Tribal Share Discussion Threads

[wcjan26] 23/9/2010 12:28

robbie.

i am long TRB with spread bets, with guaranteed stop losses in place. means that i am certain to lock in at least a bit of profit (if the bid is off), and extremely leveraged to the upside - for example if we end up with an SWG situation (a small but realistic possibility).

there is also some downside protection here if no bid - TRB is fundamentally undervalued IMO. i think it will rally post the spending review in october in any event.

[robbie paul] 23/9/2010 11:12

Speaking from personal experience i have held two stocks Easynet and FKI who were in talks and watched the price drift back, became nervous and sold at a small profit, of course the bid then was agreed and i was left kicking myself.

A third stock which was SWG was recently taken out for a huge premium and when the share price drifted back i held my nerve and the bid came in, trebled my money almost.

Tribal is making me nervous waiting for the announcement as it is taking longer than all three of the above shares i mention before the price was agreed but i'm prepared to sit tight for now.

[7he colonel] 23/9/2010 10:21

Thanks for the replies, i was thinking due diligence was taking longer than i expected with regards to an offer being made/agreed, however i notice ITL has been in talks for slightly longer than TRB so perhaps last minute haggling over final price..

As far as a MBO surely as press have said it is a trade buyer or PE.

[wcjan26] 23/9/2010 09:27

7he colonel. just depends how far into the process they were before news 'leaked'. it normally takes 3-4 months from initial negotiation to completion of a deal, in which case they would need to put something to shareholders fairly soon.

[billf2003] 23/9/2010 09:10

My reading of the situation is that the directors are most probably aiming for an MBO and trying to persuade the independent directors that their low-ball bid is reasonable.

[7he colonel] 22/9/2010 15:13

A ? for the knowledgeable amongst us, is the length of time this bid malarky is taking the norm, it just seems to be dragging its heels, and if so is it a good sign as perhaps two bidders are in the mix?

[robbie paul] 21/9/2010 12:25

xd in the morning, bought more today however the div won't offer much consolation if bid talks don't materialize in an offer and the share price tanks to 55-60p, on the other hand that would present an opportunity to load up again, average down for when trb is re-rated.

[wcjan26] 17/9/2010 15:10

wonder if there will be news next week?

[robbie paul] 16/9/2010 12:24

Patience is a virtue, well we'll have to keep waiting but mine is being sorely tested!

[wcjan26] 15/9/2010 09:08

zeus. interesting.

wonder if those MOUs are even legally binding, though?!

interesting that rally in TRB stalled at top of the downtrend channel - i.e. technical resistance. move to 120p likely on the cards in any case if that resistance is broken

[zeuseq] 15/9/2010 08:23

Memoranda of understanding, does it apply to tribal and if so have they signed one i wonder. Could be having a bearing on takeover talks.

[zeuseq] 13/9/2010 14:21

"The Board of Tribal Group plc ("Tribal" or the "Company") notes the recent press speculation and confirms that it has received preliminary expressions of
interest which may or may not lead to an offer being made for the Company."

Guys does the above mean they have received more than one expression of interest "preliminary expressions" or just the one?

If more than one the take out price should be at least 125p and i would of thought likely to proceed as the true value is clearly North of 125p on current forecasts/peers in the sector tend to be rated higher/towards p/e 17.

[mustbefunny] 12/9/2010 21:15

Is this relevant to Tribal?

[simon gordon] 12/9/2010 08:24

Robbie Paul,

GRT is worth a serious gander as a takeover trade:

Anthony Hilton - 10/9/10:

Although it could never count as a scientific sample, I have asked every fund manager I have met over the past two weeks whether they think Gartmore will pull through and survive as an independent company.

They are its competitors, so you should not expect charity. Nevertheless, it is surely significant that not one of them thought it could.

There are a couple of big reasons why. The first is the role of consultants - those unaccountable but incredibly powerful figures on whom pension funds lean for advice - not because the advice is any good (typically it is to buy at the top and to sell at the bottom) but because it gives the pension trustees someone to blame and a defence in court if things go pear-shaped.

The typical reaction of consultants when they see a fund manager lose staff is not only to stop recommending further investment in its funds, but also actively to suggest that those who are invested should pull their money out. Consultants normally earn fees when clients move money from one fund manager to another, so they have little incentive to give Gartmore the benefit of the doubt, or to wait and see what happens next - quite the opposite in fact. That curious noise offstage is them rubbing their hands in anticipation.

The other challenge is the Financial Services Authority. It got a nasty shock last year when New Star almost collapsed at its feet after it too had been savaged by a run on its funds.

Part of New Star's weakness was that it had taken on a massive amount of bank debt as part of a scheme by which its founders could partially sell out - debt which it could no longer afford to service.

The regulator responded by putting pressure on other highly geared fund managers to get more equity capital. That is possibly one reason why Gartmore last year and Jupiter this year - both having previously been controlled by private-equity houses and carrying a lot of debt - each felt they had to go public to raise new equity, even though the timing was not really ideal for either of them to come to market.

Given what it has gone through in recent times, the last thing the FSA wants now is for a fund management firm to be floundering in public as is Gartmore.

But that said, it does not really have the powers to intervene - or at least, none which would not make the situation worse if it became known they had been exercised.

What the watchdog can do, however, with a mixture of threats and cajoling, is to press Gartmore to stabilise things sooner rather than later. And the only way that can be done in a hurry is to arrange for the firm to be taken over.

The minor complication, of course, is that Gartmore does not want to be taken over at the current fire-sale price. But it is debatable how much choice its board now has.

There are probably quite a lot of rivals who would be interested in theory, because the company still has a fair wedge of money under management. The problem is that much of Gartmore's credibility is based on Roger Guy, the No 1 star who runs a stable of hedge funds within the company.

Success or failure in the acquisition of fund management companies comes down to fund retention - how much of the money sticks with the new owner. So anyone buying the business would have to work out some way to keep Guy on board - or get the company so cheaply it would not matter.

The other problem is that there are already two big shareholders - the original private-equity owners and Henderson, a rival fund management group - which makes it difficult to build up a stake as a springboard for a bid.

Absent a hedge fund manager coming along with an off-the-wall deal which appeals to Guy, that means the most likely outcome would surely be a takeover of Gartmore by Henderson. The latter got the bargain of the year when it bought New Star off the banks. The temptation to repeat the trick must be very strong.

I very much doubt that we will have long to wait.



=====

Numis - 3/9/10:

Possible bid target - we do not see a bid as highly likely, although we believe the prospect of a bid cannot be ignored at the current share price range (we do not see enough natural fit with most of the logical potential bidders, but we estimate worth 140-205p to a serious acquirer).

As we cannot rule out the possibility of a bid, we believe shorting the stock would be a risky strategy at the current price.

Hold - Target = 113p.

[billf2003] 09/9/2010 09:10

I agree that 150/160p is the right valuation for Tribal in its current state, but as noted in my earlier post, I suspect that unless we get competitive bids, an external bid of up to 125p would be more likely.

But will it go to the management team in an MBO at around the 100p mark - let's hope not.....

[wcjan26] 08/9/2010 15:30

150p ballpark fair value. most deals in sector have EV/sales multiple of at least 1

[mick33] 08/9/2010 14:27

Hmmmmm , the market today seems to be suggesting a take out price of well above £1

[wcjan26] 08/9/2010 10:38

Serco just as likely as Capita IMO

[simon gordon] 08/9/2010 10:25

Two tribes go to war:



Private Equity vs. Listed Support Services Company.

[robbie paul] 08/9/2010 10:04

fingers x good news soon!

[wcjan26] 07/9/2010 09:21

back from hols to see my prediction of takeover approach finally coming true.

there may be a surprise here. TRB is worth at least 1 * revenues, so £200m enterprise value.

after deducting the debt, it means take out price of at least 150p

[robbie paul] 07/9/2010 09:02

not long to wait for the announcement, 115p?

[pmeldrum] 02/9/2010 11:17

Bought into this
Good article in last weeks shares magazine.....its was its pick of the week

[jdung] 31/8/2010 11:22

check trade data, find that very small size traded,
but share price hold very well( 75-78p)

so bid will at 95-100p .

[simon gordon] 24/8/2010 17:50

Good day for blue volume: