Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts

Thursday, 24 December 2015

Morning Mumble: What a year! How do you spell Christmas?

Good Morning,

It's been a pleasure and thank you for the many words/thoughts. 

We shall endeavour to post some musings over the Christmas break, what with various items taking priority EMC has taken a back seat. We had our first 'proper' scoop in the western hemisphere the other day, a pleasure and 24hrs before the rest!

The lack of reporting on the "convention" of base metal traders meeting this weekend to discuss...purchasing more metals. One might also need to consider that some out of the money traders will look to take the losses, but at least some Christmas cheers for those long. Expect some adjustments in stockpiling and the reporting of such numbers. (EMC: China Base Metals)

Here's hoping everyone enjoys the festive break and gets some 'R&R.' Li is heading to Macau this year, obviously gambling and the like; who'd have thought it!?! We should feel privileged some declined such opportunity in Macau and are UK bound. No doubt laden with anything duty free like thinking they've got a 'real bargain.'

Yesterday was a proverbial bath with Oxus's failure in their arbitration outcome. The mystery is how Richard Shead kept the RNS professional in light of what some consider a failing in a legal process. 

There will be Oxus update in the new year, but don't expect too much. The monies awarded should cover Calunius's costs, albeit little left over. One would be very surprised if there was an appeal save of course for a curve ball of showing complete incompetence by one of the panel. Is that possible? 

This was not a case of quantum but of reliability of the facts...something that an entity may be able to argue quite cleanly. Fit for practice springs to mind....albeit taking no shine off a stellar year as prudence always suggests taking profits along the way, the beauty of these types of arb type cases. 


We shall await the "trading updates in January!" One cannot help but wonder what the level of inventory in the shops implies for their bottom line. We note the contributors to EMC retail opportunistic survey finding healthy levels in most stores with very few non-food items being sold out (The largest number of contributors we've had - thank you!). 


Does Christmas now start with an E(commerce)?

All the best and Merry Christmas, Fraser

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Morning Mumble: Direlight (DIA), Chemring (CHG), Kenmare Resource (KMR) and Majestic Wine (MJW) their economic moat!

Good Morning,

Dialight have given strategic review & trading update. Over to Dialight (see additions by EMC in bold):

Trading Update

Trading in the three month period to 30 September 2015 was characterised by continued weakness in the oil and gas sector and reduced levels of industrial capital expenditure, particularly in North America. As a result, reported lighting revenue growth for this period was 5%. The cost reduction actions announced on 7 August are on track to deliver their targeted reduction in operating costs and we are encouraged by the strength of our order book. However, with market conditions having become more challenging during the third quarter, and Dialight's financial performance weighted as usual to the seasonally-strong fourth quarter, the Group faces an increased level of uncertainty in the remainder of the current financial year.

But...By the end of 2018, Dialight is targeting to achieve:
  • Over 25% annual revenue growth
  • Over 40% gross margin
  • Over 15% EBIT margin
  • Over 80% cash conversion
The market is wising up to the realities. See: EMC: Direlight (DIA) June 2015.

Chemring (CHG) trading update that isn't good news with a "potential" delay in the 40mm contract. The concern being, this is yet another company flag waving a rights issue so far in advance it raises significant questions about any understanding of the market. 

Admittedly, with a bit of good fortune, Chemring could turn the situation around by gain the necessary permits and export approvals associated with this contract, although one senses the board find this highly unlikely. Over to Chemring, additions in bold. 
Key points
  • Despite significant progress having been made, there is potential for delay to revenues from the 40mm ammunition contract announced on 14 September 2015
  • As a result of this and other issues, there is now a realistic prospect that year ending 31 October 2015 ("FY15") underlying operating profit1 could be reduced by approximately £16 million to approximately £33 million
  • Order book at 30 September 2015 of £606.3 million; £344.6 million for delivery in FY16, representing more than 75% of expected FY16 revenue of £450 million
  • Discussions will be held with debt providers to negotiate amendments to the operation of covenants and the waiver of any event of default that may result from the 40mm contract delay
  • Proposed rights issue (the "Rights Issue") of up to £90 million in Q1 2016; fully underwritten on a standby basis by Investec and J.P. Morgan Cazenove
  • Resultant medium term target capital structure of 1.0x - 1.5x net debt to EBITDA
The company's debt levels have been a concern and impeded them for some time, so Chemring elect to kitchen sink their issues today with:

"The recent progress of the Group has been impeded by its high levels of debt and associated interest costs. Significant time has been spent managing this debt, at the expense of further operational improvement and fully capturing the longer term growth opportunities open to the Group. We have therefore announced today that the Group proposes to launch a fully underwritten rights issue to raise up to £90 million, the proceeds of which will be used to fundamentally address the high levels of debt and to provide a competitive capital structure."

It begs the questions of why the rights issue isn't now...shareholder value? The cash advance whether recognised in this year or next is immaterial to the overall issues the company are facing. Target price now likely to be near 87 pence. If it quacks like a...This company has a momentual task just to maintain existing shareholder value, 

Kenmare Resources (KMR) forgot to mention some key ingredients within their  Q3 trading update. Namely the pricing environment over and above anything Kenmare can do will remain challenging. Iluka Resources is fully aware of the KMR financial position when such terms as "Super Senior Facility" are utilised it rather suggests who has the stronger hand.

A question: exactly how much time have the "board / management" spent out at Moma? More so, what is the purpose of the board if an external consultant has to be appointed to support and extend this ongoing cost control and efficiency programme? We'll ignore the stock levels and the like for now, as all the cards are in China's and Iluka's hands at the moment. 

In the current environment, Iluka Resources have no need to save Kenmare and there is a real risk of downward pressure on any offer price. For a perhaps more open outlook, please read Iluka's Q3 (see the market conditions section). 

The market is waking up to the realities of Iron Ore, scrap prices are falling quicker, steel prices down. More so, there's now evidence Steel Mills are bringing forward larger maintenance works and/or shutting capacity due to the limited demand. We acknowledge the likelihood of a larger sized steel mill default. 

With two significant events currently under way the 18th CPC and the Fed, there are likely to be considerable trading events. We have Aluminium production in China yet again on the increase, the average operating rates of Chinese copper processors is steady but nothing to shout home about, Zinc inventories in Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangdong are on the up and finally, scrap prices in China fell through the floor evidencing the realities/contradictions of the alleged balance in supply and demand.

Finally, it would be unfair not to consider Majestic Wine (MJW) whom pulled the proverbial plug out of their economic moat of six bottles or more. Apparently, MJW trialled no minimum bottle requirements at 23 stores for 5 months. Its allegedly had no impact of volumes, really?? 

The question is, did the removal of the 6 bottles or more criteria improve sales? Or just increase the cost per sale? Is this a flag waving event where they firmly placed themselves within the supermarket sector where such benefits of 6 or more bottles may have insulated them to a degree. Surely if one is an off-license location is key!

If someone could be so kind as to point out where Majestic announced to the market that they were trialling the no minimum bottle purchase, it would be appreciated. As in yesterday's announcement of a new pricing strategy stated, "follows the previously announced successful trial in selected Majestic stores since Spring 2015 proving popular with both new and existing customers." Perhaps one is just being tardy, a quick email to Majestic's IR might assist. 

With the results out on the 16th, and one has a suspicion there's been a leak to the supermarkets! Quite why Majestic Wine's didn't merely launch their own online offering of wines via post/text is a very pertinent question

Atb Fraser

Apologies for grammar a quick one!