Totally Share Discussion Threads

[hoppy13] 01/12/2023 12:30

Yeah. Would be nice to see if Canaccord can do a bit of lifting and find a home for some of it. Some good buy side volume yesterday / today, but it is a fair wedge to have sat with a market maker. Anyway, should be interesting to see how it all shakes out here next few sessions, and with any luck, some profit in it for punters at the lows!

[1gw] 01/12/2023 12:21

So you've heard that the supply is from him and he is out as of this morning, rather than that there's a trade of 6.9m?

[hoppy13] 01/12/2023 12:18

Haha I'm not unfortunately! Just a PI with a phone line and an appetite to talk shop with fellas that have access to see what I can't!

[cameron72] 01/12/2023 12:17

Contracts Finder is a bit patchy on awards, but the Blackpool contract alone was worth £3.6m in 2019 so it's not fanciful to imagine that the total of all the other Lancashire contracts would be around £15m

[smithie6] 01/12/2023 12:16

Maybe hoppy13 is one of those market maker people !!!

Or he works for Liontrust or similar II & he made the trade !

[hoppy13] 01/12/2023 12:15

Yeah word of mouth mate just from speaking to my broker as to where the supply came from yesterday down here and what got loaded on the RSP today. Fits with Snellers position and previous form. Print ending 927,500 would confirm it.

[1gw] 01/12/2023 12:08

I can believe that after yesterday's print. Just curious as to what system you have access to - or is it word of mouth?

Although on the other hand, 18.9m (12 + 6.9 you quote) is the holding he has on the TLY website. But he went below 9% in July and disclosed 17.7m total (so that would be 12 + 5.7). He hasn't disclosed going above 9% again, so if you're seeing a 6.9m trade I'm not sure that can be Sneller?

[hoppy13] 01/12/2023 12:04

It'll print at close

[cameron72] 01/12/2023 12:02

I guess I could check by looking at the value of the previous contract awards. I might do that actually.

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 12:00

Cameron,

You're talking about a contract, with possibly a 'new' contract value up to £15m. Is that a new value of £15m due to increased costs? Contracts do go out to tender, nothing usual about that.

I repeat my question, where's the evidence that TLY's dermatology contract is CURRENTLY worth 'majority of £15m'?


Dermatology was always a part of previous 'Planned Care' division. Planned Care was always a small division within their diversified business model. Dermatology and other parts of the business were halted during covid restrictions and yet TLY still increased revenues.

[cameron72] 01/12/2023 11:50

Sikhthetech

On contracts finder the Lancashire and S Cumbria ICB dermatology tender is advertised with a value of up to £15m.

Totally held contracts in almost every CCG in that area.

Aside from that they only have Manchester, and a couple of contracts in the south. I notice that they don't actually list their dermatology locations on their website any more.

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 11:40

Cameron72

"It's more than £15m, and represents the majority of the dermatology contracts that Totally holds."

Can you provide evidence that TLY's dermatology contract, you mentioned, is worth 'majority of £15m'?

[cameron72] 01/12/2023 11:38

The chat pages are visible without needing an id so there is no mystery there. I've never felt a need to post before but this issue raised my interest - it's not that small a contract. It's more than £15m, and represents the majority of the dermatology contracts that Totally holds.

So if true its a big loss of revenue and profit, and a dramatic reduction in the diversity of the service portfolio.

[1gw] 01/12/2023 11:32

Smithie - see post 20606. Looks like an arithmetic mistake to me (subtracted the wrong line).

hoppy13 - interesting. Where have you seen the 6.9m at 4.2?

[smithie6] 01/12/2023 11:29

1gw

What is the problem/topic about nett current assets ?

You think it is wrong in the accounts or ??

(imo if move £13m recurring revenue from liabilities to debtors (it is money owed to Totally for work already done) it makes the current assets situation look much better, from negative to positive I think)

[hoppy13] 01/12/2023 11:27

Bottoms in. Sneller taken out 12m at 4.6 6.9m at 4.2 for a 4.5 avg. Theres your floor.

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 11:24

Cameron72 (id created today, so what id have you been watching with!)

All businesses win and lose contracts. That is a fact of business.
They have never announced every small contract which has been renewed and instead group them together. If it's a small contract then nothing wrong with that.


It's the bigger contracts which can have an impact.
As they announced in the interims, they won new contracts.

"New contracts secured in the period contributing GBP14.8 million of annualised revenue."

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 11:17

1gw,

what part of the word 'suggestions' don't you understand? You suggested all those things, making it sound like they are 'likely' to happen.

[cameron72] 01/12/2023 11:04

First time posting here but I have been watching this company for quite a few years. I did have a small stake for some time, but I sold it earlier this year as I wasn't confident in the direction of the business. I am not seeing anything at the moment to persuade me otherwise, which is a shame because the concept has potential.

One red flag for me right now relates to the supposed high margin parts of the business, i.e. elective services. I noticed that Omnes is currently recruiting dermatology staff for a range of locations across the north west and these are all in areas where Totally has the dermatology contracts. So I went onto Contracts Finder and I can see that all of those contracts went out to tender earlier this year. So now I am wondering if Totally has lost all the Lancashire contracts? I haven't seen an announcement from them, but I can't think of any other reason why a competitor would be recruiting for people to work in those areas?

If they have lost the contracts shouldn't they have said something? And what does that mean for profitability if they have just lost a bunch of high margin contracts?

[1gw] 01/12/2023 11:02

Another thing newbies should know about sikhthetech is that he just makes stuff up. So for example, as far as I can recall:

I haven't said there has been significant selling by IIs prior to the interims. In fact I put up a post explaining why it might be difficult for large holders to sell down in a weak market and that they might prefer to work behind the scenes with management to try to turn things round (e.g. work on AGM resolutions).

I didn't say AGM resolutions will fail. I have commented that, incredibly embarrassingly for management (I would have thought), the company appeared to have been forced by major shareholders to withdraw 2 resolutions to do with issuing shares for cash without pre-emption rights for existing shareholders. I also commented on what looked like a bit of a protest vote against 1 or 2 of the resolutions.

I didn't say they wouldn't pay the full year dividend because of a lack of cash. I highlighted that if they were to do a goodwill impairment test at the end of 1H, before the due date for payment of the dividend, then that could conceivably lead to distributable reserves being wiped out on the balance sheet, which then would prevent them from paying a dividend. That's nothing to do with cash.

I didn't say the CFO would be dismissed/replaced, although I have suggested it wouldn't be terribly surprising if she were.

I haven't said there will be a placing. I have commented that if they were to want to raise cash, then they would be constrained by the withdrawal of those AGM resolutions (meaning they can't do a placing to selected institutions, they would have to offer shares to all existing shareholders pro-rata to existing holdings) and would also be constrained by the nominal value of the shares (which means they can't issue shares for below 10p).

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 10:59

There are over 90m shares owned by IIs, around 47%.




IIs buy/sell all the time.

[1gw] 01/12/2023 10:51

Meanwhile, we wait to see who yesterday's apparent 12m share (6%) seller was. Only two possibilities according to the notified major shareholders list on the TLY site.

[sikhthetech] 01/12/2023 10:50

1gw, you still haven't answered why any of your previous suggestions/stories haven't come true. Why's that? All I can see is trades to manipulate the sp, as per my link below.



How about being honest for once and answering why none of your suggestions/stories have come true.
If they had problems with cash as you have repeatedly suggested over many years, then why did they pay the fy dividend and why no placing today?


Given you've been wrong on all your other stories, it's not surprising.

What's your view on all your previous suggestions, which haven't come true as well:
1) IIs selling.
There's been no significant selling by IIs prior to today's interims. IIs held around 46-47%
2) AGM resolutions will fail.
All resolutions were passed, vast majority unanimously.
3) fy dividend won't be paid as they don't have cash.
The fy dividend was declared and paid.
4) CFO will be dismissed/replaced.
The CFO is still there and will be presenting the investor presentation on Thur.
5) They need cash, so placing.
No placing announced.

etc


Isn't this what you and your mates are doing?

Now read below, read 1gw posts and look at the huge increase in shares on loan?

"He then backs up his accountant's acumen with hefty down bets."



"'I work on the assumption that I'm intellectually superior to 99 people out of 100 and I'd give the other man a good run for his money,' he says."

"'I think very quickly and carefully. The fools panic and I don't panic.' 'I love a crisis because that's when people are stupid,' he said with a broad grin. The working class are incredibly stupid. You can sell them anything if you appear to sell it sincerely. 'I've always liked fast-moving markets because the fools make more mistakes so I'm able to profit by it.'"

[jugears] 01/12/2023 10:50

oh the pain!!!! This could be a 10 bagger, if it falls below a penny first.

[1gw] 01/12/2023 10:43

Not forgetting the apparent error in the calculation of end-1H net current liabilities in Tuesday's interims balance sheet. And all the apparent issues with the annual report.

I submitted a question in advance to the IMC session yesterday offering them the chance to comment on this (including the net current liabilities point) but the question was ignored. They could have either explained why the interims net current liabilities calculation was correct, or talked about what new controls they were putting in place to ensure that future financial reports were better checked before issue. But they didn't.

It just gives the impression of a management that doesn't treat financial reporting as serious, doesn't it?