Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Stm Group Plc LSE:STM London Ordinary Share IM00B1S9KY98 ORD 0.1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.50 -1.89% 26.00 25.00 27.00 26.50 26.00 26.50 46,199 09:55:57
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Financial 22.4 1.2 2.9 8.8 15

Stm Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1101 to 1124 of 1375 messages
Chat Pages: 55  54  53  52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  Older
perhaps it might also need a critical mass, enough financial advice work to cover the set up & operating costs

or maybe the agents for STM provide the financial advice to clients & hence STM couldn't.

Yes AFH is different. It provides financial advice/investment management services not administration services like STM. If you look at AFH recurring revenue they seem to be charging/earning around 1% on funds under management so if STM were to be a manager rather than an administrator of client funds that could bring revenues of say £60-£80m on that £8bn so yes perhaps STM should look at it.
AFH financial has reported annual results

(AUM at ~6 billion, less than STM but slightly different services I think)

(results, basically identical to the year before with "small" improvement)

includes following text

"The Board believes demand for financial planning-led wealth management services will continue and towards the end of the reporting period saw a gradual increase in net inflows of client funds"

....imo STM will see enquiries & new more accounts/clients pick up as we move further into the vaccination phase for Covid & people start being more confident about the future.

not a small outfit imo

8.7 billion of assets under their supervision/holding

one can imagine that that takes a lot of time & work to build up, over some years

while sure, the cap. value is low, in recent months; personally I obviously think it will go up in 2021, as the news will start changing & increases in profits are going to be reported


staff numbers are I think 250'ish

monthly wages, social security, office costs, etc etc

it is a noticeable enterprise imo, but sure it is small compared with Aberdeen Asset Mnmgt, XPS pensions etc etc


old style brokers
they still seem to be alive, Shore Capital, Jarvis, & others they have changed in recent years, I don't know
...sure a lot of people want to manage their share buys/sells themselves & via a cheap on-line facility but there are people that don't have the time, the interest or the skill & that prefer to pay for a licensed person to manage their shares & also give them overall financial guidance & advice about passing on their assets to their kids/friends & minimising inheritance tax etc etc.....

Perhaps they could but isn't it a crowded market now and with the prevalence of fully online services hasn't the old fashioned local stockbroker adviser model had to adapt or die? But I presume that STM are well placed to understand who advises on/manages their clients assets and what funds/managers are selected so maybe that could expose an opportunity?

I think any potential shareholder when looking at it would think STM a very complicated business for such a small outfit. After patiently hanging in to see what positives may have emerged over recent times, I've switched out now and invested elsewhere because as an investor I prefer to be in rather more focused businesses in the Fin Serv space where I can see such focus delivering on growth prospects. Maybe if STM streamlined itself and projected a much clearer, simpler message about the countries/markets/business it's in and their potential, it would attract a much higher rating than the one it currently seems to be stuck with.

do you think it might be an option over time ?


" ..gain any useful performance track record"

most old fashioned brokers offer a discretionary broking/admin. service
...& many local asset administrators in UK towns...
...& I think they say that many fund mngrs fail to beat the relevant index...
could STM also not branch out to do it as well ??

BM is an asset Manager, STM is (amongst the myriad other things in the group) simply an asset Administrator - big difference. If STM wants to capture a chunk of the investment management value chain on the client assets it administers, I imagine it'll take a while to achieve, especially to gain any useful performance track record.
"[Today 12:14] Brooks Macdonald Group PLC - investment management firm headquartered in London - Total funds under management for its financial second quarter ended December 31 increase by 14% to GBP15.5 billion from GBP13.7 billion as at September 30. Read More"

different type of business, but in the same sector of finance

AUM of 15.5 billion
vs 8.7 billion at STM

while Brooks has a cap. value of 293 million whereas that for STM is just 18.4 million !
for the same AUM the comparison would be 18.4 million versus about 146 million at Brooks for 7.8 billion of AUM

orders of magnitude of difference

could STM adjust its business model & provide some of the same services to clients that Brooks provides to its clients, in order to get a rating more similar to what Brooks has ??

if of interest to anyone

" Approx. £8.7 billion assets under administration across pensions, life, and trust & company business units"

from the STM website

£8.7 billion !!!


calculation/estimate of nett tangible/'real' assets *1
from last results (H1, not audited but I think we believe them)

to include things like tangible property, accrued income, payables-receivables etc which any past discussions of the nett cash does not include, & they should be included in estimations of the real nett assets of the co.

*1 - 'real' assetts being as defined in this post, an effort to define the real tangible assetts

- reported "shareholder assets" + future lease costs (which will be paid by future revenue/profit) + deferred revenue - intangible assets

= 34.6 (shareholder assetts) + 4.4 (deferred income, invoiced but not yet earned, treated as a liability in accounts) payable) + 0.8 lease liabilities - 20.6 ( intangibles)

(lease liabilities. check, since ~2.7 million in last annual accounts)

= £19.5 million

(in this number the deferred income is counted as 0, since +4.4 just cancels out the -ve 4.4 million in the accounts.)
("other creditors & accruals" is given as a payable of 4.4 million, while which I recall that 1.7 was accrued income of 1.7 million is defined as a current asset,
hmmm, 'me no understand'
(accrued income = work done but not billed)).

so, the 1.7million 'accrued' is already included in shareholder net assetts

'if' any of this 4.4 million is in reality an asset in the eyes of normal people, but not according to IFRS16, then the value of £19.5 million would be increased

This value of 19.5 million is close to the value for nett cash previously discussed on this forum (18-19 million).
It affirms that the real nett assets are very close to, or less than, the capital value of the co. , which imo seems nuts (& noting the PBT prediction of 4.7 for 2021, the cap. value being just 4x the predicted PBT ! )

But if some of that creditors & accruals is in fact not a liability in the eyes of normal people then the nett 'real' assets would be higher. (I will try to look in the annual report so see if it says what is the 'creditors & accruals', H1 report says that very little of it is bank debt but doesn't define what it is

(I think a value closer to 21 million is more accurate...due to adding back the lease costs liability from annual accounts data which imo is not 100% a debt since future turnover will pay it. & noting that , for example, future wage bills & electricity bills are not seen as being a liability or debt)

ref posts 1045 & 1046 & mention of regulatory capital

I have some info from the co.

- regulatory capital & solvency requirement
the calc. allows deferred income to be added back to the allowable assets as this is not a true liability in most countries, but not in Malta.

- so, regulatory capital is not identical to nett free cash (but is higher imo)

- for QROPS & CTS subsidiaries the reqt. is 3 months of costs (which is what I had thought was the basis for all of the reg. cap. ; clearly not)

- for the SIPP businesses it is a % of the assets under administration.

- for life assurance companies it is based on actuarial calculations which take into account a number of assumptions such as risk,.......& .....

(I'm glad I don't have to calculate it !)

so, with different types of business in different countries it is not a quick calculation for a PI to do

(I assume/guess that STM perhaps uses Excel or some automatic calculation to produce the value of reg. capital reqd & reg. cap. held.

from the interims reported in Sept
"The total regulatory capital requirement across the Group as at 30 June 2020 is GBP18.6 million."

while cash minus debts/loans was £17.6million

deferred income was 4.4 million

adding the 2 gives £22 million which I think roughly equates to the amount to meet the regulatory capital reqt. (although phps one needs to consider/decide about the lease liability since imo one could whether it is full liability on day X, since future turnover will/should pay it)

so ~ £22 million +/- X million clearly exceeds the reqt. of £18.6 million, with some margin, as you would expect.
(arguably my guestimate of £22 million might be higher but depends on the accounting treatment/rules for whether accrued income & the difference between payables & receivables can be included in 'regulatory capital')

Thanks for details. I do need a few safeish dividend payers and possible rerating/recovery would be a bonus.
with Govt. debt mountains now being even bigger than they were before the Covid crisis

there is no way that interest rate are going anywhere for years, otherwise Govts & the EU would be bankrupt !

so, imo a clear choice of putting cash in the bank to get almost 0%
...or in to companies like STM where the annual increase in shareholder assetts + the divi is a much higher return.

'jump profits longer term'

if my memory is correct a short/medium term hope is sales growth by crossing selling of existing products & more sales into Carey workplace pensions, which hasn't happened taken off so far but it has been a very topsy turvy year with Covid so I would assume that many businesses have been very busy coping with enormous changes & pressures, so they haven't had much interest in the subject of changes to workplace pensions. That sector is apparently closed to new entrants (ref. STM) & some businesses are sub scale & probably looking to exit (a la Carey & ref. STM) & STM has cash left to do another acquisition (£3-4 million)....& because of Covid the short term selling priced may have reduced while the long term benefit is phps unchanged, assuming that the world returns almost to normal by the end of 2021 (except for Govts having much bigger debts !!).

The subsequent perf. payments for Carey might be lower due to Covid which might give a benefit to STM short term.

Is there anything other than acquisitions that could jump profits longer term ? - I haven't got as far as that sort of detail. After shares for my SIPP, so while 50%+ would be good, it would be nice to think they could be held for longer term.

I'm always slightly nervous about the risks of bedding in acquisitions, although as STM have a good core business, its not so much of an issue as it is with all these other businesses that grow by acquisition before they've got much to grow on.

"What will be taken off the EBITDA figure I'm not sure"

all that info is known.
& easy to see in the accounts & RNSs
& some in my post 1042

my thinking is different

Im thinking that a big fish might want the big range of products that STM has, to market at almost no cost to their large customer base (especially AJ Bell)....& to increase their attractiveness to new potential clients, by having a bigger range of products

std. business practice imo that once you have clients tied in, then if you can try to sell them other 'stuff'

(while yes some sections that are not useful/wanted, then sell them )


While overall I would prefer that STM isnt bought up & instead finishes doing integrations of acquisitions & finishes current cost cuttings by automating more processes. & then does more acquisitions.


I did thanks. They do seem very keen to give out a decent level of information to investors. What will be taken off the EBITDA figure I'm not sure.

For all it's overall small size, as well as UK pensions STM seems to have lot of subsidiaries operating overseas in trusts, pensions, life insurance so looks like quite a complex group of businesses. I do wonder if a UK pensions operator like AJ Bell would really want to take on dealing with or disposing of all the other parts of STM when you could imagine all they really might want is the UK pensions parts to add to their UK customer base? It would be nice to think that there is a potential bidder out there sharpening their pencils. Any emerging t/o bid interest would certainly help pull this share price out of the doldrums.
I think you are missing basic data which the mkt already knows about for expected future profits.

£4.7 million ebitda

read post 1042

Just having a nose around for some sound shares, it seems this is generally on a p/e of 10 ish, whatever the earnings.

30p is about 10x the 3p earnings that 2mln profit will give.
So really depends on what step-change means - as they say its from a lower base. If 3mln profit, then 4.5p earnings next year, then 45p ?

My concern would be that we won't be back even close to normality until mid-year best and covid has definitely had an impact on new business. Combined with the other headwinds it makes it seem quite uncertain.

Looking back to 2019, it wasn't too good to give an unbeat interim statement, followed 2 months later by an effective warning about headwinds.

Undecided at the moment and wondering if there are things in the pipeline that will jump it over the previous higher profits, although on say 2 year view 50% upside looks achievable, plus the dividends.

XPS pensions would surely be a possible buyer

or AJ Bell

or phps even Kingswood. kwg. who have raised cash to do acquisitions

in any bid situation the high amount of cash held would surely help bolster the attractiveness of STM
to a buyer, & hence of the acquisition price.


Thanks Smithie. Yes, I see in the most recent interims that their total regulatory capital requirement across the Group is £18.6m. Seems a lot but in the words of every Love Island contest: it is what it is.
'cause of regulatory reqts.
for the financial business they do

I think "one" of the FCA requirements might be to have cash for X months (3 ?) of the costs of operating the co.
& other reqts. to meet.

btw the cash held is very small vs the value of pensions & assetts that they administer for clients, which is massive.

(I'm hoping that the cost cutting & integration of acquisitions might free up some of that regulatory reqd. money; I think this is mentioned in 1 annual report)


If you e-mail the co. & ask, phps they can state what the precise reqts. are for "regulatory cash".

Chat Pages: 55  54  53  52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  Older
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20230131 16:18:34