We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Systems | LSE:TTS | London | Ordinary Share | GB0008975038 |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 16.00 | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 16.00 | GBX |
Total Systems (TTS) Share Charts1 Year Total Systems Chart |
|
1 Month Total Systems Chart |
Intraday Total Systems Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27/9/2021 | 16:36 | Total Systems | 467 |
| 17/1/2008 | 22:01 | Total Systems 2005 - The Free Lunch | 165 |
| 07/3/2005 | 22:26 | The best TTS I've seen in ages - TIG the second | 9 |
| 22/2/2005 | 12:32 | Total Sytems 2004 | 69 |
| 20/9/2004 | 06:59 | Total Systems - strong buy or what??? | 122 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 04/10/2012 11:37 by weatherman For those still in TTS, the last set of results are a bit of a mess. They lost £1m in cash due to slow down and R&D. Still hope of better times a long way ahead as it is difficult to sell. |
Posted at 07/1/2011 11:30 by weatherman Perhaps those of us who still hold should lobby for a matched bargain facility to be set up.The cancellation document said this: "Whilst the Board believes that the Cancellation is in the interests of the Company and the Shareholders as a whole, it recognises that the Cancellation may make it more difficult for Shareholders to buy and sell Ordinary Shares should they so wish. Accordingly, the Board may decide to setup a matched bargain settlement facility to enable Shareholders to trade the Ordinary Shares. If this facility is set up, Shareholders or persons wishing to trade Ordinary Shares will be able to leave an indication with the facility provider that they are prepared to buy or sell at an agreed price. If the matched bargain settlement facility is able to match that order with an opposite sell or buy instruction, the facility provider will contact both parties and then effect the bargain. If the Board decide to arrange such a facility, details will be made available to Shareholders on the Company's website at www.totalsystems.co. |
Posted at 04/1/2011 17:42 by weatherman Has anyone had any contact with the management of TTS. All seems to have gone quiet, would have expected trading statement by now. |
Posted at 22/6/2010 08:37 by weatherman I guess holding on to these shares means having a stake in a London City property at about a third of the price. Not very liquid, but neither is property. I would gamble on some corporate action to release value within 2 to 5 years for a 100 to 200 % Increase. In fact I would suggest TTS would do better selling its software business and becoming a property company. |
Posted at 14/6/2010 06:45 by roastedpeppers I am looking at a business idea and want to have peoples opinions as to whether or not they believe it will work.Due o the high number of delisting of companies which I believe have significant value attached to them, I am looking at setting up a holding company. People then transfer their shareholdings into the holding company in return for a class of share in that company of the same value (it has to be of the same value because the assets held (shares in delisting companies) will equal the liabilities (effectively a loan note to all shareholders who transfer their shares). There are two reasons for doing this Firstly, if people transfer their shares over, then a single entity then has a significant shareholding and can at first call try to prevent the delisting (25% or more) Secondly, even if the company cannot stop the delisting then it will still have a stake and can still be a thorn in managements side (thereby giving the management the incentive to buy out this thorn at a later date). The benefits to shareholders are such 1) If shareholders believe there is value, they do not need to sell out their holding, rather they can approach a company at a later date if this value is realised 2) All shareholders will receive up to date information including analysis of results, representation at the AGM and investor presentations 3) If after a period of 12 months the shareholders have not had a return, the company will purchase the shares from the individuals (in effect buying back its loan notes) in retun for the shares of the company. Any comments please |
Posted at 18/5/2010 09:46 by deswalker Rainmaker,Yes that is a subtle consequence of share buybacks and has been going on at LDSG for years. Small shareholders tend to think that it is good news every time a buyback happens at a discount to NTAV because it enhances their own NTAV per share. Ofcourse this is true but it misses the more important point that it increases the grip that the largest shareholders have over a company. This point is certainly not lost on those shareholders doing the buying back. I've made reasonable money out of VLE but sold out a couple of months ago because I no longer trusted that management were going to act fairly to all shareholders. Their holdings of Ordinary, A and B shares give a lot of control and now the buybacks will only act to increase this. Small shareholders on that thread get excited when a buyback happens but if I was holding I'd be seeing it the other way round. Smell and trust is just as important as running the numbers with these type of shares IMO. Des |
Posted at 17/5/2010 18:51 by deswalker CLV remains the worst of these type of situations that I've seen and so far is the only one that has caught me out. As scburbs says it was apparent what they were doing a full year before the delisting and they finally structured the buyout using Loan Notes offering all sorts of possibilities. To my knowledge the Takeover Panel is continuing to watch the situation six months after the buyout. Shame they didn't have the teeth to stop it at the time, despite some serious representation against the MBO by shareholders.I never liked the look of TTS as there was never an outside shareholder who might act as a barrier to a delisting and the 50% was held by one person. NAR might well develop along similar lines with an ageing shareholder owning 60% of the equity and with tax issues to think about. But there is Herald Inv Trust with about 11% and a hotline to City lawyers standing in the way. NAR will be an interesting one to watch from the sidelines IMO. Anyone who entertains stuff like MTT with a single foreign 80% shareholder is playing with fire IMO. |
Posted at 16/5/2010 15:52 by weatherman TTS is owned by a few shareholders and the required votes are 'in the bag' for them. The only option for us is to email or write to the LSE or FSA and complain about the significant undervaluation, even below net cash, for forced sellers. If enough people write it might raise the problem and perhaps lead to a reevaluation of the situation. Controlling shareholders should not be allowed to ram through a delisting at a price below net asset value; and the net assets should be re-valued annually by independent experts. A breakup price for this might be as high as 100p taking into account property, cash and business. A risky strategy might be to hold on and see if a break up is the intention of management. |
Posted at 16/5/2010 08:35 by scburbs Not a holder here, but follow a few of these in case there is any indication of value being outed. This is the first such sign of a plan to crystallise the undervaluation, however, it is also clear whose pockets it is destined for!Davidosh, Good to see the article flagging this practice. It is very difficult to regulate against through imposing exact valuation restraints, although perhaps there could be minimum valuation guidelines together with a panel to review. The danger of the valuation restraints is that it may just encourage companies to delist without a tender and then complete the job later. What I think would make sense is a widening and strengthening of the takeover panel rules to ensure they apply to any company listed on the UK market and that when takeover panel limits are waived that there are severe restrictions on what the parties can then do. They also need to strengthen the rules on concert parties. If you ensure that the Director holdings are below 30% then you know that the delisting vote would be much fairer. You might also exclude Directors from voting on delisting plans. An example of where I was caught out by this sharp practice was CLV. The two Directors increased their stakes from reasonable shareholdings to 52% between them. They then voted for a delisting without a tender offer (forcing me to exit in the markets) and then subsequently put in a low ball takeover offer which I imagine they have pushed through due to the size of their shareholder. This means that even if shareholders believe in a company and hold through the take private they are left holding shares in a company where the Directors have effectively indicated their intentions as to where the value is going! Given the public announcements are pretty blatent you can rest assured that people without morals will not hesitate to complete the job once they are a private company. In the case of CLV it was clear that the two shareholders were taking over CLV and it was also clear that they represented a concert party. Once they hit 30% between them they should have been forced to make an offer for the company. This would have outed them sooner and made it much harder for them to be certain of being successful. The other key question in this sorry affair is what has happened to Directors fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of all shareholders. Do they really think a bit of wording on cost cutting is job done! The corporate finance/brokers, lawyers and other advisers carry a high degree of responsibility here. It wouldn't surprise me if they are actually hawking around these companies and trying to persuade them to go private. If this is happening then the lack of morals in these advisers who are lining their pockets at the expense of minority shareholders is shocking. Something needs to be done, either stopping the Director shareholding getting to such a high level, excluding them from a delisting vote or having a valuation panel. It is worth noting that the current problem is self fulfilling in terms of the valuation of these companies. It is next to impossible to hold shares in a company like Total Systems unless the company shows that it has shareholders interests in mind and is actually offering them a return (dividends, share buybacks etc) from the inherent value. This means that these companies will stay ridiculously undervalued and encourage those Directors who may not be constrained by morals to take steps to realise the undervaluation, just not for the benefit of all shareholders! |
Posted at 13/5/2010 18:56 by hugepants This offer looks awful. I think the London property alone is worth 26p per share. It was purchased for £0.75M all of 23 years ago. And they've spent several hundred thousand recently improving it. It was a good move of Mr Bourne not to revalue it since Im sure the share price would be at least 10p higher. When you include the recent Stockcube debacle who will buy shares in these tiny businesses now when there is a big shareholder who can take it private at any time for a song. |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
