ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for default Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.

TEL Teliti

39.50
0.00 (0.00%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Teliti LSE:TEL London Ordinary Share KYG8753W1042 ORD USD0.10 (DI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 39.50 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Teliti Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1476 to 1499 of 1625 messages
Chat Pages: 65  64  63  62  61  60  59  58  57  56  55  54  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
20/4/2007
17:53
Re. my view that TEL's turnover is likely to be more profitable as part of a larger company. Maintel's acquisition of District Holdings lends support to this view. And it also illustrates that tax losses may be an attractive benefit to a predator:-

12/03/2007 07:02 UKREG Final Results LSE:MAI Maintel Holdings Plc
" District Holdings
The District group was acquired on 12 June 2006, for #1.060m including costs;
#183,000 of cash was acquired with the group, so that the net cash cost was
#877,000, which was satisfied out of existing cash resources. ...
In its previous financial year, to 31 August 2005, the District group reported
revenues of #1.636m and a profit before tax of #4,000. District's directors left
the group on acquisition and a range of other synergies was achieved from
integration of the two organisations' operations, such that we are able to
report revenues since acquisition of #845,000 and profit before tax of #263,000.
The District group's remaining property leases expired at the end of 2006, so
further cost savings of around #35,000 per annum are expected going forward in
respect of these. ...
Taxation
... Tax losses of approximately #215,000 were acquired on the acquisition of
District, and around #165,000 of these have been used post acquisition, with a
consequent tax benefit on the Group accounts of #49,000 when calculated at 30%. ... "


TEL should have tax losses of over £4M. up to and including the year ending 31st. July 2006, which I believe might save over £1M. in tax (although the tax rules here may be a bit complicated). That should help to underpin TEL's value.

I think that a reasonable Price Sales Ratio for TEL would be about one, in view of the quality of its corporate clients and its staff, as well as its tax losses. Assuming TEL turnover for the current year of c. £6M., then that would value the company at about £6M.; on the basis of 5,041,758 TEL shares in issue, that would be £1.19 per share.

B.F.

blank frank
19/4/2007
18:27
Ashpool telecom on a bit of a run,
UP 15% + on the week so far and looking good for a possitive set of Interim results, due befor 30 April.

Outsiders will be having more than jam on his bread !!.
kenny.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Get a voice, visit Loober.com

tenapen
18/4/2007
18:09
TEL's "substantial" trading losses (i.e. c. £1.4M.) were for a year ending over eight and a half months ago. Could the situation now be different? It could be; e.g. if the company incurred sizeable costs in costing and winning contracts, before the revenues from those contracts started to roll in. Revenue recognition may also play a part here, if TEL provided goods and services in the year before it received payment for them.

I also derive great confidence from both the quality of TEL's clients, and the quality of TEL's staff.

One of TEL's small competitors was apparently almost stunned when it saw TEL's client list - because of the size and quality of TEL's corporate clients. Few small companies like TEL can boast clients like Travis Perkins, AMEC, and HMV ... as well as Palmer & Harvey McLane Ltd. - perhaps less well known because it's unlisted, but which has current turnover of £3.53billion .

I would think that companies like MAI and ATCG would give their right arms to get their hands on these types of clients from TEL ... though I also think that they would have to pay through the nose to do so.

Especially as TEL's turnover is likely to be more profitable as part of a larger company, due to economies of scale:-
* 'fixed' overheads should have a less than proportional impact;
* increased buying power can reduce costs.
In addition to other likely benefits:-
* reduced competition;
* cross-selling opportunities.

TEL's highly trained and skilled workforce meanwhile has a rare range and level of experience and ability. This is a huge asset that could take a company years to develop ... but which is not really reflected in the balance sheet.

B.F.

P.S. SteMiS, looks like the 'tennis game' isn't over yet.
SteMiS - 23 Jan'07 - 09:21 - 165 of 292
" ... and Frank........game set and match to me I guess (no consolation of course).
;-) "

The game to you probably; the set to you possibly; but the match, matey, is about to resume ... after rain interrupted play!

blank frank
18/4/2007
16:18
I was referring to the trivial points RAISED recently by some other posters - the key word being "raised". Other posters hadn't explicitly raised the late profit warnings recently. So not for the first time recently you're suggesting that I've said something that I haven't.

Obviously the late profit warnings weren't trivial, but they are in now the past ... and in fact relate to a year that ended over eight and a half months ago. In investment terms, that can be ancient history. What is more important now is what happens in the future: therefore the 'wood' is that TEL is now recovering. More important to shareholders anyway; of course, a non-shareholder may not care whether TEL recovers or not.

You do seem to be focussing on the rear-view mirror. As recently as 27th. March you posted:-
Kimboy2 - 27 Mar'07 - 20:04 - 265 of 291
"Frank
I suspect that you are deceiving yourself with regard to the future of the company.
As I see it there are only 2 possibilities;
1. Sell it off for what they can get. Given that it is incurring substantial trading losses on not a lot of turnover I can't see them getting much.
2. A rescue funding to pay the bank off and reorganisation costs. The only advantage of this for someone over (1) would be that it was listed and perhaps allow them to pursue the strategy that TEL failed to do.
I can't see much for the present shareholders in either case."

I replied:-
Blank Frank - 27 Mar'07 - 20:27 - 266 of 291 edit
Kimboy,
"Surely you don't think that TEL's Chairman Lord Razzall is being deceptive in these parts of his letter of 22nd. March:-
"Against this background the company, under the direction of the CEO Jeff Williams, has undertaken a major cost cutting exercise. He has been ably assisted by the new Finance Controller, Mark Godfrey, who was appointed in February 2007. This action is succeeding and the Board believes that it will enable the core business to restore the underlying value to shareholders."
" ... I am optimistic that the company can achieve a successful outcome to what has been a very difficult period." ... "



B.F.

blank frank
18/4/2007
10:29
Actually, seeing the wood for the trees is just precisely what I am doing. The 'wood' being that TEL is now recovering; the 'trees' being trivial points in comparison raised by some other posters.

If the MD and Chairman were expecting a PBT of £0.5m on a turnover of around £6-7m and the outcome is going to be a trading loss of £1.4m, and they didn't know till 6 months after the period end, then IMV they are incompetent or idle.

I don't view that as a trivial point.

kimboy2
17/4/2007
20:28
If they, as intelligent and experienced investors

Blimey Frank, this is as close to a compliment as I've ever got off you!

Actually I don't think I've always been quite so nice about Greg. I think I once removed a comment about Greg propensity to mislead, at jonwig's request who felt it would undermine our ability to get any information from him at all.

Although its easy to categorise myself, kimboy and jonwig as bitter and twisted the fact still remains that it happened on Williams watch and we still (12 weeks later) don't know what happened. Not really good enough.

stemis
17/4/2007
18:01
Kimboy2 - 15 Apr'07 - 22:42 - 287 of 288
"Frank you just aren't seeing the wood for the trees.
Razzall and Williams aren't innocent victims. They are incompetent or idle or both."

Actually, seeing the wood for the trees is just precisely what I am doing. The 'wood' being that TEL is now recovering; the 'trees' being trivial points in comparison raised by some other posters.

SteMiS, Kimboy2, and jonwig are now all former shareholders of TEL, but have all lost money on the company. And it's not unusual for people who have lost money on a share to engage in angry tirades against the management of that company, not always rationally.

In TEL's case, the evidence suggests much responsibility for TEL's problems lies with Greg Hallett. Consider this extract from TEL's AIM IPO prospectus:-

TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE GROUP PLC

AIM ADMISSION PROSPECTUS DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2004 - PART I INFORMATION ON THE GROUP

" ... 11. Directors, senior management and employees

... Greg Hallett FCCA, aged 42, group financial controller
After qualifying as a certified accountant, Greg gained extensive experience in a variety of industry fields including manufacturing, brand sales and distribution, consultancy and financial services. He has spent most of his career within the SME marketplace including acting as a non executive director for a computer software company. Greg joined TMG in February 2003 with the specific remit of facilitating the further expansion of the business through fund raising, acquisitions and internal financial control. ... "



The key part being that Greg was responsible for acquisitions and internal financial control. And what have TEL's problems been? Acquisitions and internal financial control.

Greg Hallett was a very convincing person: both SteMiS had jonwig have previously spoken to him on the phone, and reported back glowingly (SteMiS in a post, jonwig in an e-mail) about TEL's prospects. If they, as intelligent and experienced investors, were 'taken in', why is it so much worse for TEL's CEO and Chairman to have been 'taken in' also? Probably the major charge that can be levied against Messrs. Williams and Razzall is that they were too trusting, though I'm sure they will have learnt from that. Doubtless they had a lot else on their plates.

But I'm less concerned about what has happened in the past now than what will happen in the future - and I would imagine that most TEL shareholders feel the same. And in this respect, there was enough in last Friday's announcement to feel positive that they can turn TEL around:-

" ... The cash proceeds of the disposal have enabled TMG to repay in full all borrowing from the group bankers.

This represents the first step in the recovery programme initiated by the Board following the decision to suspend dealing in TMG shares on 25 January pending clarification of the group's financial position. The sale strengthens the group's balance sheet and the directors have confirmed that trading in the group's core businesses remains robust. ... "



They're turning this baby around ...

B.F.

blank frank
16/4/2007
07:32
Razzall and Williams aren't innocent victims. They are incompetent or idle or both."

But not totally stupid - at no point in the life of TMG did they go into the market to buy stock.
Maybe too idle to bother?

jonwig
15/4/2007
21:42
Frank you just aren't seeing the wood for the trees.

Razzall and Williams aren't innocent victims. They are incompetent or idle or both.

kimboy2
15/4/2007
20:00
Frank,

Sometimes you're almost funny.......

stemis
15/4/2007
17:33
SteMiS - 13 Apr'07 - 17:18 - 275 of 284
" ... Unfortunately the termination cost of their employment contracts was nearly as much as the value of the company so no-one wanted to touch them. I guess we're pretty close to that here."

TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE GROUP PLC

AIM ADMISSION PROSPECTUS DATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2004 - PART V ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

" ... 6. Directors' Service Contracts and Remuneration

6.1 On 23 September 2004, Jeffrey Williams entered into a service agreement with the Company. The service agreement is terminable on not less than 12 months' notice given by either party at any time. ... The basic annual salary payable to Jeffrey Williams is £90,000 per annum to be reviewed annually. In addition, the company has agreed to pay £14,000 per annum by way of contribution to the Director's pension scheme.

6.2 On 23 September 2004, James Williams, Lord Timothy Razzall of Mortlake CBE and John Anthony Mitchell entered into agreements with the Company in respect (inter alia) of the provision of their services as non-exective directors of the Company. The agreements will continue until terminated on not less than 3 months' notice given by either party to the other at any time. The fees payable to James Williams are £12,000 per annum, Lord Timothy Razzall of Mortlake CBE are £15,000 per annum, and John Anthony Mitchell are £15,000 per annum. ... " [Sic.]

Jeff Williams CEO and Lord Razzall Chairman are of course now TEL's only directors. I'm not sure how much they're currently paid, but it's probably c. £100K. p.a. for Jeff Williams, and say c. £16K. for Lord Razzall. The termination cost of these contracts giving the above notice would probably be somewhere in the region of c. £120K. ... equivalent to c. 2.4p per TEL share (5,076,758 - 37,500 = 5, 041,758 TEL shares in issue).

Does SteMiS really believe than TEL's value is little more than this? If not, then why suggest that it is?

And in fact, a purchaser of TEL might well want Jeff Williams to stay on in any case.

SteMiS - 14 Apr'07 - 09:11 - 283 of 284
" ... You can put what spin you like on the situation, although pointing to TEL's lean board when it arises from the resignation of three non execs, two of whom alleged misrepresentation, and the effective dismissal of the de facto FD, is pushing it a bit even for you. ... "

I was replying (in my 2nd. 13th. April post) to SteMiS's 13th. April suggestion that there are a "lot" of TEL directors, and his suggestion in that post that it would cost nearly as much as TEL is worth to pay them off. SteMiS didn't mention in that post the director resignations; as I was simply replying to his points, I didn't mention them either. If that was misleading of me, then it follows that it was misleading of him not to mention them in that earlier post; as well as being hypocritical of him for applying such double standards.

In reality though, the director resignations were background info. only to the issue in question, that wasn't necessary to mention when considering the cost of the directors now and in the future. If every poster were to put in every piece of background information in every post he/she made, plus legal disclaimers etc., to avoid personal attacks alleging misrepresentation, many posts would be very long indeed. Can we therefore please just mellow out?

I never try to mislead people, and indeed I bend over backwards to avoid doing so, and it is grossly unfair to suggest otherwise.

With regard to the four directors who have left this year:-
* Frank Lewis and James McLaughlin were only appointed, as non-execs., in October.
* Ed Smyth was apparently reducing his work with TEL anyway (as announced last October) to pursue other opportunities.
* Greg Hallett has apparently been responsible for the financial misrepresentation that has been taken place; and has been replaced by a new Finance Controller, Mark Godfrey.
None of those four departures should therefore have any real adverse impact upon the company.

SteMiS seems to want to have it both ways, i.e. (paraphrasing):-
'A lot of directors is bad'; AND 'only two directors is bad'.
Nearly three months ago he himself posted:-
SteMiS - 22 Jan'07 - 15:57 - 147 of 284
" ... They needed a half decent FD, not some part time non exec or a wannabe salesman. ... "

And yet now they've made a replacement, he still just portrays it as negative.

In considering the credibility of the current TEL board, i.e. Jeff Williams CEO and Lord Razzall Chairman, consider the following extract from TMG's letter of 22nd. March 2007:-
" ... Although the financial information presented to the Board as recently as December 2006 indicated that the accounts to 31st July 2006 would show a small profit, ... "
I.e. Jeff Williams and Lord Razzall were victims of the misrepresentation, not perpretrators of it, as SteMiS is implying.

All of the facts have still to come out, though doubtless more will in due course. And the company has some hard work to do to rebuild the trust of investors ... which is why I have so strongly recommended director share buying when the shares are desuspended. But I've no reason to doubt either the integrity, or the ability, of TEL's CEO and Chairman. When the going gets tough, the tough get going; lesser men might have failed, but they are turning this situation around on the road to recovery.
B.F.

blank frank
14/4/2007
17:35
Kimboy2 - 13 Apr'07 - 23:33 - 282 of 283
" ... How do we know they got a good deal, and what are the circumstances ? ... "

We DON'T "know" that they got a "good" deal; I said that I "think" that they got a "reasonable" price. If a company with turnover and business similar to Westcom went bust, then it might be sold for a tenth of the price TEL got. The circumstances should be obvious to anyone reading this board: i.e. apparently substantial operating losses, combined with a big write down of goodwill, which suggests that the business is currently worth a lot less than TEL paid.


SteMiS,

Why go down the road of personally attacking me? I haven't done that to you.

I am not the defender of all things TEL. It is not my job to defend every tiny shortcoming of theirs, or even an attack upon their credibility. But I think that one of the fundamental positives of human nature is that of forgiveness for the mistakes of others, combined a recognition that people can learn from their mistakes.

I pointed out that there are now just two TEL directors, one a non-exec., in response to your reference to "this lot", and a suggestion that the termination cost of their employment contracts is not far from the value of the company! So who was being more misleading? You, for suggesting something that's untrue, or me, for not mentioning some background detail?

Yes, I could have mentioned that three non-execs and one exec have resigned recently, but I don't think that changes the validity of my point. However we got there, there are now just two directors left, one a non-exec, and that will save a bit of money ... and mean less contracts to potentially buy out if TEL is taken over, which was your point. Anyone who has been reading this board will know that those four have resigned recently, and it should be obvious anyway that if there are only two left some have probably left.

Your complaint seems to be that by not mentioning the resignations, I am somehow trying 'cover up' the fact that TEL has had problems ... as if with two profit warnings, vastly overdue results, and its shares suspended for two and a half months anyone could have failed to notice!!

An intelligent person refines their views as necessary in the light of fresh information. When it looked like TEL might well go bust, I said so. Now that things are looking better, I'm naturally saying so.

B.F.

P.S. Kimboy2 - you asked me what TEL's bank loans were at the last interims. I didn't think that the interim results actually gave that info., but I didn't have time to check last night. However, I now confirmed this:
I haven't kept my hardcopy of TEL's interims, but from memory I don't believe that they included more info. than in the RNS.

blank frank
13/4/2007
22:33
How do we know they got a good deal, and what are the circumstances ?

If it is a company that is dependent upon the good health and cooperation of one or two individuals then they shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

kimboy2
13/4/2007
20:12
I think TEL got a reasonable price for Westcom in the circumstances, and I don't think that the bank foreclosed.

And people's personal circumstances change all the time, e.g. people becoming ill. In fact, two TEL directors have actually (and tragically) died since since it floated about two and a half years ago.

I've got no time to look into your last point tonight, but I will do so tomorrow.

B.F.

blank frank
13/4/2007
20:04
Frank, they have said a lot of things very few of which have come true.

I suspect we are also due a restatement of accounts. I notice that the 2005 annual accounts are no longer accessible on their website.

Do you think the bank foreclosed and they had to sell Westcom in a fire sale ? I thought the changes in personal circumstances a load of nonsense.

Perhaps you may also be able to tell me Frank what the bank loans were at the last interims.

kimboy2
13/4/2007
19:40
Kimboy2 - 13 Apr'07 - 20:30 - 278 of 278
"They said trading was robust, not profits.


That's right Kimboy2, which is precisely why I didn't claim that TEL was currently making a trading profit!

What I said in my post above was:-
"This appears to vindicate what I posted at the end of last month re. TEL's substantial trading losses ... "

The key word being "substantial". I.e. "robust trading" suggests that the company is not currently making the substantial trading losses (i.e. up to c. £1.4M. expected) as in the year ended 31.7.06. That's different from saying that it's making a trading profit. We don't have enough info. at the moment to say that.

B.F.

P.S. Interesting that you've posted a dictionary link to the word "trading" ...

blank frank
13/4/2007
19:30
They said trading was robust, not profits.
kimboy2
13/4/2007
19:01
For the year ended 31.7.05 Westcom had turnover of over £800K., and probably about 20 staff; it was the earlier Clansey acquisition that had just a few staff.

The 28.10.05 Westcom acquisition announcement said that £350,000 cash was being paid on completion.

£150,000 of this has been repaid, i.e. apparently £200K. less than paid.

150,000 consideration shares consolidation-ajusted were issued at a deemed price of £2/share consolidation adjusted.
Therefore it looks like one quarter of those shares are being handed back, and 112,500 being retained: at TEL's suspension price of 44.5p, they're worth c. £50K.

I'm not clear about the situation re. the loan notes: £400K. of loan notes were converted to shares last October, but presumably some/all of these were not the Westcom loan notes? Today's announcement suggests that some of the loan notes were still outstanding: if say half were, and the other half were redeemed at say 63p, that would suggest a conversion into c. 158,730 shares: worth c. £70K. at 44.5p.

On this basis, the net purchase-sale cost of Westcom to TEL therefore appears to be £200K. in cash, plus any interest paid on the loan notes, and perhaps c. £120K. in shares at the current share price.

Overall, not too disastrous a sum for what has apparently been a bad acquisition. TEL appears to be cutting its losses on an acquisition that has apparently not worked out. It may have looked like a good acquisition at the time, as Westcom made pre-tax profit of c. £240K. in the year to 31.7.05; and Greg Hallett may have been responsible for examining its books. [Greg was the lead executive director for finance etc., and I believe had responisbility for acquisitions.] I wouldn't therefore blame TEL boss Jeff Williams for it; any acquisition has an element of risk and uncertainty.

SteMiS - 13 Apr'07 - 17:18 - 275 of 276
" ... I should stop really. It's far too easy to make fun of this lot, but they really are the most hapless lot I've ever come across. ...
... That should allow them to stumble on amongst the living dead of the AIM market, drawing their salaries. I once had some discussions with a similar bunch of no hopers about a takeover of their company. Unfortunately the termination cost of their employment contracts was nearly as much as the value of the company so no-one wanted to touch them. I guess we're pretty close to that here. ... "

I wouldn't say you should "stop": legitimate criticism serves a useful purpose. But let's make it accurate.

By "this lot", who are you referring to exactly? There are only two TEL directors left now, one of whom is non-exec. That must be one of the leanest boards on AIM. Probably no bad thing either, when the company is trying to save money. Two is probably all you need for a small company, as long as they're the right two. More may sometimes be largely for image, to please the City.

And how many listed companies have gone bust over the last ten years? A great many. Re. TEL however:-
"The cash proceeds of the disposal have enabled TMG to repay in full all borrowing from the group bankers."
That's a lot better than many other companies currently listed, and strongly suggests that TEL will survive.

As regards TEL's statement:-
" ... the directors have confirmed that trading in the group's core businesses remains robust."

This appears to vindicate what I posted at the end of last month re. TEL's substantial trading losses:-

Blank Frank - 27 Mar'07 - 20:27 - 266 of 276
" ... The trading losses were for a year ending nearly eight months ago. Could the situation now be different? It could be; e.g. if the company incurred sizeable costs in costing and winning contracts, before the revenues from those contracts started to roll in. ... "


B.F.

P.S. TEL's problems may well have stemmed largely from Greg Hallett and Westcom. As Greg Hallett has apparently now left, and Westcom has just been sold, that may well therefore create a good basis for recovery.

blank frank
13/4/2007
16:48
The results will be interesting when they arrive because no two RNS's seem to add up to me.

I enjoyed the bit about robust trading.

kimboy2
13/4/2007
16:18
As ever, as clear as mud.

I thought the loan notes had been converted into shares?



The name of the buyer is not mentioned but the implication is that it is the original vendor. Sell for £850,000 then 18 months buy it back for £150,000 (or is it £350,000) because your "personal circumstances have changed". Nice work if you can get it!

I just love the use of terminology:-

"Certain members of the Westcom management team" - I thought Westcom was a one man and his dog business. Presumably they are counting the dog as part of the team.

"Trading in the group's core businesses remains robust". Interesting use of the word "remains" for a business which still can't issue its accounts and says it made a £1.4M trading loss last year.

I should stop really. It's far too easy to make fun of this lot, but they really are the most hapless lot I've ever come across.

The good news I suppose is that they've managed to pay the bank off so it looks like receivership has been averted. That should allow them to stumble on amongst the living dead of the AIM market, drawing their salaries. I once had some discussions with a similar bunch of no hopers about a takeover of their company. Unfortunately the termination cost of their employment contracts was nearly as much as the value of the company so no-one wanted to touch them. I guess we're pretty close to that here.

stemis
13/4/2007
15:49
Interesting news just out:-

13/04/07 15:57 UKREG Disposal

"Telephone Maint Disposal

RNS Number:8572U
Telephone Maintenance Group PLC
13 April 2007

Telephone Maintenance Group plc

Telephone Maintenance Group ("TMG"), the provider of telephony systems and hardware primarily for business users, announces that on 4 April 2007 it sold the business and assets of Westcom Communications Limited ("Westcom"), a wholly owned subsidiary of TMG, to Westcom's management.

TMG acquired Westcom in October 2005 for a total consideration of up to #850000, of which #300,000 was paid in cash on completion together with the issue of #200,000 loan notes and #300,000 in consideration shares.

Under the terms of the disposal, TMG received a cash payment of #150,000 and has been released from its outstanding obligations under the loan notes. In addition 37,500 shares in TMG previously issued as consideration have been transferred to TMG for nil consideration.

The sale of Westcom resulted from an unexpected change in the personal circumstances of certain members of Westcom's management team following which the directors of TMG concluded that the disposal was in the best interests of TMG and its shareholders. The cash proceeds of the disposal have enabled TMG to repay in full all borrowing from the group bankers.

This represents the first step in the recovery programme initiated by the Board following the decision to suspend dealing in TMG shares on 25 January pending clarification of the group's financial position. The sale strengthens the group's balance sheet and the directors have confirmed that trading in the group's core businesses remains robust.

A further statement regarding the group's financial position will be made in due course.

Enquiries:

Jeff Williams, Managing Director, Telephone Maintenance Group plc:

01527 881 800

07931 335 873

blank frank
12/4/2007
19:00
No?

How about one that makes profit.

stemis
12/4/2007
18:05
There's an upbeat new (11.4.07) broker note on AT Communications, by Daniel Stewart:-


It's interesting that the document notes that sector consolidation is continuing. Particularly interesting for us, because I'm not aware of a better telephone maintenance target that TEL.

And what better time to pounce than when its share price is at distressed levels?

B.F.

blank frank
10/4/2007
17:54
Hope everyone had a nice Easter.

Only a week now until TEL's first AGM of the year, on 17th. April. Although Lord Razzall's letter of 22nd. March said that TEL's final results would be completed soon, I'm not expecting them to be announced in time for that first AGM. If they were to be ready by then, then there wouldn't have been much point in arranging for the reconvened AGM on 17th. June.

In fact, it would make sense to me if they were released with TEL's interim results for the six months to 31st. January 2007, which are due by the end of April, for two reasons:-
1. The interim results may well be proportionally better, which would take some of the tarnish off the bad full year results.
2. TEL would immediately exit its close period, which would mean that the directors could immediately buy TEL shares in the market when the stock is desuspended.

B.F.

P.S. Of course, there would be no harm in TEL senior managers buying TEL shares too.

blank frank
Chat Pages: 65  64  63  62  61  60  59  58  57  56  55  54  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock