a business on its own. It will constrain, weaken but not kill a profitable business. But it can finish off a business in terminal decline, ie be "the final nail in the coffin".

The question is, how profitable is Renold in the long-term?

[simon templar qc] 15/8/2012 21:02

Dawson goes into administration the final nail in the coffin the large pension deficit...




Dawson isn't the first nor will it be the last company unable to continue due to a pension deficit.

[ian77] 14/8/2012 18:46

P S I am well in profit allowing for the divi what more can you wish for ?

[ian77] 14/8/2012 18:44

roddi I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT HE HAS NOTHING ELSE TO DO BUT SIT TYPING ALL DAY WHAT A SAD BAS D

[simon templar qc] 14/8/2012 17:55

Pensions deficit increase in July...

[roddiemac2] 14/8/2012 13:14

"He is right about one thing and that is the borrowings and large pension deficit will hold back this company if not pull it under if they cannot reduce both."---We have all known that for the last two years. The risk is obvious. It is a risk I am prepared to take.

[gleach23] 13/8/2012 22:35

Anyone who has followed the share price over the last couple of years will know that David Schwartz's previous positive updates have not helped the share price at all....in fact it has fallen. It just rises the day after his tip then falls back.

I don't have a large shareholding here so am willing to risk waiting to see if they now do the opposite and rise back towards 30p...I may sell out then. After all, last Friday's DS update was a full 6 trading days after the IMS so most big players would already have made their trading decisions.

[simon templar qc] 13/8/2012 19:00

He is right about one thing and that is the borrowings and large pension deficit will hold back this company if not pull it under if they cannot reduce both.

[roddiemac2] 13/8/2012 18:10

Simon T ,---You are right about one thing. Just as many follow DS into a share , so many will follow him out. ---SO what ? He is not always right.

[roddiemac2] 13/8/2012 18:02

I doubt very much whether what is said here will influence the share price in either direction .

ian 77,----Simon T is an obsessive poster . Take a look at the EKT bulletin board for evidence of this .

[simon templar qc] 13/8/2012 15:50

rburtn,

But didn't the wise on (rodimac) say earlier ramping makes no difference to these shares if that is right conversly any negative posting will have no impact!!!

I would not get carried away with a buy out or a bid for that matter who any bidder would struggle to raise any money to raise enough cash to deal with the borrowings and the pension deficit. Its not going to happen imo.

The best you can hope for is do without dividends for years while the company deal with their borrowings and pension deficit.

The press will have had an impact if you want to blame anyone for sellers today blame DS from the FT as he is a well respected financial journalist.

[rburtn] 13/8/2012 15:34

Signs of nerves as tempers fray here a bit. It shows just how accustomed P.I.'s have become to woeful performance of their directors, and how little they are used to being allowed to take out in divi's, that so much concern is evidenced by the need to fund a 45m pension deficit by a company of 200m turnover. Why is this outfit not taking this in its stride? My main concern here is that the vultures will be attracted to this company. Articles such as that by DS make it look worthless, and we shall be the victims of a coup. It is quite untrue to claim that, as is the case for a lloy or a barc, this bb does not affect the price. DS drove it up and now DS drives it down - not without a little help from our friend the QC.

Our big problem is that large holding by institutions who probably make more from companies in distress as they pick up the pieces than from steady returns from a dull engineer. Just a couple of days ago two principle directors used this drop to add about 12 and 30% respectively to their holdings - was it to protect their pensions or indicative of an over-reaction. If the latter, I think they owe it to their owners to make a statement to clarify their vague hints about its indebtedness and the degree to which it is affecting the company - or would this amount to insider dealing?

[ian77] 13/8/2012 14:33

simon t if your out why dont you f off

[simon templar qc] 13/8/2012 09:13

rodimac,

Your posts are repetitive, tedious and boring. If you cannot understand fundamentals without quoting other people you should think twice about investing.

The mistake DS made was ignoring the red flag warnings you have also done the same.

You need to forget about what other people say and look at the balance sheet do some in depth research yourself.

[sleveen] 13/8/2012 09:04

The level of available near term opportunities in Torque Transmission and Chain, combined with continuing reductions in our cost base, will enable us to maintain some positive momentum in profitability in the year as a whole, albeit at a level which is below current market expectations.

The first profit warning, these normally come in threes. Avoid IMHO.

[roddiemac2] 13/8/2012 08:43

Simon T ---Low bond and gilt yields are in part a consequence of quantitative easing, and not as you say , " despite quantitative easing." Robert Davies is implying that, just as quantitative easing is a temporary measure, so must the downward pressure on corporate bonds and gilt yields be temporary .

You are stating the obvious by saying " low gilt yields tend to increase liabilities " --tedious stuff.

[simon templar qc] 13/8/2012 07:57

No its you that seems incapable of understanding fundamentals even the FT guru admits to not heeding the warning flags.