Member Info for mythyaar

Disappointed by these results and expected a far worse reaction to them as currently the case. Noticed the prevalance of negative posters earlier and expect they're equally perplexed at how well the SP has held up/ recovered. Acid test is how shorters react over the next 6 months or so. Staggering write downs but I guess the key is that it doesn't currently appear to impinge on debt covenants.

Hopefully this vanity project will be scrapped. No one outside of the London bubble have much time for it anyway. Can't see it having much if any impact on SP for Kier/ others. Infrastructure projects including electrification of local railways will take place in lieu - far less risky contractual propositions and of far greater benefit to the many and not the few.

Anyone know what the state of affairs is with the pensions deficit? They can't be in the same hole that Clln were in as they ended FSPS about 25 yrs ago. However, they replaced it with an incredibly generous defined benefits scheme..possibly 2.5 to 3 times employee contributions up to 15% annual salary?

So the liabilities if they haven't been keeping up.with contributions should be known and tangible, unlike FSPs?

Surely also if they haven't been keeping up with contributions the trustees will have had to have sanctioned it and written to members (employees) accordingly? This happened in the final year of Clln's demise and the writing was very much on the wall then in hindsight. So a pensions deficit here and reasons for it very much a key indicator.

It's the debt facility being stretched by off balance sheet potential liabilities not currently being reported that's the main worry he highlights for would-be investors, from JVs in particular. But still potentially £300 mill of leeway before covenants exceeded if Davies is to be believed and the debt limit maxes out at c£650 mill. Big if, granted!

I read it as being largely positive appraisal of the situation. Sure, it can go to zero and so any new investors need to factor that in and lose their whole investment. But the rewards if it does survive eclipse the losses if it doesn't, so worth a speculative punt.

Would be interested to see the evidence that Woodford is indeed buying again. He's outperformed the markets consistently over the last decade, until recently, where his stock and reputation have been hammered, probably quite unfairly.

Contrarian? Certainly, and that's where he's managed to get that edge. However, he doesn't strike me as a gambler, nor do I believe he's too proud not to cut ties with a failing company and sell up, so the Custer's Last Stand narrative being floated here just doesn't seem ring true.

Woodford therefore must have a very strong belief that Kier aren't going the way of IRV for him to be dipping into his contrarian pockets again to grab some value . Many Shorters (and rampers here) are reasoning that Kier will fail and shareholder value will eventually be zero. So, it's fascinating to see how it plays out.

Panic selling or shorters potentially aware of info not yet in the public domain ? Will be interesting to see what the trading statement says later this week.

Not happy that the "gravy trainers" that were booted off the future proofing ruse have now been thrown a lifeline with this performance excellence initiative that Davies is hanging his hat on to improve the business. It won't wash.

No doubting that the ominous presence of the shorters bares an uncanny resemblance to how Carillion played out. And we know how that ended. Building up an increasing short position from folk who are far better positioned in information gathering than anyone here, and also doing so on a such a low SP. So their intell is suggesting that this is likely to fall further, possibly to zero, as Carillion did. But everything out there in the public domain is that Kier is unlikely to face anywhere near the stress test that Carillion underwent, and is taking all the prudent measures needed to streamline the company for long term benefit. So is there something that the shorters know that Joe Public doesn't yet, and if so, how do they know? The alternative view is that they are speculating without any additional information that the public is not yet privy to.

NEC4 suite of contracts are pretty safe and if operated and managed correctly, should yield around 6% margins and potentially more depending on gain share if option C. The issue is that the Kier overhead swallows most of this up and that is what needs to be addressed. Some of the non contributing back room staff at Sandy now that future proofing etc has been speeded up have to go. Kier need to take a leaf out of Sisk's defined policy of targeting the overhead and making them a leaner and more efficient outfit. Smaller too is more manageable and almost certainly more profitable. Never a truer adage than "turnover for vanity, profit for sanity". Hopefully Kier will revert to the basics.

Matlot, you are not understanding jst008's post, or Gold's for that matter. The pre qualification allows Kier to potentially work within the framework and vastly reduce their tendering costs. In a normal work pricing scenario they'd price 5/6 for every 1 they win. With frameworks, you win far more at a fraction of the upfront cost (because the client invariably needs/ wants to distribute the workload and risk within their framework contractors). The rules of engagement in terms of reimbursement depend on the forms of contract but they're normally contract lite - and although don't generate particularly high margins, they are cash generative for a relatively low risk. They're safe and steady, and I think that's what Kier want to deliver going forward - safe, steady, boring results with no nasty surprises. I guess the unanswered question in all of this is how many nasty surprises remain.

"Aaaaand there goes the dump!" Can't quite figure out what comments like this are intended for. Wind up? Sadistic, masochistic even - quite possibly. Behaviour of a normal person - no. Either way, it doesn't serve any useful positive purpose, to the poster or anyone else.

Was anyone on the call this morning? If so, any assurances given by Davies and FD about no further profit warnings between now and end July? In other words have they bottomed out the bad news for now?

Seems like that they're dropping £40 million bombs at regular intervals and destroying market confidence. Question is - is this the last £40 million bombshell and everything has been kitchen-sinked, or is there more bad news to come?

Noticed Andrew Davies's staff presentation to staff this week on youtube. He told it how it was - "stark" was used. And I think he's setting down his vision which he intends to formalise and present in July. It encompasses a greatly reduced, more profitable and more manageable business.

I sensed that he could barely contain his irritation at the lack of tangible benefits that "initiatives" such as the Kier Future Proofing directive has (not) yielded: "it's time to turn those words into action". And the two other key issues are the debt pile, too high (another rights issue) and cash flow (too poor - initiatives welcome please - doesn't seem to know the answer yet).

He also mentioned increasing the competitiveness in relation to peers - surely a dig at the massive overheads that the Sandy office carries with it.

I can see him selling assets to reduce debt, taking a knife to the overheads (mass redundancies), and possibly another rights issue. He's going to kitchen sink this beast and hopefully get it on a stable long term footing. But there is going to be a lot of pain along the way, not least within the Sandy office.

The fact that he will have to make some very difficult and unpopular choices in his review in July is only a good thing if Kier is to survive and prosper.

Kier need to wise up and shake out all of the bean counters. The treatment of the supply chain is shambolic and driven partly by them securing bad payment terms from their clients (government) and trying to pass even less favourable terms onto the supply chain, and a blatant misunderstanding of the supply chain they deal with. The discerning suppliers who have a great deal of value to give, if treated properly, can pick and choose their work because they are so much in demand. If anything the premium payments should be made to them - favourable payment terms (<35 days) are only a small part but should be a given. Kier don't get it - their supply chain are a lot brighter than them. If Kier are to succeed they need to reverse the question from what can the supply chain do for them, to what kier can do to attract the best possible supply chain. Lateral thinking please.