Daily Stock Market Report (Tue 14th July 2026) - RWA, HEAD, ASHM, BRCK, WOSG

There’s been a $5 increase in the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil over the last 24 hours, with the total increase over the last two weeks approaching $15 (from $70 to $84.50).

If you’d like to view the latest market-moving announcement: here is President Trump’s statement which appears to demand a 20% “reimbursement” (tax?) on cargo shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. With the Iranians and now also apparently the United States claiming the right to tax goods that pass through the Strait, I can see why markets are betting on higher oil prices.

Elsewhere, the giant Korean chip maker SK Hynix has just started trading on the NASDAQ. The $1 trillion company has raised $26.5bn. In its domestic market, it's worth about a quarter of the entire value of the South Korean index.

At the other end of the sentiment spectrum, Volkswagen is cutting 100,000 jobs or about one sixth of its entire workforce, as it struggles against increased competition from Chinese car brands.

Overnight market movements:

• The FTSE is unchanged at 10,490

• S&P 500 is unchanged at 7,525

• Brent crude (September) is up 1.5% at $84.50/bbl

• Gold is up 0.75% at $4,030/oz

• Bitcoin is up 0.8% at $62,700

---

---

---

Graham's Section

Ashmore (LON:ASHM)

Down 2.5% at 209.8p (£1.5bn) - Trading Statement - Graham - GREEN =

This is a Q4 AUM update from Ashmore, the emerging markets asset manager.

Key points:

• Net inflows $1.3 billion.

• Positive investment performance $2 billion.

• Result: AUM grows from $50.7 billion to $54 billion.

There’s growth across most categories, the one exception being External Debt (government bonds denominated in a foreign currency, typically USD), which saw outflows.

The emerging market large cap equity index rose by 24% - a figure which doesn’t seem to be reflected in the growth of Ashmore’s Equities AUM from £8.8bn to £10bn. But Ashmore say that their active management processes “continue to deliver outperformance for clients across the range of equity and fixed income strategies”.

CEO comment: I’m pleased to see that the CEO's comment is a little different this time, compared to the usual statement that fund managers are underweight EM.

Emerging markets performed well, demonstrating their diversity and resilience following the market volatility caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the corresponding oil price spike. Against this backdrop, Ashmore's active investment management approach has continued to generate excess returns.

However, this section was probably written before the oil price surge in the last few days:

The risk of a global inflation shock is reducing, provided hydrocarbon exports can be maintained through the Strait. Real incomes are recovering, and markets are beginning to reprice the prospect of a 'Goldilocks' environment, with reduced recession risk underpinned by significant capital spend on AI, energy security, defence and supply‑chain reorientation. Therefore, the forward-looking macroeconomic environment, together with the longer-term impact of recent US foreign policy, is expected to be supportive for EM.

Essentially, the argument is that a healthy low-inflation, low-interest rate environment will be positive for flows into emerging markets - boosting local economies and local asset prices.

The direction of travel of the US dollar is also key, with Federal Reserve rate cuts being very helpful when it comes to boosting the demand for more exotic currencies (although getting rate cuts out of Kevin Warsh might not be very easy in the short-term).

Graham’s view

Looking back, we had $2.3 billion of net inflows in H1, followed by $0.9 billion of outflows in Q3.

This latest Q4 inflow means that we get a positive net inflow result for H2 as a whole, even if it is marginal.

With the help of rising asset prices, AUM has made some meaningful progress, e.g. it was $47.6 billion a year ago. It’s therefor up by 13.4% for FY June 2026 - decent, especially considering that it was a bad year for geopolitics. That said, most of Ashmore’s funds are invested in Asia and LatAm, rather than the Middle East.

Valuation: the interim balance sheet had nearly £700m of financial assets (including nearly £300m of cash). This covers nearly half of the market cap.

For this reason, I don’t pay the headline P/E multiple much attention:

The fortress-like balance sheet explains why the company is able to pay such an enormous dividend (16.9p per share), despite not really having the earnings to do it. This stock is a case where ignoring both the headline P/E and the dividend yield might make sense.

I’ve been GREEN on Ashmore and with the net inflows announced today, I’m inclined to leave that stance unchanged. The shares are a little cheaper now compared to when I looked at them in April, while AUM has grown.

The City doesn’t like the stock, which personally I take as a contrarian buy indicator. EPS forecasts were downgraded recently despite the company not even making an announcement:

Most City analysts say “Sell” or “Strong Sell” (!).

Your views may differ but I always get interested when I see this very negative sentiment, as it proves to me that a stock is unloved!

---

Watches of Switzerland (LON:WOSG)

Unch. at 749p (£1.75bn) - FY26 Results - Graham - AMBER/GREEN

There’s been a tremendous uplift here since the FY26 trading update in May.

As we learned then, FY26 was an excellent year:

• Revenue +13% at constant currencies

• Adj. EBIT £155m (this is top of the £152-155m range given at the trading update)

Statutory operating profit (basically the same thing as statutory EBIT) is strong at £170m, though do bear in mind that under modern accounting rules this excludes a portion of the company’s rent payments.

But the statutory PBT number is strong too: £133.5m, which is after all rent payments.

Exceptional items collapsed to only £8.8m, compared to £55.5m last year. Great news.

Last year’s exceptional items included £44.5m of charges related to showroom impairments, while this year’s showroom impairment charge is only £6.5m. The cost of showroom closures was also about £5m lighter than last year.

Balance sheet net assets (tangible) are £309m, up from £235m last year. Net assets per share have increased too, as the number of shares actually fell during the year, thanks to some share buyback activity. Net debt (excluding leases) fell from £94m to £55m.

Outlook:

Guidance for FY27 is unchanged from that provided in the Q4 trading update. Trading in the first ten weeks has been encouraging. Whilst we remain mindful of the geopolitical environment, we have carried good US momentum into the new year and see encouraging signs the UK market is improving. This underpins our confidence in delivering another year of strong revenue growth, alongside a return to Adjusted EBIT margin expansion.

As a reminder, the Group has minimal direct exposure to the Middle East or tourist consumers…

This is now primarily a US business, so the strength of the US consumer is what matters most.

Detailed guidance for FY27 includes:

• Revenue growth 5-10% (organically, over 52 weeks)

• Adj. EBIT margin to increase 40-80 basis points from FY26

Graham’s view

We don’t have too many UK mid-caps stocks with such direct and heavy US consumer exposure as this one. This exposure appears to be benefiting Watches of Switzerland, and it’s doubling down on it:

The US offers significant opportunity for both market share gain and structural market growth, supported by a luxury consumer increasingly allocating discretionary spend to watches and jewellery

The UK, meanwhile, offers “stable and resilient” demand.

I’ve been moderately positive on WOSG and this is another case where I see no reason to change stance, especially considering that guidance is unchanged.

The main difference since I looked at this last is that the valuation has picked up:

For retailers (not brand owners), this is starting to look a little expensive to me, and to Stockopedia’s computers:

But the reasons for the gains are logical: US consumer exposure, rising EPS forecasts, reducing net debt, strong free cash flow being ploughed into expansionary capex, and clean results with few exceptional items. That’s a lot of reasons for positivity.

So I think that AMBER/GREEN remains the right call for us.

---

Roland's Section

Robert Walters (LON:RWA)

Down 6% at 99p (£72m) - Q2 2026 Trading Update - Roland - AMBER/RED =

It’s been a positive few days for the UK’s listed recruiters. Shares in Hays have risen by more than 30% since the company issued a trading statement on Friday. Pagegroup gained almost 20% yesterday after an in line trading update.

Against this backdrop, Robert Walters share price slump this morning may seem surprising, given that today’s update is in line with expectations. The reality is that the market had already priced in some less bad news from this firm. Despite this morning’s pullback, the shares are still nearly 15% higher than they were a week ago:

Q2 Trading: still shrinking

Today’s update covers the second quarter and the half-year to 30 June, providing an update ahead of the recruiter’s half-year results on 30 July.

As with Pagegroup yesterday, Robert Walters’ largest markets are still contracting.

Net fees fell by 4% to £134.6m in H1, as gains in the UK and RoW (28% of net fees) were offset by declines in Asia Pacific (45% of net fees) and Europe (27% of net fees):

This pattern was mirrored across H1 as a whole.

However, there may be some signs of green shoots emerging:

Group net fees in June were up 1% year-on-year.

Drilling down to country level, the company reports that half of its top 8 markets saw net fee growth in Q2:

In specialist recruitment, Japan (+2%*), the UK (+21%), Spain (+2%*) and New Zealand (+16%*) delivered another quarter of growth among our 'top 8' markets.

The rate of growth is also said to be improving:

Around half (as a proportion of net fees) of the specialist recruitment portfolio grew year-on-year in H1 - a broader base than seen in the prior year (H2 2025: 20% in growth, H1 2025: 9% in growth).

In terms of operational performance, the company reports a shrinking headcount and improved productivity per fee earner in Q2:

• Q2 net fee income per fee earner up 6% year-on-year, driven by a 3% increase in specialist permanent placements per fee earner per month;

• Total headcount down 3% vs Q1 to 2,782

• Fee earner headcount down 4% vs Q1 to 1,648

Sweating the [human] assets makes sense for a business that’s losing money, as long as service quality isn’t compromised.

Robert Walters’ net cash fell from £20.1m to £17.2m during the quarter – a decline described as “in line with expectations”.

While the group’s net cash position provides a margin of safety and helps underpin the valuation, it’s worth remembering that the business is expected to remain loss-making in both FY26 and FY27:

Outlook

With thanks to Panmure Liberum on Research Tree, we have access to an updated broker note today confirming that forecasts are unchanged:

• FY26E adj EPS: -26.0p

• FY27E adj EPS: -10.5p

For what it’s worth at this early stage, PanLib is forecasting a return to profit in 2028 with earnings of 5.5p per share. If achieved, that would put RWA shares on a P/E of 17 – not necessarily all that cheap. However, if a recovery was to continue, profits could rise rapidly above this level – earnings peaked at over 50p per share in 2022.

Roland’s view

Here at the daily report, we’ve turned progressively more negative on recruiters as they’ve reported multiple years of declining fee income. Our concerns have grown that technology-led changes in this sector may have resulted in a structural loss of profitability.

I’ve reproduced the chart below from today’s Panmure Liberum note showing the near five-year decline in Robert Walters’ net fee income:

Source: Panmure Liberum 14 July 2026

The question that remains is whether this will turn out to be a normal cyclical decline and will eventually reverse. If it does, then the current depressed share price could provide an interesting opportunity:

I don’t have the insight into this sector needed to understand the likely answers to these questions. But I’m concerned by the scale of the decline versus past dips:

• Dividend suspended: the company didn’t pay a dividend last year. As far as I can see, the payout had not previously been skipped since 1999.

• Operating losses: Robert Walters reported an operating loss last year and is expected to do the same this year. This tells us that the business is structurally unprofitable at current levels of activity. This hasn’t happened for at least a decade, probably more. In 2020, by contrast, gross profit fell by 25% but the business still generated a £15m operating profit.

According to Panmure Liberum’s forecasts, Robert Walters is expected to breakeven at an operating profit level next year. Ultimately, this is the bare minimum required for a sustainable business.

Staying negative runs the risk of missing out on the early stages of a possible recovery. On the other hand, the trend in forecasts has been negative and today’s update is no more than in line:

I think there’s a possibility the recruitment sector could reward in-depth research. However, based on the facts today, I’m going to leave our AMBER/RED view unchanged ahead of Robert Walters’ half-year results on 30 July.

---

BRCK (LON:BRCK)

Up 4% at 51p (£164m) - FY26 results - Roland - AMBER/GREEN =

Some companies are at the mercy of external market conditions more than others. Construction materials supplier BRCK is probably at the upper end of that spectrum. As the company explains in today’s full-year results, subdued conditions in housebuilding and other adverse market conditions mean that the business is facing some uphill battles at the moment:

The Distribution division saw revenue marginally behind prior year, which set against the ongoing and widely reported challenging market conditions is a resilient performance. Group brick volumes have been impacted by changing customer demands, project delays and customer mix. Timber revenue has grown through pricing accretion, whilst cladding distribution revenue has been impacted by the well-documented delays in project approvals by the Building Safety Regulator ("BSR").

There’s no sign yet that these adverse conditions are easing and this was reflected in June’s cuts to FY27 and FY28 broker forecasts – which I’ll return to shortly.

Today’s FY26 results are largely in line with expectations, but the statutory figures are marred by more than £13m of impairment charges relating to past acquisitions and some hefty restructuring costs.

FY26 results summary

Let’s start with a look at the main headline figures:

• Revenue: up 1.3% to £645.4m (vs consensus of £650m)

• Adj EBITDA up 4.5% to £51.0m

• Adjusted pre-tax profit: up 4.9% to £38.3m (Cavendish: £37.9m)

• Statutory pre-tax profit: down 46.2% to £6.3m

• Adjusted EPS: up 8% to 8.91p (vs consensus of 8.6p)

• Net debt up 6.9% to £60.5m (1.2x EBITDA leverage)

The apparent earnings beat seems to have been due to a lower tax rate than expected, so I’m not sure how meaningful this is given the high levels of profit adjustments applied here.

Profit adjustments: there’s a gaping void between adjusted PBT of £38.3m and statutory PBT of £6.3m. The big items on the list of adjustments are:

• Amortisation of acquired intangibles: £13.2m

• Impairment of goodwill and acquired intangibles: £13.4m

• Business Change Project costs (i.e. restructuring): £1.7m

• Unwinding of discount on contingent consideration: £2.6m

• Fair value losses on contingent consolidation: £0.8m

Regular readers will know I’m not a fan of ignoring the amortisation charge when it reflects real past expenditure. But this is a routine item for many companies and it’s true that it doesn’t affect operating cash generation.

Of more concern perhaps is the £13.4m impairment charge relating to past acquisitions. The company says the “challenging market conditions” of recent years has affected the valuations of the businesses in question.

Digging into the footnotes reveals that the impairment charges apply to seven of the “12 smaller components of the group”, which are grouped together for reporting purposes. Goodwill assigned to all of the group’s larger subsidiaries is unchanged.

Restructuring costs are self explanatory – as we often remark, these tend to occur quite frequently in many companies. I would generally consider these to be operating costs, personally.

Finally, the contingent consideration items reflect changes in the present value of contingent consideration for past acquisitions. While these don’t directly reflect operating performance or cash generation, they are recurring.

These adjustments are all legitimate enough and commonly used. But collectively they give me the feeling that BRCK falls into the category of heavy adjusters.

To test this view, my general approach is to calculate free cash flow and compare it to reported and adjusted profit figures.

In this case, my sums suggest FY26 free cash flow of c.£19.5m before deferred acquisition consideration payments of £10.8m, giving an overall free cash flow figure of £8.7m.

These figures compare to an adjusted net profit of £28.7m and a reported net profit of £1.3m.

Opinions vary on how to treat each individual adjustment. But on balance, I feel that BRCK’s profits are more heavily adjusted than I’d like to see.

Divisional review: to get more of a feel for performance, I think it’s helpful to look at the segmental results for BRCK’s two operating divisions.

Distribution (80% of revenue)

• Revenue: £519m (FY25: £521m)

• Adj EBITDA: £34m (FY25: £33.2m)

• Adj EBITDA margin: 6.6% (FY25: 6.4%)

UK brick markets saw a recovery during the first half of last year, followed by a slowdown in H2. The net result was an increase in total UK brick market volumes of 0.7% in FY26. Within this, BRCK appears to have underperformed the market, with brick sales volumes down 2% during FY26.

To make matters worse, “a highly competitive market” meant that average brick selling prices fell by 1.6%.

Trading with larger customers has been generally more resilient but offset by declining activity with some key social housing customers and other development projects being delayed as a result of the economic uncertainty and poor weather later in the financial year.

The picture was slightly stronger in BRCK’s timber distribution operations, where average selling prices rose by 4.8%, against a backdrop of a 2% decline in volumes. The result was a 2.8% rise in timber revenues.

Performance in other less material product areas was mixed:

• Cladding distribution: revenue down 21.4% due to Building Safety Regulator delays and availability issues.

• Roof tiles: volumes up 18.3% through extended distribution and new imported product lines.

• Towelrads: revenue up 12.3% as demand grows for the larger radiators required as part of heat pump installations.

Design and Install (20% of revenue)

• Revenue: up 8.8% to £126.4m

• Adj EBITDA: up 2.5% to £24.4m

• Adj EBITDA margin: 19.3% (FY25: 20.5%)

This side of the business is both higher margin and growing, albeit margins fell last year. This appears to reflect weaker demand from housebuilder customers. The decline in margins is specifically attributed to negative operating leverage in the Upowa solar installation business, which suffered “higher operating costs with labour utilisation rates being lower than desired”.

Despite this, revenue growth appears to have been achieved in cladding, renewables and roofing.

The Design and Install division has the potential to improve group margins. The company also says that it believes this side of the business is driven by factors that are less connected with the housing market, such as regulatory-led demand for fire remediation.

Outlook

When I last looked at this building materials distribution group in June, I noted the company’s brokers had slipped through a downgrade to FY27 and FY28 forecasts without this being mentioned in the RNS (which concerned the acquisition of the Jacksons fencing business). That’s poor practice (by the company) in my view.

The downgrade to FY27 was made despite the expected impact from the inclusion of Jacksons, implying that without this there would have been a larger cut to FY27 forecasts.

This has since become apparent on the StockReport:

Cavendish has cut its forecasts for BRCK again today, but this relates solely to a change in BRCK’s accounting policies – share-based payment charges are now being included in adjusted EPS, having previously been excluded. All of the broker's other numbers are unchanged, so I don’t see this as a profit warning:

• FY26 actual adj EPS: 8.9p

• FY27E adj EPS: 8.3p (prev. 8.4p)

• FY28E adj EPS: 8.8p (unch)

• FY29E adj EPS: 10.3p (new forecast)

I would always include share-based payment charges anyway, so I’m glad to see the company’s adjusted profits move one step closer to my view of reality. However, what we can see is that this year’s earnings are expected to fall before (mostly) recovering in FY28.

Roland’s view

Based on today’s forecasts, BRCK shares trade on a forward P/E of less than 6x, with a 7.3% dividend yield.

My sums show last year’s dividend was just covered by free cash flow, after acquisition-related items. So I don’t see any immediate risk to this generous payout.

While BRCK does carry some debt, it doesn’t look unsustainable to me.

In my view, it’s clear that BRCK could be too cheap. This business should benefit from positive operating leverage when market conditions improve, driving a recovery in profit. But as things stand, it’s very difficult to guess when this might happen.

I think this situation is nicely represented by the stock’s Contrarian styling and high QV StockRank:

On balance, I don’t see any reason to change our AMBER/GREEN view today.