Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Tclarke Plc LSE:CTO London Ordinary Share GB0002015021 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.25 -0.2% 124.25 14,774 16:35:03
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
121.50 127.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Construction & Materials 231.90 1.20 2.87 43.3 53
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:29:15 O 1 124.50 GBX

Tclarke (CTO) Latest News

More Tclarke News
Tclarke Investors    Tclarke Takeover Rumours

Tclarke (CTO) Discussions and Chat

Tclarke (CTO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2021-06-23 15:29:15124.5011.25O
2021-06-23 12:49:28126.005,0006,300.00O
2021-06-23 12:11:16121.281,5001,819.20O
2021-06-23 10:58:45121.284,8915,931.80O
2021-06-23 08:25:17126.232,0002,524.60O
View all Tclarke trades in real-time

Tclarke (CTO) Top Chat Posts

Tclarke Daily Update: Tclarke Plc is listed in the Construction & Materials sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker CTO. The last closing price for Tclarke was 124.50p.
Tclarke Plc has a 4 week average price of 121p and a 12 week average price of 109p.
The 1 year high share price is 159p while the 1 year low share price is currently 76.60p.
There are currently 42,953,211 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 44,639 shares. The market capitalisation of Tclarke Plc is £53,369,364.67.
edmundshaw: Thanks foir your thoughts CC. Goee looks like a numbskull mis-step. Covering it up is not transparent, but it is hardly a mistake you would shout about... The issues of management transparecy and probity are always important though, and that definitely inserts a question mark. Board remuneration is always a bugbear with me, and the 33% and 47% sound bad.I will check that out. But when a company and its profits grow (order book etc) you do expect some rises. Sadly, board greed has become embedded in our markets due to insufficient political will to do something about it. Not seeing this as a stock-specific problem unless the remuneration is a) not tied to share price and earnings growth or b) excessive and out of line with market averages. On balance, I think 140 to 160p is still my current target (which is why I added last March at 80p or so and also why I sold a few at 140p), with the idea of of increasing those targets on good news and progress... CTO for me is in a good space and well run.
effortless cool: The Statement Of Administrator's Proposal for Gooee is now available at Companies House. Https:// There is no mention of CTO at all and Aurora (see CC2014's post 3966) have a charge over all all assets and IP, so it would seem that the CTO's £2m "investment" is a total write-off. One might almost think they knew this when they wrote it down to zero in the full year results, but did not feel the need to comment on it. It is interesting that another poster mentioned that the £2m had bought them a 2% shareholding in Gooee; nothing has been filed at Companies House in this regard, so either proper records have not been filed or the information provided was false. Finally, the Board really should be held to account by shareholders for this failure. Why did they invest £2m in a business that was clearly in dire financial straits? Why is there no record of their 2% shareholding at Companies House? Why did they feel the need to pay such a large amount for exclusivity over a product that was hardly selling? If the relationship was considered material enough to issue a "Strategic partnership" RNS when the investment was made, why did they deem it appropriate not to mention its failure in the FY results or the subsequent trading update? What happened to the £2m?
igoe104: Looks like more bad news for NMCN, is having a effect on CTO share price today. Even though CTO is a completely different animal...
cc2014: I have been trying to unravel this Gooee situation. See post #3932 from Effortless Cool I am going round in circles. T. Clarke's annual report is for year ended Dec 2020 and Gooee Ltd was not in administration until April 2021. I appreciate that they wrote it down to zero but surely all companies are required to disclose any shareholding they have invested in regardless of it's worth even as a minority shareholder? They are required to disclose dormant companies so I would have thought disclosing one which isn't dormant a requirement. Investing £2m in Jan 20 and by Dec 20 having to write the whole thing off seems worthy of comment but not a single thing in the annual report. A quick search at companies house shows there is only one Gooee company. Gooee Ltd. They do appear to have an American subsidiary, Gooee LLP but I think we must assume T. Clarke invested in the UK company. Perhaps it is not where CTO invested the £2m but since their annual report doesn't tell me I have no other place to start. The last confirmation statements at companies house show Gooee Ltd only has 1 share. Indeed the last set of accounts for Dec 19 only show 1 share. So, for T. Clarke to buy 2% of Gooee Ltd, it would have had to do a share split. Easy enough but companies house does not show any change in share structure. I'm not sure how long companies have to do this, but in any event it would flow through on the next annual update, which unfortunately was due around Nov 20 but wasn't done so we are none the wiser. Then I read the last set of accounts for Gooee Dec 18, submitted in Sept 19 which would have been the ones avaiable to the directors when making their investment decision. Not pretty showing negative net assets of £5.5m. Indeed if you go back over time the accounts are never pretty. The sort of accounts were if you were investing you'd want a parent company indemnity of some kind in case they just dumped it into administration. So, I went to look up the parent company of Gooee Ltd which says it is Gooee Group Holdings Ltd, only I can find no record of Gooee Group Holdings Ltd at Companies House. So, I give up. Better things to do with my time. I think it's a poor show when a company invests £2m and within 14 months the company goes bust. Worthy of some explanation in the annual report in my opinion. Finally Gooee and Aurora Lighting are intertwined with some common shareholders but are seperate companies. Aurora appeared to have supported Gooee through some loan agreements. T. Clarke in my mind have got stuffed when Gooee got dumped into administration. One wonders why T. Clarke didn't have some cross indemnity from Aurora given the fragile Gooee accounts. There are questions to be answered imho.
thorpematt: The 140p resistance is broken. The share price is now at an all time high. reasonable volume also. Long term chart shows the previous 2 visits to the 140p level. Much stronger revenues, margins and outlook are the obvious drivers for the price now. free stock charts from '>
effortless cool: On 30 January 2020, CTO announced a “strategic partnership” with Gooee, in the form of “a 5 year UK exclusive agreement … to sell, install and maintain the revolutionary Gooee suite of smart building products”. The announcement also advised: “As part of this agreement, TClarke has made a small but strategic investment in Gooee”. At the time of that investment, the latest set of published accounts for Gooee, which were the unaudited accounts to 31 December 2018, showed it to be technically insolvent, with negative total equity (shareholders’ deficit) of £5.7m. The movement in the ‘profit and loss account’ line on the balance sheet indicated that a loss of £2.1m had been booked in 2018. On 21 July 2020, CTO published its interim results to 30 June 2020. These quantified the Gooee investment at £2.0m and it was recorded as a non-current asset in the balance sheet accordingly. On 14 August 2020, Gooee published its accounts (unaudited again) to 31 December 2019. These showed a further severe deterioration in Gooee’s finances, with an apparent loss of £7.5m in the year taking the shareholders’ deficit to £13.2m. On 24 March 2021, CTO published preliminary full year results for 2019. In these, the £2.0m investment in Gooee had vanished from the balance sheet, replaced with a £2.0m write-off against retained earnings of ‘minority shareholding equity investment’. This was reported in the ‘consolidated statement of changes in equity’, thus avoiding the income statement. There was no explanation of this in the prelims. I emailed Trevor Mitchell, the CFO, on 29 March to enquire as to the change in accounting treatment of the Gooee investment. I received a reply from his Executive Assistant, giving the following explanation: “Under international accounting standards we are required to fair value our investment at year end. This is very difficult when it comes to unquoted investments and so we took the decision to carry the investment at zero and let any profits from our offering go through the profit and loss account as and when they arise”. My response to this was: “Thank you for this prompt response. By way of feedback, given the materiality of this management decision, I do believe that it should have been specifically identified within the “Group financial review” section of the full year results statement. Its omission makes it seem like it is a subject that management preferred not to address directly. I am sure that is not the case in practice, but it is important not to give this impression, even inadvertently”. On 28 April, Gooee entered administration. The sequence of events set out above do not sit at all comfortably with me, and I have sold my entire holding in CTO today.
thorpematt: Whatever way round i look at this, I still cannot make a case for the share price being down around here. I have tried giving it lower ratings for being a contractor (and thus allowing for earnings being lumpy....even though they're not really - due to the mix of work and spread of locations they are very consistent, COVID aside) I have tried allowing for the increase in pension defecit (even though that is mainly to to low yields on gilts....which have recently risen). I have tried to pretend it's a "no growth stock" (even though it clearly hasn't been, and looks like its forecsts show stronger growth going forward). I have tried to pretend there are no barriers to entry and that there is no unique niche or IP that can be readily re-produced (even though neither of those thing are true). And so I came up with a very lowly PER multiple, I applied it to the market cap, and made a deduction for debt (there wasn't any). I came up with a target of £1.75 p per share.
sphere25: Noted CTO has a tendency to drop on updates, but then it gets bought up, and and then it is back to sitting around doing very little, so here we are again with more apprehension. We can all see the issues from the past year with delays and closures galore. There is the pension deficit, though clearly rates are on the rise. What else is bad in there... We know that margins are thin and we know the sector has been fraught with problem contracts. This is the thing though. These are known knowns with CTO. I think it is all in the price here. The slightly surprising thing is how the market is not willing to price in any substantial recovery, let alone the new £500m revenue target. Yes they have mentioned a "slightly slower start", and in a normal year, that would cause more concern. However, these are clearly far from normal times and they have also mentioned a strong second half recovery which should feed through to the following year. The market isn't looking at that though and refuses to price it in. If the market did, the price should at least comfortably sit back at those pre-covid levels in the mid 130's. Perhaps more patience is needed, but the market is very stubborn here so it looks like someone will have to get the extra large mop out to clear out sellers at these levels to give the price a chance of breaking higher. I can see a highly irregular 200k buy order (Regent Gas wanting more? They added last month) on the bid at 101.5 willing to back the future and the £500m plan, but overall there continues to be no substantial interest. All imo DYOR
thorpematt: tiswas, One of the difficulties with that approach is that CTO undertakes works for other construction companies. If we take the example of rivaldo's above, for the hospital in Exeter, CTO is also undertaking another large, complex project in the same city for a different construction company (kier) hTtps:// hTtps:// As an independant specialist CTO has relationships with many such organisations. Often they will be the largest sub-contractor on site by some distance. Although it's its expertise that truly marks it out, its independence is an asset when it comes to it being nominated as contractor of choice. I doubt that other construction companies would see CTO as an preferrd contractor if it were tied to a competitor. Yes, I think we'll need to be patient in seeking returns but it sits very nicely in the portfolio for me.
cc2014: I'm not getting this folks mostly on the basis of comparative value. My observation here is what is the opportunity cost of owning CTO? Which is more likely out of the following choice? BP. rising to 420p in 3 years time or CTO doubling to 180p? Or perhaps a large number of REITS if you don't like BP or perhaps Llodys at 27p. Or Aviva. I could go on. Anyways here's my view on the update. 1. I'm kind of with Investors Champion on what is the profit, because what I care about is how much profit a company makes after everything. Construction companies have a habit of producing exceptional costs all for different valid reasons and a spin back through CTO's annual accounts will show they are no different. What strikes me most though is that if the company has made a significant number of people redundant then it has already positioned itself for lower turnover or at best it contrains it's capacity to grow. Also, why was it that in the May trading update CTO was able to tell us this years benefit and the full year benefit of the restructing but was not able to also tell us the cost of the restructing programme? Perhaps just a simple ommission... or perhaps not... Regardless we must appluad them for the speed of response to Covid and £4m of on-going cost savings per annum is a large number. 2. I'm definetly with Tuscan on the order book. CTO turnover last year was £334m so say £167m for a half year. This year first half £106m and around £134m for the second half. They are doing around £22m of work a month and replacing it with £22m of orders, which results in long term a fall in turnover to around the £250m level 3. They can't afford for turnover to fall to £250m because there are too many employees to pay. CTO's high level of employed staff is their strength when there is a shortage of labour but it's going to work the opposite way in difficult times. Other contractors will shed their subcontract labour first but CTO will is faced with a choice of either very low productivity or having to get sufficient work to keep the labour force busy. Inevitably placing pressure on margins 4. Cash. Hmm. No update on that so I assume that cash is no longer net positive 5. Nothing to do with the update but credit risk is a concern. CTO are ruthless at trying to avoid credit risk but margins are so thin... In the end it always comes down to the order book and margins. That's 95% of what you need to know about CTO, the other 5% being the pension scheme and justification for the goodwill.
Tclarke share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
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.

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

P: V: D:20210624 04:12:19