Totally Share Discussion Threads

[1gw] 17/10/2024 16:35

Those 3 posts just show how posting history colours how new posts are interpreted.

My post was meant as completely neutral. I thought it was comment-worthy that the notice had come out so early.

I think the most likely explanation is a positive one - that financial close is going well, they don't see any difficult issues that might hold up finalisation and so they're happy giving early notice.

Had I wanted to put a negative barb in, I could have suggested it implied they weren't planning to put much effort into running impairment tests for the goodwill. But I thought I'd leave it as a neutral post.

[nobbygnome] 17/10/2024 15:41

Well said Col! Tedious is most definitely the word for 1gw…

[gbcol] 17/10/2024 15:39

Re 21545 - make your mind up. In July you weren’t happy they only gave 1 week’s notice of results. Now they are giving too much notice for you.

Perhaps you can contact the company and let them know exactly what notice period they should give.

Comments like these really make one question your motives here. It’s incredibly tedious.

[sikhthetech] 17/10/2024 13:50

The interims are a week after the budget.

The events which matter are Budget, Govn plans for NHS and interims.

The fact the company has been winning contracts since the GE is great.

The investor presentation should be interesting.



"More notice"
It gives you more time, so hopefully you'll actually post something sensible.
You could always suggest they need more time to get the tea and biscuits, so they must be running out of cash. You haven't tried that one.
;-)

[1gw] 17/10/2024 12:37

Very early notice of interims, more notice, and relatively early interims compared to recent years. Interims date is back to where it was pre-covid, but earliest notice ever given afaics since they switched to the 31st March year-end.

Make of that what you will.

[jugears] 16/10/2024 16:19

6 million equates to about 40k profit with this company, on the other hand if TW were to sell houses worth 6 million the profit would be between 500k-1million, I know where I'd rather keep my money thanks!

[sikhthetech] 16/10/2024 15:57

TLY. c40% held by IIs.

They are also winning contracts, £6m recently announced.

The chairman AND CFO have been buying.

Unlike your HVO, where:

the chairman dumped his entire holding just 4 working days after the July TU, whilst the company was being talked up.
That is a huge red flag.


where they said they will announce contracts but haven't. Where are the £40m contracts?


You and your mates with their multiple ids are sounding increasing desperate.

[pierre oreilly] 16/10/2024 15:27

Down on an up day. Holders may not get much back at this price but anything is better than nothing. A ramped dead dog.

[sikhthetech] 07/10/2024 13:42

Investing more in prevention could deliver £11 billion return on investment

[sikhthetech] 30/9/2024 16:55

1gw

"The company currently seems to have a mainly short-term business with lots of 1-year (or shorter duration) contracts, so needs a lot of contracts (new or extensions) each year to meet guidance."

Yet again, you just demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the NHS/TLY model. This just after the 'lack of elective care contracts before 12th July blunder' with not realising the GE date was only a week before.

NHS model - funding:

The govn provides funding to NHS at national level. Likewise the other UK Nations.

The National NHS, (NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, NHS NI) then allocates funding to local NHS bodies.

Like other Govn depts this funding runs for year to 5th April.
With NHS England runs for yr to 31st March.

The local bodies then use the funds provided for that year for services they need.

During times of uncertainty (political, Doctors strikes, Covid) they would award contract extensions as that money is from recurring funds.
When there is certainty over funding then the local NHS can award longer 5 year contracts.

It really is simple, I'm surprised you can't understand the basics. It might explain why you have so many shares crash.

O/T. INSE. I see they had huge votes against some AGM resolutions and IIs have been dumping.
Yet, you're not nitpicking there. Nor do you suggest the company is engaged in a battle of wills with its major shareholders?? nor do you suggest... they are playing chicken with major shareholders doesn't that feel like a dangerous game given the state of the balance sheet?

In fact you're still ramping them!!!!

So you are nitpicking and being a hypocrite to suit your agenda.



You make a dodgy 2nd hand car salesman sound honest. How many multiple ids do you use and why?

[nobbygnome] 30/9/2024 09:16

🥱🥱

[fenners66] 30/9/2024 09:10

1gw - I suspect you lost the trolls on the other thread with the mention of negative working capital...

they probably read negative and thought you were talking about a bad thing.
Reading accounts ,especially the balance sheet seems well beyond them.

[1gw] 30/9/2024 08:26

Cheers savaged. The issue still, for me, with cutting back urgent care is the balance sheet - net current liabilities and cash position. However much the new chairman might want to focus on the profitable stuff, if he gives up much more "negative working capital" he's going to have (even more of) a liquidity problem.

One big missing from the prelims was discussion of working capital, especially given the loss at the end of the year of the two urgent care contracts - SSOT 111 and Yorkshire GP OOH. Were these both "negative working capital" contracts and if so was the unwind of working capital already reflected in the end-year balance sheet or was that still to play out in FY25? The working capital position was also badly misrepresented in the FY24 annual report discussion I felt and you have to question whether this is just a choice made with the aim of not (unduly) frightening shareholders or whether they really don't get it.

[1gw] 30/9/2024 07:58

Feel free to share your own analysis nobby. These boards can be used for sharing analysis and insights, not just for trolling other posters.

[savagedstock] 30/9/2024 07:57

Re pist 21537

This uis obe of the best posts and pieces of analysis I gave seen on tly, and way better than their broker pursuing out. Thank you.

If you assume that
Urgent care ebutda marin is about 0%
Elective care about 10%
Corporate well going about 25%

Then you get to the 3.5m ebitda guidance. For tly to beat, they need to extract a bit out of urgent care.

So the question for management and shareholders us what is better for shareholder value....a company with 85m revenue making 3.5m ebitda on 6x multiple or 20m market value, or a company with 30m revenue making 5m ebitda (overheads can be slashed) on same multiple, or 30m market value? Put simply, the incremental gain eked out of urgent care is actually not worth it

[nobbygnome] 30/9/2024 07:43

🥱🥱

[1gw] 30/9/2024 07:40

On the contract stuff the issue for me is that it's very difficult for shareholders to understand how a contract announcement relates to guidance because the company doesn't tend to issue RNS's for specific contract losses, only for wins/extensions. The company currently seems to have a mainly short-term business with lots of 1-year (or shorter duration) contracts, so needs a lot of contracts (new or extensions) each year to meet guidance.

Look at the FY25 guidance of £85m, representing a drop of £22m on FY24. My best guess currently is that that is based on specific contract losses that they knew about plus an assumption that they don't get the winter 111 resilience contract this year (they will hope to get it but didn't want to build it into the guidance).

i.e. £15m or so from the three contracts they knew they had lost (SSOT 111, Yorkshire GP OOH, St Mary's UTC) plus £7m net from the 111 Resilience (£10m base + up to £10m winter in FY24 vs £13m base in FY25).

None of those 3 contract losses was notified promptly by Totally afaics. SSOT and Yorkshire GP OOH found their way into the public domain and then were eventually acknowledged by TLY in the prelims. I'm not sure they've even acknowledged the St Mary's UTC loss formally yet. And yet I think these were contracts they had held for years and had been material revenue contributors relative to some of the new contracts they have announced.

Anyway, that looks like a £22m hit to urgent care revenue that is either already baked in or known to be particularly uncertain (i.e. the winter resilience contract) and means the base case revenue assumption for FY25, consistent with the £85m guidance, would be:

£55m urgent care
£28m elective care
£2m corporate wellbeing

On the assumption that Elective Care and Corporate Wellbeing revenue forecasts were both overviewed, from the growth shown in the goodwill impairment assumptions to zero growth for guidance purposes, there would appear to be plenty of scope to beat. Equally, if they can again win the winter 111 resilience contract that should put them over the top on urgent care. The downside risk though is that, particularly on elective care, they appear to be dependent on new contracts coming up i.e. the fact that one customer has budget to insource/outsource some activity in one year doesn’t seem to mean that that activity will become part of the baseload in the future. Saolta contracts in Ireland appear to be a good example of this where contracts are announced with extension possibilities but we don’t seem to get news of the extensions being exercised.

So when it comes to contract announcements, we're looking to see whether they are extensions which are also effectively baked in to the guidance, or new contracts, and if new whether they are making up for an FY24 contract that hasn’t been renewed. Since they don’t announce non-renewals promptly all the market can do is applaud new contracts but with no idea about whether they are offsetting losses elsewhere – which tends to cause a pop when the new contract is announced but potentially leads to greater disappointment if the guidance doesn’t move as hoped the next time it is updated due to contract losses elsewhere.

[just13] 29/9/2024 23:00

Stupid remark Fenners66

[fenners66] 29/9/2024 20:02

std
"Companies win, lose contracts all the time, it's nothing new."

Just trolling true to form - 16% drop in turnover is just routine now.

Pathetic.

[sikhthetech] 29/9/2024 13:19

c40% is held by IIs, which is a huge number and a vote of confidence in the business.


There was 1 major shareholder, Sneller, who sold out last year.

Contrary to 1gw suggestion (reasonable point as some suggest) other major IIs would also sell out, they haven't.

IIs selling out. Never happened.
Need cash/placing. Never happened.
etc
etc

[sikhthetech] 29/9/2024 13:07

1gw

"What contracts do we know they've lost that could contribute to the £22m decline?"

Companies win, lose contracts all the time, it's nothing new.

Local NHS authorities (different depending on the 4 UK Nations) can change the awarding of contracts and it can depend on who the local NHS auth. They can also re-award the contract to TLY at some future date, as previously happened in Devon.

Plus the crucial point you miss is that awarding of contracts takes months. Therefore, it's possible the company isn't aware of the status of some contracts.

[sikhthetech] 29/9/2024 12:56

If the bear points can be countered then it makes the bull case stronger.

If the bull points can be countered then it makes the bear case stronger.


I've managed to counter 1gw and his mates points on here and other shares, which are mostly ill thought out and largely insignificant.


Supernumerary
"he makes reasonable points, argues them well, and is always polite."

Actually he portrays the points he makes as being reasonable. Eg he said he couldn't find elective care contracts before 12th July. I countered it by stating a fact that the General Election was on 4th July, week before, and obviously during times of uncertainty there wouldn't have been elective care contracts awarded. The company had also stated this.
I suspect 1gw was hoping no one would pick up the GE date was just before contracts were announced!



How did 1gw's reasonable points do on Byot and as well as many other shares? I countered his misleading bull points. Byot's share price crashed 99.9% and is now delisted!!

Byot


Trmr - down 80%



Best everyone reads the company and sector newsflow and form their own opinion

[fenners66] 29/9/2024 10:51

1gw - you will be baffling them , by actually thinking this through

Looking at the pretty charts is probably their limit - reading accounts and resolutions is far too complicated.

[1gw] 29/9/2024 10:43

Hardly nitpicking to notice that they were retabling the AGM resolutions that they had to abandon last year, and then to comment on the fact that they had to abandon them again this year, is it?

Have you seen that happen at any other company, nobby? It's quite remarkable isn't it?

The interesting question of course is why? I really wouldn't be surprised to find out it was just admin error - someone copied and pasted resolutions across from last year's Notice of AGM without realising that they had had to be withdrawn. I think the reference to "Buy and Build" in resolution 9 explanatory notes tends to support this theory. And it would be consistent with some of the Annual Report content that doesn't appear to be checked from year to year.

But if it wasn't error, then it gets more interesting. What changed (other than Sneller's exit) to make the company think that it could get the resolutions through this year? Or did they just want to make the shareholders tell them to withdraw the resolutions again for some reason?

-----------------------------
1gw - 09 Sep 2024 - 11:02:18 - 21446 of 21533

Interesting to note that the company is trying its luck with AGM resolutions 8 and 9 that they had to pull last year (as resolutions 7 and 8) after discussion with shareholders.

Presumably they have given key shareholders whatever assurances they need to get these through this time?