Teliti Share Discussion Threads

[blindfaith2] 07/7/2006 19:17

Whynot - Hear Hear !

These handbag triads are a complete waste of time and space so please gentlemen call it quits. I, like Whynot, appreciate hearing views on TEL, both positive and negative as it gives it a balanced view but this constant bickering is tedious to say the least.

BF, you are clearly passionate about TEL despite the sp, SteMis you clearly don't suffer fools easily but can we stay on topic please.

[whynot3] 07/7/2006 18:36

Blank Frank

Please end this feud now - it is getting tedious. I enjoy your bullish comments about TEL, even if I don't always agree with them, but for the most part they are well researched and well augumented - let's get back to that NOW !

[blank frank] 07/7/2006 17:27

Attacks on me fortunately are vastly outweighed by the positive testimonials posted by others about my posting. Here are a couple of dozen Unquoted examples, from fifteen different posters. (I've left out all non-Unquoted ones, and have concentrated on the period in/near (when) Uncle Bulgaria was attacking me, to save space, and to help illustrate that Uncle Bulgaria's negative view about me when we were disagreeing was not representative.):-

"Jon
Thanks for your posts, they are always well written and very informative."
Posted by dworkin, 08-11-2003 23:08


"Still here JPFrancis, and still in, and as always very interested by your discussions on FRA."
Posted by Newboy, 07-04-2004 10:45


"Jon,
Always appreciate your posts! Am very grateful that someone like you keeps reminding us how good Franconia are"
Posted by jaguar2001, 03-06-2004 08:58


"jpf, many thanks for your work in posting those very helpful summaries."
Posted by mikkydhu, 04-06-2004 11:14


"All very helpful Jon!"
Posted by ccorton, 05-06-2004 16:43


"Well done Jon, thanks for keeping us in touch with latest news."
Posted by outperform, 16-06-2004 00:21


"Jon, ...
Anyway, always read your postings with great interest.....see you!"
Posted by jaguar2001, 11-08-2004 13:54


"Thanks for the analysis Jon"
Posted by outperform, 26-10-2004 00:25


" ... an assett to the UQ site, JP has contributed a lot and continues to do so."
Posted by UncleBulgaria, 27-10-2004 13:01


"Iain,
"it is not just Colin that is an assett to the UQ site, JP has contributed a lot and continues to do so"
Agree!"
Posted by jaguar2001, 27-10-2004 16:55


"Jon,
Thanks again for keep up the interest in Franconia and keeping us all so well informed."
Posted by jaguar2001, 13-12-2004 01:53


"Hi Jon, ...
Look forward to your informative posts in 2005."
Posted by mikkydhu, 02-01-2005 16:33


"Jon,
I salute you as a gentleman"
Posted by Jem, 04-01-2005 19:56


"Well played Jon"
Posted by DrDre, 05-01-2005 18:22


"Nice work Jon - much appreciated."
Posted by DrDre, 07-01-2005 18:46


"Your hard work in compiling these is much appreciated"
Posted by DrDre, 10-01-2005 21:19


"First thanks to Jon, for dong a great job."
Posted by scotland, 11-01-2005 12:11


"Jon, Thanks for taking the time to compile the above ."
Posted by ten a pen, 13-01-2005 18:34


"Thanks for sorting the results out Jon"
Posted by MickBaxter, 15-01-2005 11:26


"Jon,
Thank you for your time and effort in working out these results."
Posted by jem, 16-01-2005 14:50


"Jon,
May I add my thanks for your efforts. Thanks too for the special mention!"
Posted by mero, 16-01-2005 16:34


"Glad to see you posting again JPF, your research remains impeccable as always."
Posted by outperform, 26-02-2005 01:30


"Now that's what I call a comprehensive set of URLs :-)
Well done jp"
Posted by newstart, 01-03-2005 23:33


"Jon,
Thanks for that - you provide a great service - it's like having a Franconia News Letter!"
Posted by jaguar2001, 02-03-2005 21:38


Jon/B.F.

[hampster] 07/7/2006 01:30

Noice chirt

[kimboy2] 06/7/2006 23:43

IDN produced a good trading update today.

[blank frank] 06/7/2006 18:48

To try to get the discussion back onto TEL - which is what this thread is supposed to be for. In his post of 24 Jun'06 - 11:21 - 478 of 496, SteMiS has said that any market valuation of TEL would be lowered by the same amount of its debt. Any views on the likelihood of that?

It's my view that for many stocks, the level of cash or debt is not fully reflected in the share price. While the market may not be 'blind' to it, the value - positive or negative - is often discounted. This is particularly so for growth companies, as opposed to asset plays.

A related factor here is that a company may have assets above its level of debt. In TEL's case, the 20/4/06 interim results show that it had net assets of £1.533M.:

Over £2M. of those assets are 'investments', as opposed to being 'tangible', but they still have a real value.

I don't therefore see any reason why, if TEL reports decent earnings, it cannot receive a reasonable rating to determine its share price, without being 'pegged back' hugely because of debt. If this is the case, the potential share price is far higher. For example, even 0.3p eps, x a lowly rating of 10, gives 3p a share. And a more generous rating gives a more generous share price.

B.F.

[blank frank] 06/7/2006 18:12

Billy Graham2 - 5 Jul'06 - 19:30 - 491 of 493
"LOL
Another bad investment."

Let me take a guess: Peter J. Hippey, or 'Oliverleftwingtit'.

Click on my name and you will see that I have started ADVFN threads recommending just two companies: TEL, and Franconia Minerals. They are also the only two companies that I have really persistently championed.

Franconia has been a huge success for me, and is currently going through the roof. TEL is doing well on a business level, and that should in time be reflected in its share price. But I don't expect that Billy Graham2 will be here then!

B.F.

[Abuse team] 05/7/2006 19:30

Post removed by ADVFN

[kimboy2] 05/7/2006 19:28

B.F.

I am perfectly prepared to admit I am wrong if I am. I do not operate under the illusion that I have immaculate judgement, I have TEL shares for Christ's sake.

However I think my explanation concords with common sense and with the numbers.

I also think the whole argument is irrelevant.

[stemis] 05/7/2006 11:54

Are there many examples of a premium being paid at a placing ?

The only example I know of is Touch Group PLC, who placed shares at 8p when the price was 5.75p. However the placees were mainly directors.

[jonwig] 05/7/2006 07:32

Kimboy - unsurprisingly, there aren't.

But one company where I had an interest, Flintstone Technologies, became Proventec [PROV] last year and, in two tranches, issued new shares at 14p (on 25/08, 27/09). This is reported in their H1 results on 14/11.

They raised £1,578k before expenses of £508k. This nets out at an 'effective issue price' of 9.5p.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the ruling share price throughout the period was in the region 9 - 10.5p.

Of course every placing of new shares involves a 'fee', but netting off the fees is essential, when you can unearth just what these are. In PROV's case, it was two months before one could do that calculation.

[kimboy2] 04/7/2006 20:06

B.F.
I am beginning to lose the will to live.

Are there many examples of a premium being paid at a placing ?

[blank frank] 04/7/2006 18:52

Unlike the Clansey placing in February 2005, I don't think that it was Hoodless Brennan who the 10/05 Westcom placing shares went to.

For a start, the Westcom announcements did not say that HB were the placee, unlike with the Clansey placing:


In addition, there were no subsequent announcements about HB's holdings in TEL, as with the Clansey one:



As I have explained, the Westcom cash placing was at only a very small premium to the pre-existing market price. I don't actually have to explain why the placees were willing to pay a premium; the fact is that they did. But please see some of my earlier posts to get some sort of an idea why.

B.F.

[blank frank] 03/7/2006 19:00

Kimboy2 - 23 Jun'06 - 22:13 - 476 of 483
"Blank Frank
I do not believe you are getting emotional about this because of logical inexactness. It is because you are overinvested and lost money and don't like people bad mouthing your company. Can't prove it but that's what I, and no doubt others, think.
I believe they subsidised the price in the placing for Westcom shares by hiding the discount in the expenses of the equity fund raising.
I presume the shares went to Hoodless Brennan. If you believe these people were willing to pay a premium to the market price can you explain to us all why that should be so?
Having said that I think there may well be a case for saying they have a good risk/reward ratio at the moment if the management can actually start producing results. The statement regarding being in line with forecasts was hopeful in that respect.
We shall see."

Kimboy2,

If I see someone posting something inaccurate, it's correct that I flag that up. It's fine for people to be bearish, and to decide they don't like TEL, but they surely have the right to have accurate information on which to base their decision.

As TEL is at an all-time low of 1.25p it doesn't take a genius to work out that a lot of investors, including me, are sitting on paper losses, but I certainly would not wish to suppress correct info. about this company - to do so would arguably be tantamount to fraud.

I'm very happy with my nice holding of TEL shares, and I certainly would not wish it to be smaller - if anything, I would like to top it up.

Finally, you view about the Westcom placing price sems a bit fanciful. I've no reason to doubt that the announcement at the time accurately reflects the situation:-
"Pursuant to the acquisition of Westcom Technical Services Limited ("Westcom"),
announced on 28 October 2005, TMG are pleased to announce that they have issued
20 million new ordinary shares of 2.5 pence each at a price of 2.5 pence per
share in a cash placing.
Trading in these shares commenced on AIM today, together with the 7.5 million
new ordinary shares, issued at 4 pence per share, to the vendors in part
consideration for the acquisition of Westcom."


B.F.

[blindfaith2] 30/6/2006 16:13

Not a lot to be said really !

[whynot3] 29/6/2006 14:39

Very quiet on this thread !! Has everybody given up now that the selling price is less than 1p ?? Any news on who, or what, they want to buy following the EGM ?

[stemis] 24/6/2006 13:08

Jonwig,

As you seem to have a decent line into Greg Hallet maybe you could ask him what market expectations TEL is trading in line with. I don't think that would constitute insider information.

An EPS of 0.36p....a P/E of 4

As Kimboy says, this is nil tax. On a proforma 30% taxed basis, thats an EPS of 0.25p or a P/E of 5.5. It's a moot point as to how the market treats tax losses. Clearly they are worth something but not I fear 10 or 8 x the annual benefit.

We must also consider the debt position of TEL. Its quite significant compared to market cap. In these situations I prefer Taxed EBIT/EV.

Nevertheless if TEL do hit £0.5M PBT its easy to justify a share price of 2p. Not fantastic but something to build on.

I haven't given up all hope.

Which is why I guess we're still here.

IF TEL manage to sustain turnover growth and IF they can turn it into profit and IF they can convert that into cashflow, there is decent upside from here. However I don't think I'll be buying anymore (sorry Frank).

Fingers x

[kimboy2] 24/6/2006 11:50

TD Waterhouse say that the most recent R-D forecastwas on 8/12/05. This was for a PBT of £0.5m and an EPS of 0.36p. As there are apparently 144.5m shares in issue an EPS of 0.36p would indicate a profit of about £0.5m. There would be no tax.

The company did say "broadly" in line so I presume they mean slightly less, but if they meet their figures they will be on a P/E of 4 or an EV/Earnings of about 5.5.

That is cheap if they can hit the figures. The following year they are forecasting £1m and 0.69 EPS which is even cheaper.

If you trusted the trading statement you would probably buy at these levels. I would probably like to see the numbers but it certainly has potential IMHO.

I haven't given up all hope.