 After a couple of days of reading the results I have to admit I can't make head nor tail of them. I understood it would be a complex set of results following the disposal and acquisition but come on. Does a company with a 140 million market cap really need to go to the lengths they have to produce such an opaque set of results to disguise the fact that they are not performing in line with expectations?
I don't get this line (may have missed something).
In terms of our PP business, we expect operating performance to be broadly stable but with higher capital expenditure in FY 2025/26 as we invest for growth, ahead of the commencement of production for our largest ever single framework contract.
What contract? Someone help me. PP order intake flat, order book down, revenue flat. 25/26 expected flat!
EE - the big growth market - Order intake up and order book up, that's good. Revenue down, profit down, margins down! This should be the high margin business, why are margins down! No explanation.
Digital modelling, no mention whatsoever of the rollout of PRIMES in Greece - why? They were shouting about this when they paid 24 million for E3 Modelling in 2023. You could jump to the conclusion that it has been brushed under the carpet for a reason.
It is clear why the share price is so bombed out. I believe there is a future for Ricardo in EE so I'm holding but fundamentally I am angry at the lack of clarity. I'd rather hear it like it is while the transition is taking place. |
Disappointing to see these lower but it’s early days. |
Some positive news in all the doom and gloom. |
A long note out on Research Tree which I need to go through carefully from PLiberum with a 540p target price down from the 725p after the interims last July.
I feel comfortable with my holding at this price especially if The Science Group continues to mop up sales. |
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/ricardo-new-milestone-shows-hydrogens-potential-as-clean-energy-source/ |
Results read a bit better than I’d hoped. We should recover well in H2 if I’m reading it right. Too cheap at 230p but DYOR. |
Took a few ahead of tomorrow and their interims. I’d expect some comment of SAG’s positioning. |
Took a few ahead of tomorrow and their interims. I’d expect some comment of SAG’s positioning. |
Yes I remember that too. Ratcliffe takes no prisoners - it will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
I remember how aggressive SAG were in buying FST at the time. |
'They take out any value and sell off the parts they don’t want.'
I don't think that necessarily makes them an asset stripper. You only have to look at the Corac/TP Group history to see that they may just be putting wasted assets to productive use.
But they certainly are predators - the TP group takeover started out exactly like this, but of course they were in a much weaker position than Ricardo, so the outcome here is far from predictable. I guess SAG thinks that Ricardo is under-valued so they'll make a profit whatever happens: they'd probably like nothing better than a bid from a US entity. |
If you take a look at the group brands on the Science Group website the synergies become clear. The desire for a strategic investment is to have some influence on the business you invest in and in this case access to Ricardo's client list. Which is why I believe Ricardo is so far not engaging them.It's a very predatory approach while Ricardo is weak during a transition period. Take a look back at SAG's takeover of TP Group. They are an asset stripper. They take out any value and sell off the parts they don't want. I guess it remains to be seen if Ricardo are in sufficient distress for the play to work. I guess the price reaction is the market unclear on whether SAG have the means to pull it off. Sad days. |
1968jon,
I think they must have just made that term up, I have to say I think in the case of SAG strategic might mean they have bought the shares to loan them out to be shorted. |
I was referring to the use of "strategic investment" by SAG in their RNSs. I don't see that threshold anywhere in the rulebook? |
1968jon,
It literally states it in the RNS AIM Rule 12
'AIM Rule 12 – which applies to any
transaction which exceeds 10% in
any of the class tests.
n Announcement complying with
Schedule 4 to the AIM Rules.
Sale which results in a
"fundamental change of
business".' |
Science group are just talking their own book loudly.
My investment in Ricardo is strategic. There is no size threshold that I'm aware of that an investment becomes strategic.
An opportunistic purchase by SAG possibly but I don't think they'd have the cash to buy it? An offer with shares in a combined entity? I'd like to see them get that agreed at these levels with Gresham House - are they strategic? - who took their shareholding to 22.5% in November with the stock at £4. |
Science group RNS. This mornings RNS called their move an increase in shareholding and not an increase in a strategic investment. No response from Ricardo acknowledging the strategic investment approach and a change of language from Science group. All I can deduce at this stage from the lack of news from Ricardo is that the approach is unwanted.Super odd that the share price is not moving at all on this news. Question is what are SAG's moves with other major holders. |
cyberhub - Probably short term wrong and long term right - Only problem is they may not live to see long term arrive. |
05/03/2025 - interim results
06/ 03 / Investor Meets webinar - interim results 2.30pm
Hold you breath and we will find out soon enough.
Regards |
The fall here looks quite interesting. The profit warning seems to suggest that they will recover, but it's likely to still be below the 35p (underlying) last year. Maybe 25p? In which case it's on a p/e of 8-9. Seems cheap but I have 2 concerns:* Is this the bottom for profitability? Consultants often struggle in an economic downturn.* They have pivoted towards the clean energy and environmentally positive sectors, which I personally strongly support, I've got kids after all. But they have done it just as populist Western leaders are turning the world back to dirty energy to get votes. Have they made a strategic error?? |
Web site updated |
As with all of my clean air stocks, I bought for the long term 2030+ and so I would rather rcdo keep building out.
Everyone has Thier own agenda.
Regards |
This is going the way of ADVT hostile attempt for SAA. a part cash and part share offer. SAA shareholders voted it down and SAA went on to recover. If there is an offer it could present the opportunity to get out at breakeven or it could be a signal to hold and reap the rewards of future progress. i love a contested takeover attempt. |
Frustrating that the price on the day has not reflected the fact that Ricardo is in play. Nortrust and now Science Group building positions. Both taking advantage of an extremely soft UK market and Ricardo as it tries to pivot the business. Between them they now have nearly 20 percent. The big question is where is it heading. Currently out of the hands of private investors and into the hands of institutions with deeper pockets and longer time horizons. What I don't understand is why SAG claim it is a strategic investment and yet they bought in the market and there has been no response from RCDO to acknowledge they want said strategic investment. I'm not convinced they want it. I'm not convinced SAG have the means for a hostile approach. |
I hope so indiestu, but down as I type so the all knowing markets are not impressed.
Good weekend All. |
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Hot Features
Premium
