Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Tandem Group Plc LSE:TND London Ordinary Share GB00B460T373 ORD 25P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 172.50 165.00 180.00 172.50 172.50 172.50 0.00 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Leisure Goods 32.5 1.9 32.3 5.3 8

Tandem Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3676 to 3700 of 4675 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  142  141  140  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
17/4/2012
15:46
Sir Chris Hoy reflects....His first bike was a Dawes girls bike handed down by a neighbour ...lol http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17741333 OK I added a bit but just thinking would make a great story if it was ! How much to get Chris Hoy in as a non exec chairman ? We need some fresh ideas methinks...Surely he would like to see good old British bikes doing well in Olympic year !?
davidosh
16/4/2012
17:21
David, I think that it really is a very old scheme, and probably predates this Board. I think the status of the pension funds was covered at one of the meetings.....may have been a few years ago though. As the pension scheme position seems to rear its head so often, perhaps a few more words may be written in the Annual report to put them inmto persepctive, and give more background...........but suspect not, and sure it is already printed. A decent summary/explanation would stop boring people like us asking all the time !!
graham1ty
16/4/2012
16:11
These lot do not manufacture anything
mrshaungcm
16/4/2012
15:38
Assets of £2m and only two beneficiaries !! That sounds very fishery rather than beneficiary ? Is that the directors scheme by any chance ?
davidosh
16/4/2012
15:32
The pension schemes are from ages ago ( the Casket scheme only has assets of about £2m and if I recall only a couple of beneficiaries). the Tandem scheme is slightly larger, but not much. My comment earlier still applies re the pension schemes, danger of the tail wagging the dog. They take up vast amounts of management time which could be better sped elsewhere. Regulation and Actuaries gone mad
graham1ty
16/4/2012
14:59
Thanks guys... So I guess there are a number of factors that can contribute to the deficit, therefore making it volatile. Very difficult to make a judgement, deficit could reduce rapidly also. I would rather these small cap companies to not have pension schemes. Thanks for all your input, very helpful!
bobthetrader
16/4/2012
13:13
Lower discount rates due to flatter yield curves probably had a more material effect on the deficit than increased longevity. The deficit should be a concern for shareholders, but not one that has immediate implications. In the event of a takeover, the deficit would likely have a pound for pound impact on the price paid.
effortless cool
16/4/2012
13:10
I would think the shortfall on the pension fund is also due to the performance of the stock market which has been dreadfull.
amt
16/4/2012
13:04
Graham... So what you are saying is, the assumption now is that the life expectancy of current members will probably increase, and therefore they expect a £2.7 mil short fall? Should shareholders worry about this with regards to their investment? Also if a company wanted to buy-out Tandem how much of an impact would that have on the offer price. Please excuse my accountning ignorance. Thanks!
bobthetrader
16/4/2012
12:31
Bob. very simply, this is all the fault of Actuaries. As the statement says, the schemes are closed to new members. However, all it takes is a change to the assumptions on life expectancy, the returns the market will make etc etc and suddenly they say the "pot" is no longer adequate, even though the size of the actual underlying fund has hardly changed. These days, under accounting rules, rather than "smoothing out" the ups and dons of a fund, companies have to account for all the changes. Sadly, on a deficit, the company has to make it up: if that turns to surplus, they cannot recoup the surplus.....after Cap'n Bob, the surplus belongs to the pension members.,
graham1ty
16/4/2012
11:42
Does anyone understand the workings of the pension scheme? I notice that they had a surplus at the end of the f/y 2008 and now they have a deficit of 2.7 mil. It seems to be slowly rising year on year. They also stated a few years ago that they would try to find ways of reducing the deficit or eliminate it altogether. If someone could explain how this works in simple terms, it would be appreciated, and how important is this in investing terms ie. what is the chances of this deficit increasing in the next year or two. Non share holder, but considering an investment! Thanks in advance!
bobthetrader
16/4/2012
10:38
A dismal performance once again. Only winners are the Management. Every company involved in bike selling is booming, producing record figures. But TND are "pleased" to report significantly lower sales/margins/forecasts & a dramatically reduced NAV ue to an out of control Pensions deficit. More dilution to come ?
wapper
16/4/2012
09:50
To counter my ( bored) but happy post above: thoughts for the day: Market cap: £3.7m Total director's emoluments over the last 8 years: £3.8m Highest paid Director's total over last 8 years: £1.5m Total shareholdings built up by the Directors: er.....worth just £240,000 Dividends paid to shareholders over 8 years: c£198,000 Increase in revenue over last 8 years.............er, a drop of 17% Increase in eps over 8 years............er a drop of 30% It is debt free ( almost); still profitable in a rubbish market; BUT, the Director's do NOT have a meaningful stake in the business and their reward is through salary, not equity exposure. I want them to sweat, want them to be rewarded WITH EVERYONE ELSE, related to profitability and total returns to shareholders. We do not have the annual report yet: i am not confidant that we will have a drop in total pay of 32% in line with profitability.......but I might be wrong. Reading this non-execs ?
graham1ty
16/4/2012
09:38
Their salaries are way out of scale for the size of business and it's turnover/profitability. In fact salaries add up to more than the profit.. The pension deficit is shocking aswell increased to £2m..what the..##. Probably linked to the companies share price The only positive is trading is ahead of expectation for the first quarter, but then they say they don't expect 2012 to be great. The year of the Olympics.!!
whoppy
16/4/2012
09:35
Whoppy - Very difficult to run a manufacturing operation. That requires a lot of skill. Historically UK PLC has been focused on making easy money through the Finance sector. Now that has fallen appart maybe people will begin to see where proper money can be made. True skills are required and its not all about a quick buck. Their salaries are a fraction of what the Bankers take and these sort of businesses need to be encouraged and nurtured through difficult times. Such times ironically caused because it was seen as so easy to make a quick return in the past. Its the investment community who need a shake up and to start backing companies like Tandem. Its up to them to start looking for value rather than being lazy and expect everything to be delivered on a plate as it was in the past.
amt
16/4/2012
09:24
amt, I think low ambition for shareholders, but rather high ambition for management to keep their cushy salaries. They are quite a desperate bunch and are not really for the commercial world hence there are no forecasts, presentations, etc. The only idea they could manage to come up with is spending loads of shareholders money on buying back shares in a desperate attempt at boost the eps. They have no idea on how to improve eps by actually growing the business. Just very lacking. Maybe they should sell the business, but that would mean giving up their massive salaries so we are stuck, imo. They are obviously not even doing something to promote the brand seeing as the Olympics are about to start. team GB are going to win medals and cycling will be at the forefront. Where is the promotion of the brands. it's as if they don't exist.
whoppy
16/4/2012
09:23
Amt, agree with you. Hope there is not an acquisition for acquisitions sake. It has taken five years to bed down all they have got, cut the debt ( pre the buyback), change senior management, focus on some key brands etc etc. The last thing they need is another acquisition that adds yet more brands and takes ages to bed in. It would be either expensive ( back to big net debt) or very very dilutive, at these levels. These results are swings/roundabouts: revenue down.....but margins steady; cash tied up in stock levels dramatically up......but used at 140p on the buyback; the pension issue "tail" again wagging the dog; caution on the economy.....but revenue's well up this year in both divisions; a divi, good......the increase so dull ( it should go up, but let us be cautious and increase the smallest amount we can"). For my halfpennyworth: in this market, these are fine, if not good. Tandem remains profitable and might even grow this year. However, there is nothing to excite anyone and these will be dead in the water ( even at these depressed levels)until the AGM. Only a positive statement then would get these moving again.
graham1ty
16/4/2012
09:16
amt...investors always have a choice of where to invest but it is the directors who have to provide the information and reasons to choose Tandem as a long term hold or encourage new investment. There are no forecasts in the market. There are no broker notes Directors do not offer presentations to investors. There are no institutions investing. There is no PR for the company. I accept that this is not a high tech or growth story but... In the last three years eps has been 17.67p, 19.6p and now 13.37p whilst dividends received by shareholders have been zero, 3p and today 3.15p announced. My view is that if the company had been paying 5p, 5.5p and 6p which is approximately one third of its earnings out to shareholders then the shares would have been attractive to income seekers and also worthy of holding long term to await developments in the business. The shares would have been trading at about £1 throughout the last three years with a 6% yield on offer rather than at 60p then inflated to £1.60 and then all the way back down to 70p !! Instead management focussed on paying very handsome rewards to directors but not shareholders. When a shareholder stood up to that the rest of us have suffered the result ! That is clearly not maximising shareholder value for ALL shareholders What happens if Mr Burgess or a student of his comes back to do the same again in 2012 especially if the shares slip another 15% ?
davidosh
16/4/2012
09:14
whoppy - I dont think its low ambition. With the dreaadfull state of the economy its a question of ensuring the company remains robust and stable.
amt
16/4/2012
09:11
I think management have shown that they cant be trusted, quite why people here don't move on is beyond me. If they have done it once then you can be certain they will do it again at some stage, why take the risk ?
envirovision
16/4/2012
09:10
18BT - Well might not be prudent to hike the didvidend. Probably arent any value enhancing acquisitions around at the moment, prefer organic growth myself. Most acquisitions diminish returns and only the Corporate finance people gain in the end. I really hope they dont spend valuable cash on Corporate Finance advice.
amt
16/4/2012
08:57
they seem to have low ambition aswell..hence the results...blaming it on the economy is all too easy. It's up to them to manage the situation and grow by focusing on what they do best and finding new customers.
whoppy
16/4/2012
08:54
amt, disagree with you there. The management can do something about the shareprice from increasing dividends, finding a value enhancing acquisition, possibly squeezing out small shareholders again via a tender offer to just communicating better. It's a decent manufacturing company, with a management which seems to know nothing about corporate finance and doesn't seem to take advice.
18bt
16/4/2012
08:47
Not at all but I dont see how those events helped the Company and therefore shareholders. I think most fair people would reckon the Company is well run and producing good results against a tough background and if the share price is undervalued then that is not the responsibilty of the Management. Thats just an issue with British investors historically not being interested in manufacturing.
amt
16/4/2012
07:41
amt...Are you suggesting that the seller held a gun to the head of the directors and forced them to buy at £1.40 ? If the company had been paying a dividend at say one third of profits to give shareholders a good reason to buy the stock at £1 for a 6% yield then a predator would not be able to build a stake quite so easily in the first place ! That said is it right to offer just one shareholder an exit at a price that is 100% above the average price it has been over the previous three years without there being a substantial improvement in trading to match it ? All shareholders should have been offered the same terms or the company should be run in a way that benefits shareholders without someone with a gun being able to take advantage would be my reasonable assessment of the situation but do tell me if I have it wrong ?
davidosh
Chat Pages: Latest  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  142  141  140  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
TND
Tandem
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.

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

P: V: D:20191206 00:09:30