Volex Share Discussion Threads

[time_traveller] 02/10/2015 21:17

I'm not a chart user, but I think intraday, it touched 61.25p earlier in the year. Granted, the down trend is obvious. Not easy to get rid of biggish quantities in a fall like this; I did try, but now at this price, I'll keep whats left for a punt - I looked at the financials again, and I cant envisage any imminent crisis, but they do need to execute a more convincing transformation plan, some time soon - or have someone else come in and do it for them!

[freddie ferret] 02/10/2015 17:24

Significant fall today, IMHO.

[toffeeman] 02/10/2015 16:30

Only minor support I can see is 56 but I don't imagine it will hold. If a had stock and didn't want to sell, then I would short as insurance.

[time_traveller] 02/10/2015 15:53

I'm surprised anyone bought while this knife was falling, (including the CFO and Ruffer, though the CFO has bought twice now - if it was a token gesture, I think once would have been enough). There may be support at 61p. They couldn't have worded the RNS any worse if they'd tried, as it created uncertainty what's going on. I'd much rather it had been a proper profit warning, as at least it would set up for a bounce if the next results are in line.

[tipjunkie] 02/10/2015 15:19

Building up inventory = shoving stuff in stock that they can't sell

[fillipe] 02/10/2015 14:31

Building up inventory = profit in stock ....helps the bottom line - temporarily.

f

[scantrader] 02/10/2015 13:05

Imo it was a peanuts purchase compared to his existing holding, a PR gesture attempting to prop up his existing stake.

I still think the share price is too high even after the drop (see my previous post), but decided to cash in my short now and transfer it over to DIA (even worse value imo).

[time_traveller] 02/10/2015 12:13

It seems a bit unlikely a rights issue is on the cards if the CFO is buying up shares.

[tipjunkie] 02/10/2015 12:08

I blame Vince Cable personally, I do.

[dlku] 02/10/2015 12:06

Will it need another rights issue? I think it will, 30p?

[dlku] 02/10/2015 12:05

its a toilet bowl dont you know toffeeman. I wouldnt drink from it

[toffeeman] 02/10/2015 12:03

DK what you mean - I can see a bowl - problem is it's inverted:)

[dlku] 02/10/2015 11:59

what a brimful crock of sheet

[time_traveller] 02/10/2015 11:57

5 year share price low I think. CFO confident, but it doesnt look like anyone else is.

[coolen] 01/10/2015 19:57

Dead right T/traveller, actual trade time was 2pm on 29 September.

[time_traveller] 01/10/2015 17:31

Showing an 138,400 trade at 71.75p after the close. I suspect it's just a delayed report (?).

Edit - now its disappeared

[imastu pidgitaswell] 01/10/2015 10:36

Finncap buying the story, at least:

hxxp://sharedealing.nandp.co.uk/broker-views/VLX/Volex-Group


Edit - and so are Ruffer, increasing their holding. Better than dumping it...

[mike740] 30/9/2015 12:29

yesterday.

[she-ra] 30/9/2015 12:28

mike740 - Sorry to tell you but he appears to have sold out last month.

[time_traveller] 30/9/2015 12:27

Imastu - good post. Yes; 'cost' for building up inventories is the wrong word, (I added that operating costs are lowered) but I'm wondering why they added something normally so inconsequential to the statement; It made the whole thing look obfuscatory, which is perhaps why it was so badly received, and tends to lead to conclusions such as toffeemans. As I'm break even, (having lost several thou of profit in the last two weeks) I can afford to be a little more relaxed about Volex, and take heart that a takeover may now be more akin to pushing on an open door, whereas they are normally strewn with obstacles.

[imastu pidgitaswell] 30/9/2015 11:18

To be fair the company didn't say ""Costs higher due to building up inventories" - the BB poster did in 2571.

The company said costs were lower - "We continue to improve the efficiency and cost structure of our operation"

And re the earlier point, building up inventories does not show in operating costs - assuming they do use the stuff they are manufacturing. If not, then they would be written down - not good.

But not the main issue.


The second comment ""we are building stock in support of anticipated higher volumes" = "We kept the factories going in the hope that things will improve" is possibly more contentious (might be some truth in it), but I would hope that they have far better communication and visibility from their major customers (as they told us they have) and the anticipation is not 'hope' but communicated expectation. But then this is Volex - they use 'anticipate' or its derivative three times in a short trading statement, all of which could be interpreted in more than one way.


Positively, lower revenue than 'anticipated' could mean deferrals and no overall reduction - the rest of the statement supports that. Cost controls still in place and the Transformation Plan in place. Erm, yeah.

And losing Eisenhardt may also be beneficial - he is expensive, prone to throwing money at a problem (imho). The interim CEO knows this business (ex CEO of a mooted acquirer - makes it more plausible, i.e. fix it in one swoop by having your former company buy it out, take out central and plc overheads, reap the margin benefits, good return for not a lot of money - the takeout price will be lower now. Straw-clutching...

Dunno. Want to give the benefit of the doubt, but how many times...

[toffeeman] 30/9/2015 10:27

"Daren Morris the Chief Financial Officer, purchased 20,000 Ordinary Shares of 25 pence in the Company ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 71.4 pence per share" = "Darren go and buy £14k of stock please pour encourager les autres and we will cover your costs through a bonus"