Tandem Share Discussion Threads

[greengiant] 15/3/2010 13:09

Asagi,

There are many ways to FORCE through change if necessary, whilst I am quite willing to go down this route (I have done so before) I would prefer Management to listen to shareholders rather than fight shareholders. My argument is that although it may be necessary to spend a bit of money, visability is better for all concerned.

Change will happen that much I will guarantee you, and it will happen quickly.

gg

[asagi] 15/3/2010 11:05

Furthermore davidosh the press would have gotten hold of it if such a large number of bikes had been returned. I have never found such a story. Thank-you for posting your clarification.

Asagi (long TND)

[davidosh] 15/3/2010 10:55

It is not often I go against a poster but I did dismiss the information given by Wapper as ridiculous when he quoted the returns figure and that has now been confirmed as totally ridiculous by an official source. The company would have notified the market if there was anything so adverse within trading or a quality problem so significant.

The management do work hard and most of the issues have been over 'communication' with shareholders which compared to most of my other investments has been very poor. It can change and with shareholders working closely together it will. The business is being run well IMO and this could be a great story in the making....

[wraz] 15/3/2010 10:37

Change will happen sometime, why not now?

[asagi] 15/3/2010 10:12

Oh gg, you have had the 'before you know it we've spent £1000 on RNSs' conversation with Tandem Group it seems. We've all been there.

I must get some more plasterboard - I don't think my head can stand being banged against brick much longer....

Asagi (long TND)

[wraz] 15/3/2010 09:58

As a long term and reasonably sized investor in TND, you have my full support. Change is long overdue, particularly in the communications area.

[greengiant] 15/3/2010 09:41

nick - The basic principle is that management goals and shareholders goals should be aligned. Unfortunately, sometimes Management fail to realise this and tend not to communicate effectively with its shareholders.

It is all well and good a company saying that it wont do this or that because it costs money, however, by not doing it, it leads to shareholder value destruction. After all, managements primary goal should be to CREATE shareholder value. Hence, why I cannot see the logic behind not hiring an exceptional MD. If I was a VC ;-) I would not even look at this company.

gg

[nickcduk] 15/3/2010 09:28

Really admire your stance GG. Hoping that this can be used as a template to push for change at numerous other companies where they seem to believe the company is to be run for management rather than shareholders.

[davidosh] 15/3/2010 09:10

gg.....thanks and certainly on behalf of 4878 shareholders in Tandem can I just say...We like your style and approve of your mission statement.

[greengiant] 15/3/2010 09:01

spooky, this has just started. I understand that there will be operational issues and I understand the managements reluctance to change and engage with shareholders. However, I will not allow this company to be run as a private company pretending to be a publicly listed company.

gg

[spooky] 15/3/2010 08:54

If anyone wants to buy,good luck,there's not a lot of stock around this morning :-o)

[greengiant] 15/3/2010 08:51

dd - you have mail altho' it is nothing exciting.

Morning everyone else, nice to see the share price move up again, if anyone wants to sell, please feel free to sell to me

;-)

gg

[supreme mo] 14/3/2010 22:27

My guess would be venaglass, but as always time will tell!

[greengiant] 14/3/2010 10:02

I have no idea who is selling and neither does the company. I have no qualms as to who it is. My views are simple and have all ready been stated here. I will be looking to add more, there is no doubt about that. Change can only come about from a position of strength, although I also believe in engaging with management first and foremost.

gg

[davidosh] 13/3/2010 21:57

My hunch would be Jupiter but either way why did they not release all their holding as they seem to have kept hold of about 1.5% if it is either of the two largest holders.

In any event neither of the two large holders were against our corporate governance concerns as voiced by the tens and tens of private shareholders so where would any defence come from ? Andrew can call an EGM at the drop of a hat if he wanted to and I am sure the directors will be keen to meet him at the earliest opportunity.

[supreme mo] 13/3/2010 20:25

My guess would be venaglass selling imo.... call it a hunch.

[supreme mo] 13/3/2010 10:39

GG you have mail....

[greengiant] 13/3/2010 09:15

For all those interested, this is an exceptional article of what can be done

https://extranet.jonesday.com/newsknowledge/publicationdetail.aspx?publication=889

gg

EDIT - Just so you are aware, as soon as I know who the seller is, I have asked my Broker to approach the remaining large shareholders to determine whether they are open to me acquiring their shares. Not holding out much hope - my broker isn't particularly good :-)

[greengiant] 13/3/2010 08:47

Just been catching up on all of this.

Wapper, I have been told that the change in supplier happened very early in H1 and has been integrated with no issues whatsoever. Can you please confirm?

I don't buy that a company does not need a MD. Rather the opposite, the current board may be operationally competent but I do not believe them to be strategically competent. The lack of vision and strategic agility in this company is glaringly obvious. A strong MD with a Marketing background could radically change the fortunes of this company. It is naive and arrogant of the company to believe that an exceptional MD costing £200k per year will not add more than £200k's worth of value - in which case the vast majority of companies in te world have it wrong.

I also believe that a strategic review of the company is needed. It may be that the company is worth more by following the breakup and sell strategy. On first glances, this looks highly likely. If not a complete sale of the business then the company should def. be looking at selling off the MV business (or vice versa)

dd - Whilst i agree in part, the company has definate operational issues - that much can be seen from rising input prices, freight costs and adverse exchange rate movements. Nothing which cannot be overcome. It is also interesting tracking the company's profit versus cash generation. It leaves a lot to be desired. Could you text me your e-mail address.

I believe that PI's should mobilise and become more directly involved in how their company is run. All too often, when things go wrong PI's blame management, when they should be blaming themselves for lack of interest. As such I would like to start talking strategy on how we are going to bring about the fundamental change that is needed at TND - or if you believe that this is actually needed at all.

gg

[supreme mo] 13/3/2010 07:19

David, many of the shares in barclays are nominees... either way, we will find out soon!

Can't sleep because of all the excitement.... i'm sure there are a few more people that are too!!!

[davidosh] 12/3/2010 22:52

Maybe it was Barclays who sold ?



Jupiter Asset Management
519,040
9.4%

Venaglass Limited
507,240
9.2%

Barclays PLC
406,560
7.4%

Mr R C L Davis
171,920
3.1%

So it looks like Andrew only needs to pick up about 80,000 more to become the largest shareholder

[davidosh] 12/3/2010 21:08

Only just catching up as I was at a West China Cement (WCC) presentation this afternoon. Big welcome to Greengiant and Skegby who are two highly respected investors. I am very pleased to see substantial investment here and there will now be some interesting discussions with regards to increasing shareholder value. Who has sold such a large stake as about 12% of the company has changed hands in the last three days ?

Wapper....Although I accept that there could be some 'issues' with the exchange rates and high material costs affecting margins I simply do not see how the company can have the 50% 'returns' level that you mention as on the ASDA deal that would equate to 25000 bikes and in that scenario I do not think ASDA would be selling any of our bikes anywhere.

In reality it is the exact opposite and they are still selling only our cycles on their website and even the football branded ones are our stock. The ASDA website shows a very significant satisfaction rating for the promotion they ran for the £70 bikes and it would surely have been trashed by disatisfied customers if they were sending them all back !!

Are you sure your contact did not exaggerate the container story ?

The rest we will have to see how the results pan out but it is worth remembering that the Board have a duty to inform shareholders of material events that would affect the share price. I think a 50% return rate for a large cycle order of 50000 items is VERY material ?

The first half results were very satisfactory and as I stated before the tone from the directors in their outlook suggested a reasonable and profitable outcome for H2. If that has drammatically changed then they should have warned the market and not allowed one investor to sell a substantial holding with that information available through close company contacts.

Andrew Burgess has already stated that he personally has management issues and if some of the information Wapper is highlighting is true then he may well have even more.

[supreme mo] 12/3/2010 19:52

If things are correct what you say wapper, I as a shareholder am not happy for certain people to be paid so much money for these operational errors.

Wapper are/have you been the seller? Why would you try and drip your holding out through the market without engaging with some board members on here where a deal could have been sorted out?? If it is you, why have you let the market makers drop the share price so much and sell into it?

don't you see the value in these? you have held for so long now, why sell?

Something has to change (or someone).