We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I am not sure what the fuss is about. This is up about 25% since I bought, it has a broker target of 220p and the dividend should be OK. Am I missing something?
GS
Apologies you are correct, the 4% growth did not include lockdowns (I misread the following which states they did benefit from the lockdowns).
From the last accounts:
‘Like-for-like revenues (I.e. excluding the impact of acquisitions made during the FY20) from April 2020 - September 2020 (I.e. since UK lockdown began) were 22% higher than the same period of FY20. Other than a small area of the Lighting category (supplying lighting to trade) all other categories of the Group have experienced revenue growth during the pandemic, compared to the same period in FY20. Management attribute this to the nature of its product categories, some of which are considered to be consumer staples and their low price points (relative to other brands available). As the British public has stayed at home, they have needed more household batteries, have spent more discretionary income on home-improvements (including lighting) rather than travel; and have been able to vape more flexibility at home (compared to their work environment).’
DiscoDave. The last accounts were for the period ended 31/3/20. Covid and everything it entailed broke towards the end of March 20...
Yep, massively incentivised to get the share price up to ratings which won’t reflect their growth.
Your choice, laugh away.......only 4% growth in bottom line profit last FY and that was with some Covid tailwinds.
We each have different views and I wish you the best.
One can only laugh at anyone complaining about management options and the fact that they drew 16 million in 2019. The Ceo and his team have built up this company from revenues of 1million to circa 100million this year. Do you expect them to do that free. The ceo has also taken 60 million from the IPO but still owns 56% of the company. He is massively incentivized to grow this company going forward and his team also deserve to benefit from any uplift. His aim is to build revenues to over 200 million and judging by what he has done so far, I reckon he will do so. That is why I'm investing a lot of money at current prices as i know I will be rewarded with as a shareholder.
This is a growth company and I'd rather have staff and management fully incentivized to get that share price up.
Agree the Directors remuneration has been modest over the years (£256k over the last 5 years but £196k in the last FY).
There’s no justification IMO for any company to be paying out £16m in dividend (could have been £4m to each Director) when their profit was only £10.4m. Whether the recipients deserved it or not is not really the point, that is some payout in a single year, and it seems the “rewards” are set to continue now it’s listed. Just my opinion based on numbers in the public domain.
You still haven’t explained your previous comments about the loan and dividend being related.
Hi Dave
If you look back historically through the accounts you will see that the shareholders barely took anything throughout its trading history (including no salary). That’s reflected in the fact that there were sufficient distributable reserves to allow the dividend.
It’s unfair to use that as a stick to beat the company with as it was a one off as a reward for years of hard work and success. You may not see in the accounts how well rewarded staff also were, but I can assure you they were
Dun on purpose.
Dun on purpose.
Hi Joker
What do you mean the loan and dividend were related?.
I’ve simply posted what was in the accounts, they paid a £16m dividend, they didn’t reinvest it for growth they gave it to those holding the ten shares.
If you wish to get a more accurate view of the accounts in this period look up supreme imports ltd on companies house (reg 05292196)
Disco Dave look closely at the year you are referring to - it was due to the holding company having its financial year reduced to 9 months in order to consolidate the accounts. The loan and dividend you mention were related and were not a large pay off to the BOD as you speculate. It was also something that was done as a private company when a public listing wasn’t being considered and should in no way be taken as a guide to future dealings within the company as a plc
Cheque!
Only takes a few moments.
Cheque before you post your messages.
‘annualised growth of about 26% is required’ - to achieve 100% growth in three years (sorry meant to add and unfortunately this site doesn’t allow posts to be edited, so sorry for the 4 in a row (brain doesn’t keep up with my typing!).
Based of their last FY eps post listing equates to 9p, so already on a PE of 22.
Taking the IPO price of 134p, and assuming the price correlates with earnings (not that it always does) then annualised growth of about 26% is required, to be “value” I will assume a PEG less than 1, so a PE of 25.......a lot seems to be already baked in IMO.
Interesting though!.
The acquisitions of Shannon Protein Technologies and Protein Dynamix during 2018 is perhaps the reason for the significant step up in profits between 2018 and 2019?.
Yep some nice options for the CEO et al.
In 2019 net cash generated from operations was £6.2m, bottom line profit increased significantly, (more than double for some reason but the prior year it declined 21%) to £10.4m and to celebrate they paid out nearly £16m (yes £16m) in dividends, they also took out a nice secured loan to the tune of £16.4m, draw your own conclusions!. Believe there was a total of 10 shares receiving £1.6m per share in dividend that year, I wonder how many shares each of the four directors held?.
If the options were linked to anything other than the share price then I might be tempted, still might but the BOD pay offs sour it for me at the moment.
Added another 98k this morning . Trades not showing yet but this just looks a core holding over the next few years .
sorry just about to add that should be
Quite simply a quality company ..just about another 50k at 192 in a few lots
Yes - that makes sense. As well as appreciating you spending time on this BB I also very much approve of your EMI structure. And you are more than welcome to your incentive shares if I see 100% and 200% in 3 and 5 years. time ... that plus your with your dividend policy and my ISA and SIPP will both look a lot healthier!
The very best of luck
GS
A company with an impressive track record.
Shame that the future option schemes are so heavily skewed in favour of the CEO. He has options over a further 2.5% of share capital at the time of the IPO if total shareholder returns are at least 100% by the third anniversary of the IPO, and then a further 2.5% if 200% by the fifth anniversary of the IPO. All non-director employees, on the other hand, have future options (or cash alternative) capped at a maximum of £14m (and 1 x salary per employee) if the market value of the company by the fifth anniversary of the IPO is £1bn or more (ie, 6.5 x the market capitalisation at IPO). Why aren't the CEO's and connected trust's ownership of 56.76% of the company enough incentive to achieve these shareholder returns without dilution of other shareholders through the option schemes?