Buy
Sell
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
  -5.00 -1.32% 375.00 360.00 390.00 385.00 375.00 385.00 8,100 09:00:25
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Leisure Goods 38.8 2.5 40.5 9.3 19

Tandem Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4626 to 4650 of 5275 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  177  176  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/9/2019
15:31
Results are out 7.00 am Monday tiger
castleford tiger
27/9/2019
14:09
You can have mine for £3.75. No need to thank me :-)
cwa1
27/9/2019
13:44
Simso Cannot disagree much there except as you say you are being Prudent. Likewise my 1m was optimistic. Either way we should be around these numbers and deducting 3.2 from 9.5 leaves 6.3 value on the company. That's excluding what cash we have left after debts. To buy or to bid for the company one would find that 15% of the shares are lost. If we are making 2 m and you value it at 8x that's 16m plus the property and EXCLUDING net cash it still comes to £4.00 a share as a base value. Tiger
castleford tiger
27/9/2019
13:13
Hi Castleford, in answer to your posting above on 14th September about the results, I was modelling a 1st Half PBT of £0.7m...based on:- Sales +26% v LY (in line with AGM update for first 25 weeks), Gross Margin at 31.5% in line with LY and costs of £4.2m. I am probably being too prudent on Gross Margin being merely in line with LY FY when it is clearly on an uptrend, and my cost assumption is of 5% increase on LY is hopefully also too prudent. If the first half does deliver c£0.7m PBT..then the rolling last 12 months profit would be £3.1m. Any business making that level of profit, which had closing net cash of £4.9m (which could rise to c£7m by this year end based on £3m PBT being achieved), and a Freehold worth £3.2m...surely should be worth a lot, lot more than the current £9.5m Market Cap....shouldn't it??
simso
27/9/2019
11:38
RESULTS DAY MISSED????? been last Friday in sept last 2 years tiger
castleford tiger
14/9/2019
16:33
So with results due in 2 weeks what do we think? Last year we made a loss of approx 350k but ended the year making 2.2m So we made 2.5m in the second half. Am i being reasonable to expect a pbt of £1 m as a minimum in the first half? Tiger PS the share price looks likely to bounce if the results are good
castleford tiger
13/8/2019
15:58
Spreadex are not out....they are just below the 3% level now so have to notify that they are no longer notifiable lol. If one of their clients wants Tandem in their portfolio they may go back over the line and have to notify again...
davidosh
06/8/2019
20:05
Said Spreadex out? What were they in for Not seen any big trades and 50 k is 1%
castleford tiger
31/7/2019
17:37
It surely begs the question of why were we not selected in the first place...Was it put out to tender and Tandem did not get it or were the local council clueless and did not consider Tandem or we did not bid for it as margins not there at the price they wanted?
davidosh
31/7/2019
01:39
FX concerns
hatfullofsky
26/7/2019
22:17
Yup get them brought from China.
deanowls
26/7/2019
17:42
i have sent to Jim Shears
castleford tiger
26/7/2019
17:31
Article in Birmingham Mail. hxxps://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/mayor-andy-streets-boris-bike-16645039 Birmingham ordered 5000 'Boris Bikes' from German firm nextbike but the company have only managed to deliver 25. Birmingham have cancelled the contract and are looking for a new supplier. I have written (below) to the Birmingham Mail, the local MP & the Mayor (who's idea this was) --------------------------------- Most readers will have been shocked to see that only 25 out of 5000 Boris bikes have been delivered. What is even more shocking is that this contract went to a German firm in the first place when Birmingham has its own bicycle manufacturer, The Tandem Group, in Castle Bromwich, just a few minutes walk from the Jaguar Land Rover site. Now that the German contract has been cancelled, surely this presents one of those serendipitous opportunities to do the right thing by all concerned. Like Britain building its own ships or using our own steel instead of sending our money and expertise abroad. It can't be beyond the owners of Tandem and Birmingham Council to sit around a table and do whatever it takes to hammer out a deal to have these bikes provided by a Birmingham firm ?
poco a poco
19/7/2019
11:09
The next results will be in September for the H1 to 30th June. Are any of you interested in attending a results presentation?
davidosh
05/7/2019
16:55
The irony is that even before this apparent change last year....the company never made a dividend payment that was anywhere near to matching the pension payment anyway !! If you have capacity from previous years can you then pay a higher dividend in future years until the matching hits capacity ?
davidosh
05/7/2019
16:34
Jim Shears Finance Director, has been in touch to explain the situation with the pension fund. I thought you might like to read the email (it seems the regulator tightened up the rules last year): There is a written agreement between Company and Trustees that the dividend payment will not exceed the deficit contribution payment. The Trustees took professional advice and based this on guidance from The Pension Regulator (tPR). Agreeing a schedule of contributions between Company and Trustees takes months of negotiation. The Trustees demand a short recovery period and the actuary is required to use prudent actuarial assumptions which would result in significantly larger deficit contributions. The Company however wants a longer recovery period with more realistic assumptions and therefore lower deficit contributions. Below is a link to a document that may be of interest, in particular page 19. Note our agreed recovery period was 13 years at the last valuation and by “short” tPR means less than the average of 7 years. https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/-/media/thepensionsregulator/files/import/pdf/db-annual-funding-statement-2019.ashx
profdoc
05/7/2019
07:20
JakNife Loads of articles but it is clear the regulator is clamping down on Dividends being paid when there is a pension deficit. hxxps://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/the-pensions-regulators-annual-funding-statement---a-firmer-stance-on-dividend-payments/ That's a really odd argument you make. It doesn't make sense to me. The amount of dividend and pension fund reduction are both limited by how much cash available a company has and future prospects. The regulator is simply stating that the reduction in pension deficit should be at least as much of a priority as dividend payments. Basically the pension regular guarantees up to a point a minimum level of pension should a scheme fail. Therefore they are effectively protecting public money.
amt
03/7/2019
22:25
Strange movement in price again today. Still no news on the 1.5% that were traded in one day last week Tiger
castleford tiger
03/7/2019
00:45
MRF.....We are investors and after nearly 15 years I think I deserve a return on my investment. Why should I sell at this point?? It has nothing to do with where I buy my bicycles either. Jaknife......A very good point and totally agree that a limit like that works counter intuitively. We need a proper explanation. The auditor was at the meeting but did not say anything on the issue. Profdoc.....If there is such a need for retaining cash why have the company been paying bonuses and salary increases far in excess of the total dividend paid to the owners each year? Also clearly far more into the pension pot too? It makes us, the shareholders, feel like we come right at the bottom of the pile
davidosh
02/7/2019
18:00
Like little birds pecking at the crumbs on the table. Shameful !! Vote with your feet and sell and buy your bicycles and other related stuff from someone else imo
my retirement fund
02/7/2019
15:31
amt, re your 3583: "I have just read a couple of articles by googling this issue and the articles confirm that such restrictions are in line with current practice. So I doubt its worth challenging the decision. Of course if the deficits were reduced then such restrictions would also be changed." Do you have a link please? My issue is that what's being described defies common sense, eg from profdoc's post above: "Chairman, Mervyn Keene, replied that while the pension scheme is in deficit the pension regulator will not permit annual dividends payments to be greater than the deficit reduction payments made to the pension scheme." Let's say that the deficit is £20m and it's being amortised over a period of 10 years with instalments of £2m per annum (ignoring interest to keep things simple). Based on Chairman, Mervyn Keene's words then "The pension regulator will not permit annual dividends payments to be greater than the deficit reduction payments ..." and hence dividends greater than £2m per annum cannot be paid. But if the deficit falls to £10m, and is amortised over the same period, then the instalments are now £1m but the dividends are also limited to £1m per annum, even though the pension scheme is in a better position than above. The dividend restriction mechanism that's proposed works counter intuitively. Perhaps the Chairman misunderstood something when he was describing it? The FD might be in a better position to explain the formula. JakNife
jaknife
02/7/2019
14:38
This pensions deficit "constraint" is clearly nonsense, in that the business has more than enough cash to pay a higher dividend and to fund higher deficit repayments. The regulator and the trustees would obviously have no issue with that approach.
effortless cool
02/7/2019
14:28
Thanks AMT. I've sent a copy to Chairman Mervyn Keene - it'll be good to get a discussion going. Glen
profdoc
02/7/2019
13:43
Prof doc. Very very good post. I largely agree with your views. On the timescale you mention we should also have a good idea about how much Brexit is damaging consumer sentiment making decisions easier.
amt
02/7/2019
09:10
I listened to the discussion at the AGM. I've jotted down some thoughts on dividend policy (sorry it's so long)- I'm interested to hear what you think. At the AGM a question was raised on the logic of paying a mere 4.31p dividend when the company has produced EPS north of 30p and is expected to do so again this coming year. Investors who have been with the company for 10-15 years have seen little capital gain (unless they luckily bought during one of the price cliff-falls) and they have grimaced at the low dividend yield year after year. It’s no wonder they are disappointed with the investment they made. So, given that directors have benefitted through salaries over the last decade, is it now the turn of shareholders to receive significant pay-outs? Chairman, Mervyn Keene, replied that while the pension scheme is in deficit the pension regulator will not permit annual dividends payments to be greater than the deficit reduction payments made to the pension scheme. Dividends are £216,000 and pension contributions are £336,000. Clearly, there is a constraint of sorts here, at least there is when the £336,000 limit is reached. However, that on its own doesn’t explain why dividends can’t rise by 20% for a few years before bumping up to the pension contribution limit. Both pension schemes closed to new members years ago. On the underfunded scheme, liabilities are £9.4m and assets £6.6m plus a tax asset of £0.5m leaving a deficit of £2.3m. (I got the impression that the directors are disappointed that the pensions regulator estimates the pension liabilities as high as it does – many pensioners are now well past average life expectancy so the numbers receiving pension drop each year. The directors then put forward a different argument: they needed to strengthen the balance sheet before significantly raising the dividend. I was somewhat confused on this point because the cash balance in December was about £5m and the dividend costs £216,600 per year. Surely, there is potential to raise the dividend? I was told that the 31 December snapshot of the balance sheet flatters the finance picture. There are points during the year when the company is forced to rely on an overdraft in the region of £3m. To get some feel for this I’ve looked at the half year reports as well as the annual reports It would seem during the summer the combined valued of inventory and receivables is higher than in December by about £3m - £6m. Some of this is financed by the rise in payables, of the order of £1.5m - £3m. But I would imagine that Tandem must pay these suppliers during the summer and autumn. We were told at the AGM, some customers push for 120 days credit. Even by June, let alone by September-November when stock levels are high in the lead up to Christmas, Tandem’s cash balance is down to around £1m while its debt (including invoice discounting debt) is around £5m - £7m. I can see from those numbers that when Argos and other customers are insisting on availability of product in the second half of the year, but not paying for it until say December, that the company could come under a temporary cash flow strain and therefore need access an overdraft. This dependence on bank borrowing and invoice discounting is a small weakness I failed to spot in my earlier analysis and I’m grateful to the directors for pointing me in the right direction. I agree that it would be more comfortable if our company had a larger cash buffer to support the rise in inventory and receivables during the second half of the year rather relying on banks. It’ll be better to avoid interest charges and it’ll almost eliminate financial distress risk. But what of the medium term? For now I’m content to leave the dividend at a low level. But this comes with the proviso that when the amounts of finance sourced from banks is down to less than £1m at the worst time of the year, that the dividend is raised substantially. This conclusion assumes that the company does not have value-enhancing projects in which to invest that cash within the firm. That is, projects generating 8% - 10% per annum returns on capital (an acquisition spree or investing in projects yielding only 1% -5% is not acceptable). Once the balance sheet is on a firm foundation, any money that cannot generate 8-% - 10% pa should be handed back to shareholders to invest elsewhere. As well as the lowering of financial risk, there is a logic to holding onto cash generated by current high profits for a 2-3 years (cumulating to say £3m - £4m in retained earnings). This will allow a reduction in the overdraft and in the use of invoicing financing, thus at least £100,000 of interest each year can be avoided, adding to profits. A third reason for being cautious with the dividend and building up the balance sheet is that Tandem must appear soundly financed to gain business from the likes of Disney – they receive a percentage of Tandem’s sales of licensed product and therefore need to be assured that Tandem is (a) going to be around in a 18 months from now (b) has sufficient money to actively promote and distribute goods. A suggested dividend policy for the next five years: My working assumption – just for thinking it through (it can be tweaked) - for earnings and cash flow after paying interest and tax is £1.30m in each of the next five years. For three years continue with a dividend policy of paying out about £0.25m. Over these three years the balance sheet is strengthened by £3.15m. In the fourth and subsequent years, if the company does not have projects expected to yield at least 8% - 10% per annum after tax, then all £1.30m earnings that year could be paid as dividends. This is 26p per share. However, there are two constraints: Constraint 1 If the pension deficit is still high the regulator will insist that large amounts are put into the scheme if dividends exceed £336,000 – this money would then be locked-in to the pension fund. Even with that constraint the company could move the dividend up to the £336,000 limit, which is 6.7p per share. Also, the deficit gap may be closed by 2023 as many pensioners leave the scheme. Constraint 2 Signalling to financial markets is an important aspect of dividend policy. Investors become jittery if the dividend jumps about from one year to the next – a sharp drop may be taken as management signalling that bad times are just around the corner. If the dividend is raised each year to equal earnings then drops will occur from time to time because profits can be lumpy. The solution adopted by most companies is to have a fairly high dividend (if they lack value-enhancing projects and are shareholder-value oriented) and then, from time to time add in a special dividend. The regular dividend can be raised on a nice steady path, say 5% - 10% per year signalling to their investors that directors are confident in the future, but also indicating they are aware that downturns happen and so they’ve retained a buffer between EPS and the dividend level. I would suggest that in the fourth year the dividend is raised to £0.65m or 13p per share. This will be combined with clear messages by the directors in the annual reports that they anticipate providing a “progressive dividend”. In year 5 it might then be possible to raise the regular dividend by 5% - 10% as well as pay a special dividend of say £0.5m or 10p per share. The special dividends could be handed out most years.
profdoc
Chat Pages: Latest  187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  177  176  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
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:20200922 14:13:56