Small Cap Value Report (Thur 19 Sep 2019) - IGG, SFE, BILB, A&B
Good morning
Let's see what the RNS has in store for us today.
Timings - writing until around 2.30pm today.
This list is final:
- IG Group (LON:IGG)
- Safestyle UK (LON:SFE)
- Bilby (LON:BILB)
- Albemarle & Bond
IG Group (LON:IGG)
Not a small-cap (market cap is >£2 billion), but as the share price is up 8% and it's one of my larger holdings, let's briefly discuss.
I have taken the view with this one that that regulations can't get that much more strict. Indices are at 20:1 and FX is at 30:1, for example.
Other reasons for my bullishness:
- Compliance costs from all the new rules and fewer trading choices for customers could make life even easier for the incumbents, by creating an environment where there is less competition and fewer new entrants
- Professional clients are unaffected by the rules, and the spread bet companies can focus more resources on them, instead.
Let's see what this Q1 update says.
The business has performed well in the first quarter benefitting from growth in the number of active clients, and from increased client trading activity as a result of the favourable market conditions in August.
I can attest to that myself as I was taking out positions in FTSE options during August, because of the excessive volatility/fear in the markets.
By the way, with the FTSE back around 7350, doesn't it feel like nerves have calmed already, since that August fear? GPB has strengthened, too. Perhaps these are early signs of the positive adjustments which will happen after Brexit is resolved - that's just my wishful thinking!
IG's Q1 revenue was flat in June/July/August, compared to Q1 the prior year.
The regulations took effect in August 2018, so two months of Q1 last year were still under the old regime. This is very positive to me, as it suggests there was an underlying improvement (doubtless helped by all the volatility this year).
By category, the "OTC leveraged" segment (spread betting/CFDs) was flat.
Nadex, the North American business, declined by 2%.
Meanwhile, stock trading and investments were up 9% - that's great news. This is a much lower-margin business compared to spread betting and CFDs, but I strongly believe that IG has a competitive advantage in this area and should grow much larger over time.
IG also makes the point that Q1 revenue was 11% higher compared to Q2-Q3-Q4 of the previous financial year, which makes for a better comparison since those are the periods when ESMA rules fully applied.
That's true, but let's not get too excited about one quarter's results. This business has a lot of swings with market volatility, and August this year was a particularly volatile time.
Medium term targets
IG gives us some more context for what it's trying to achieve. It is looking for 3-5% growth per annum in its core markets, and revenue growth of £100 million (to £160 million) in its "significant opportunities", by 2022.
The significant opportunities are the unusual new products and markets which it is developing and working on (e.g. expanding to regional markets in Asia).
And it seems to be clear about what it needs to do:
The driver for sustainable revenue growth in OTC leveraged derivatives over the medium and long term is growth in the size and quality of the client base, and the number of OTC leveraged active clients in the core markets in Q1 FY20 was 5% higher than in the average of Q2-Q4 FY19.
Other: IG reminds us that regulation is coming in Australia.
Guidance for revenue growth in the current financial year is unchanged.
My view: I don't need to change my stance on IG following this update, except that my confidence is bolstered.
Quantitatively, it looks great with a StockRank of 92 ("Super Stock") and customary excellence in terms of ROE, ROCE. etc.
The valuation is nice, too - forward PER of 14x as of last night, with a dividend yield of 7.5% and EV/EBITDA multiple of about 9x.
I held a position in CMC Markets (LON:CMCX) for a short while, but ditched it due to a lack of conviction (even though the valuation over there was even more attractive than the valuation at IG).
IG is the market leader and it's rare that you find a company with the biggest market share in a regulated industry, excellent quality metrics and a cheap-ish valution.
My confidence in the new CEO and her strategy is growing, and my only major worry is on the regulatory front. This is a risk that I am happy to bear, even though it is very difficult to analyse and predict what might happen years from now on that front. I competely understand why other investors might prefer to stay away and avoid that risk altogether.
Safestyle UK (LON:SFE)
- Share price: 55p (-1.6%)
- No. of shares: 82.8 million
- Market cap: £46 million
Let's go back to small-cap land for a few minutes.
As anticipated, the double-glazing company Safestyle makes a "small loss" for H1 (see Paul's analysis of the trading udpate).
It makes an underlying loss of £0.8 million but also suffered non-underlying expenses of £1.65 million.
It seems rather funny to me, but one of the non-underlying items is "Commercial Agreeement amortisation".
This is the agreement that Safestyle signed with one of its former co-founders, in exchange for him promising not to compete with them anymore.
How on earth is this a non-underlying item? I can't think of anything more relevant to underlying business performance than this. If it wasn't for this agreement, Safestyle would still today be getting crushed by Safeglaze.
Thankfully, this charge was "only" 200k in the period. £300 of share-based bonuses are also treated as non-underlying.
Key takeaways
The company says that its turnaround is on track.
It says it was profitable in Q2, "with levels forecast to increase in H2".
Pricing power has returned: business volumes as measured by frame installations are slightly down compared to H1 last year, but revenues are up over 6%. That's what happens when an aggressive competitor gets out of the way!
Outlook
We have a profit warning for H2.
If you go back to the trading update, you'll see that it was guiding for "a small profit for the full year".
But it's going to have to pay more on lead generation than it expected, and revenue hasn't quite matched up with expectations either:
The Board also expects revenue to be marginally below previous expectations, although still expects double-digit growth in H2 versus the prior year alongside continued gains in market share. Consequently, the Board now expects a small underlying loss before taxation of c.£0.5m for the full year.
My view
I think I'll wrap this section up now. This company falls short of passing my quality filters.
It might turn out to be dirt cheap if it recovers to previous levels of profitability, but we have seen what happens to it when competition picks up. I don't see what can be done to prevent competition from heating up again, if profits start to look tasty again in a couple of years.
Bilby (LON:BILB)
- Share price: 24.25p (-7%)
- No. of shares: 40.5 million
- Market cap: £10 million
Bilby Plc (AIM: BILB.L), a leading gas heating, electrical and building services provider, announces its full year results for the twelve months ended 31 March 2019.
This is grim.
Trading is said to be in line with expectations.
But on top of the poor "underlying" results for FY 2019, you have £13 million of non-underlying items.
When the non-underlying expenses for a single year are larger than the market cap of the entire company, it's rarely a pretty picture for investors.
And this is another company which has a sense of humour when it comes to exceptional items.
One of the exceptionals is "impairment of accrued income", i.e. writing off revenue that it previously booked on the income statement.
I could create a business which had terrific results every year, if I was allowed to accrue income that I would never collect. And if you were willing to ignore the subsequent impairments of those accruals, perhaps you would even invest in it!
This is a low margin contractor and these FY March 2019 results show what happens when margins deteriorate at a low margin business.
Let's also note that it has taken nearly six months to get these numbers out.
Net debt more than doubled to almost £11 million, and the company has had to get a waiver of covenants from HSBC.
The Board has "confidence of at least maintaining underlying revenues of £59 million with adjusted EBITDA of not less than £4.5 million".
We enter the new financial period having taken decisive and conclusive action to ensure that the causes of the isolated failings are not repeated. It is in light of this that I am confident that together, with our enhanced Board and experienced management, we are well positioned to drive sustainable and profitable growth.
My view - bargepole.
Albemarle & Bond
"They've run off with our goods" - anger at Albemarle & Bond HQ
(I have a long position in HAT.)
Got to hand it to the Guardian. This is good reporting.
Guardian writers have been hanging around A&B's "Pawnbroking centre" in Oxford, and they've managed to get quotes not just from customers but also from former staff members.
Angry customers have been taking time off work to visit A&B's warehouse. If your grandmother's gold ring is in there, that makes sense.
In another article, the National Pawnbroking Association's CEO was quoted:
Ray Perry, NPA chief executive, said there were only 10 people working in Albemarle & Bond’s contact centre and they had been overwhelmed by demands for information. He said: “The industry is not impressed and we are quite angry about this. The provision made is clearly woefully inadequate and the information sent out is quite contradictory in places.”
This is of course completely unacceptable. The company has responded that it is doubling the number of phone lines and staff responding to emails.
Back to today's article, and we get some insight into the collapse of A&B:
Another former staff member said they were not surprised the company was in difficulty under Daikokuya’s ownership.
“I found that there were many Japanese executives swapping out UK natives with experience in the pawnbroking industry.
“Some of these new executives from Japan unfortunately didn’t speak English and were not familiar with the specific requirements needed to make a financial company successful.”
To be fair, A&B had been mismanaged under UK owners and executives, too. It sounds like the company never got its affairs in order.
Investments implications? For H & T (LON:HAT) and Ramsdens Holdings (LON:RFX), I think this bolsters the argument that there are specific, non-industry reasons for the recent demise of A&B. Which would clearly be positive for H&T and Ramsdens: not only do they face less competition, but there is no reason to think that the sector is facing a general downturn. Companies which operate sensibly should continue to do well, at least for now.
I'm out of time for today but thanks once again for all your feedback, comments and suggestions.
I hope Paul is enjoying his holiday, too (Hi Paul, if you're reading this!)
Graham
Disclaimer
This is not financial advice. Our content is intended to be used and must be used for information and education purposes only. Please read our disclaimer and terms and conditions to understand our obligations.
31 comments
Never ceases to amaze me that after all this discussion about Brexit people on both sides say “x will happen” or “y cannot happen” as if an infallible view of exactly what will happen in the future is available to us.
We would very rarely say what we think the future profits of a company are going to be with such unswerving certainty.
No one can really predict what will happen with any significant degree of certainty. To talk as if we can is a hindrance to the discussion not a help in my uncertain view.
Even what appears to be clear at first glance becomes far less so when scrutinised. WTO terms apply if there’s no deal on the face of it is clear. However, if you have a transition arrangement while you are negotiating the final deal and call that transition arrangement a deal then do you escape the inevitable WTO terms? I don’t know but the point is that nothing is as certain as it seems.
The one thing that I am fairly sure of however is that for many politicians getting re-elected is their main concern. So, while we can bandy about numbers like % tariffs or % exports etc, as if we were analysing company fundamentals, the emotional effect on voters of lost jobs or higher costs that affects their voting decisions is equally if not more important in how this will play out.
Trying to predict the mood of the electorate or the vote buying actions of politicians is far too difficult for there to be any clarity of what will happen.
If the UK leaves with no deal then we start from scratch, and the EU have made clear that the issues not being resolved now - payments borders etc will still need resolving,
i didn't say nothing needs resolving or that everything could be resolved easily - i was trying to argue - that i think "acceptable trading terms" can be the default in the absence of specific agreements. From a practical perspective if nothing is agreed but no tariffs or reasonable matched tariffs are actually put in place that's an acceptable interim trading agreement.
I just cannot see any situation whereby the german car manufacturers will put up with the ec imposing tit for tat tariffs for the sake of nothing - they will want to export to us tariff free and ergo they will only be able to do that if they allow us to export tariff free or with similar minimal tariffs - we will most certainly not want tariffs and therefore its in both parties interests to come to an informal day one compromise whilst they petty squabbles go on the the next 10 years.
I am guessing we may not have long to find out how it all pans out and perhaps all the doom mongers will be provided right.
i didn't say nothing needs resolving or that everything could be resolved easily - i was trying to argue - that i think "acceptable trading terms" can be the default in the absence of specific agreements. From a practical perspective if nothing is agreed but no tariffs or reasonable matched tariffs are actually put in place that's an acceptable interim trading agreement.
But that's not technically possible. If we leave without a deal then we have to trade on WTO terms with EU26 countries which means that the EU has to impose the same tariffs on the UK as it does on other countries without whom it has a deal - the US for instance. There's no such thing as an "informal" agreement outside of a full trade deal.
Basically, it's deal or no deal.
timarr
But that's not technically possible. If we leave without a deal then we have to trade on WTO terms with EU26 countries which means that the EU has to impose the same tariffs on the UK as it does on other countries without whom it has a deal - the US for instance. There's no such thing as an "informal" agreement outside of a full trade deal.
Apologies for using the wrong word - when i said informal meant i formal ! (doh) in that any agreed bandaid type interim solution would be spelled out in writing.
The “German car manufacturers won’t let it happen” argument comes up so much in Brexit comments that at least, amongst us here, let’s put it firmly to bed.
The UK is a bit over 10% of BMW’s sales. Let us suppose that tariffs halve that, to 5%. There is no way on earth that BMW is going to do anything dramatic to save 5% of their sales if it has the slightest chance of messing up the 95% by overt support of the troublesome Brits. Ain’t gonna happen.
I am concerned that the view that a no deal Brexit is priced into the market may be based on the kind of magical thinking on the “German cars” line. If so then the true reality is going to be a nasty shock.
I think that there's been a massive misunderstanding by many of the potential role of German car manufacturers. I had endless arguments along those lines before the referendum. It arises from those who want to leave the EU completely failing to understand why the other 27 countries, and many in the 28th, value it, and the erronous assumption that somehow Germany, or its car manufacturers, would force a deal. It's not as simple as balance of trade, or free trade. The EU, and the whole idea of European countries working together, is massively important to many on the mainland, and particularly in Germany. Most would see the loss of car sales to the UK in the absence of a trade deal as a relatively minor matter. And apart from anything else, unlike the UK, they have plenty of other exisiting markets, with whom they will maintain free trade.
One thing is clear, even if it were possible unilaterally impose zero import tariffs, which there is little sign of the govt actually doing at present, the effect on many sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, would be devastating, as there would be no pressure on other trading nations to reciprocate.
Hi Graham
Many thanks for today’s write up. I especially like your analysis of “non-underlying” costs which seems to mean anything that they need to ignore in order to present a positive picture.
There is a lot of debate at the moment about whether companies should only be concerned about the well being of their shareholders or should also look after other stakeholders (employees, etc.). That debate seems to be a bit misplaced when directors seem to be doing all they can to mislead shareholders while at the same time finding ways to set themselves easy targets for their LTIPs. Maybe they should look after all stakeholders including shareholders and not just focus on the board of directors.
Companies like LON:GAW who pay bonuses to all employees spring to mind as excellent exceptions to the norms.
And a small addition to your notes on £IGG. I don’t go in for spread bets or the like but I have recently opened a share dealing ISA with £IGG. I am really impressed by their different approach and the ease and speed with which I can get a good price on my share dealing transactions. Companies that serve their customers well are often also good investments.
Videos just published of results presentations by management this week/last week:
1. Keywords Studios (LON:KWS) analyst presentation from yesterday Andrew Day CEO sounds very positive, albeit companies like this don't trade cheaply. (But it's cheaper than it was yesterday!)
2. Beeks Financial Cloud (LON:BKS) results presentation just after results. A great overview by Gordon McArthur, CEO and Fraser McDonald, CFO. Gives a clear steer on what's happened this year, and their aspirations going forward.
To follow in due course, the analyst presentation for Judges Scientific (LON:JDG) and a results presentation from Eagle Eye Solutions (LON:EYE).
Graham: You wrote "Perhaps these are early signs of the positive adjustments which will
happen after Brexit is resolved - that's just my wishful thinking!"
How quickly can Brexit be "resolved"? If the UK leaves, with or without a transition agreement (aka "deal") then there will be years of negotiations to achieve acceptable trading terms with the EU, the USA and all the countries that we have agreements with as an EU member. If the UK decides to stay in the EU, the internal arguments will go on through a succession of elections.
It's hard to see stability returning soon.
Also it is not only the UK for which the workings of the EU are politically destabilising. We can expect squalls from other parts of Europe as well - all part of the new normal.
FREng
If the UK leaves, with or without a transition agreement (aka "deal") then there will be years of negotiations to achieve acceptable trading terms with the EU, the USA and all the countries that we have agreements with as an EU member.
That's a bold statement to make - why should it take years of negotiations to reach acceptable trading terms? - i would guess that vat majority of countries we deal with import more into our country than we export to them or at least have some trade decent volume of trade going the other way - it's in neither parties interests to start from a position of penal duties/paperwork banning imports and the like - is it not more likely that for the majority of things a compromise will be found that does the job?. I am not saying its not going to be mammoth initial headache and i agree there will be some stumbling blocks but that's life but i am not presuming we won't be able to carry on life pretty much as it was. I may be totally wrong in this regard though - i suspect we may not have long to wait to find out how bad it does actually get.
The idea that trading agreements can be reached without too much difficulty is alarmingly at odds with reality. It would be hard to find any that have been quick and plenty that have taken a very long time. The current Mercosur deal with the EU has been in the works for 20 years and still looks likely to fail.
The very unpleasant fact is that we are not in for an “initial headache” but for a prolonged disorder and declining economic performance.
The devil is always in the details as various interest groups get their oar in to (in their view) “level the playing field” or to right what are seen as previous wrongs.
Trade agreements always seem simple from one side but it takes two sides to settle and that takes ages, even assuming we have a generous supply of experienced and knowledgeable trade negotiators.
(Which we don’t)
That's a bold statement to make - why should it take years of negotiations to reach acceptable trading terms?
Because that's how long international trade deals take, up to 10 years. If the UK leaves with no deal then we start from scratch, and the EU have made clear that the issues not being resolved now - payments borders etc will still need resolving, and the US congress has said much the same about the border. There may be a few quickies with Fiji and even Australia, but the big ones that we depend on, EU and US will take years.
Personally I think if we leave without a deal we will never have a trade deal with either the US or the EU. Any freeing of trade will simply inline with global progress. The rent both will want is too much for the politics of this country. On the other hand Australia and Canada are similar sized economies with little overlap, and frankly not that much trade so trade deals should be relatively straight forward. And yes, I mean never.
Very valid point I completely agree, I also think there is a general belief there will a sigh of relief when we have left, yet negotiations will be going on for years, this isn't going to go away over night unfortunately.
anyone got thoughts on what is going on at Sirius (LON:SXX)
Got to think it doesn't look good, if they really need to raise $500m and can't by the means they planned, then I'm not sure what they'll do. The rights issue in May raised a tiny amount in comparison, and that was at 15p per share
Newmark Security (NWT) looks as though it may have turned around. There's lots of detail in the results today including a sector-by-sector strategic review. The directors have a lot of shares and are not restoring the dividend yet, so they will be strongly motivated to deliver on the confidence that they express in their outlook statement. I sold NWT at a loss in 2016 at twice today's price, but I'm thinking of buying back.
Any thoughts on the agreed takeover of Charles Taylor (LON:CTR) announced this morning. I had taken a small holding in this, as a "value" investment, and reckoning that loss adjusters are always going to be needed. I am not best pleased at being taken out at a modest profit, on a PER of only 9. I get the feeling the board are acquisition-minded, and think they will get more support for their ambitions from the private equity bidder than they have been getting from the market. Is this they way the stock market is going in the era of QE - everything that has a reasonably robust underlying cash flow is being steadily hoovered up by private equity?
Private equity is awash with cash.
My limited interactions with them, they were looking for cash generative funnels they could ideally leverage with debt and achieve 8% ROA (where the 'A' is really their equity if not debt funded) so a fairly low investment bar. The analysis of cash flow projections were obsessive, beyond imagination, when I saw their work.
Thanks for the insight. 8% looks very low to me, much lower than I would have thought.
Morning Graham
Circling back to yesterday, thank you for the excellent review of Judges Scientific (LON:JDG), which piqued my interest. I have been aware of the company for sometime, but never really taken a close look, which in hindsight was very remiss. In some respects Judges Scientific (LON:JDG) reminds me a little of Halma (LON:HLMA) in that it selectively acquires profitable businesses in niche areas using internally generated funds. It then as far as I can tell allows the acquired businesses to operate in a semi autonomous fashion while providing commercial direction and support.
Much to be admired in how the management operates, ethos, disciplined approach and commercial acumen. The shares are not expensive in my view even though they are trading at the top of their range. Certainly worth a further look and perhaps as you suggest taking a small position to maintain interest. If they perform have as well as Halma (LON:HLMA) over the coming years, Judges Scientific (LON:JDG) will reward investors very well.
Thanks for the feedback on Judges Scientific (LON:JDG), jonno!
Next (LON:NXT)
Ticking along - i do have to admit i was pretty started by the profit splits.
Retail profit down from 73 mill to 56 mill - 6 months to July
Finance profit up from 60 mill to 75.8 mill
What a stunning turnaround in how a big business makes its money - note both sums are dwarved by online which is up from 163 to 177 mill.
This now truly is a business were presumably the stores simply help the well oiled machine function and help gives the customers the full flexibility they presumably like.
I have to admit it doesn't particularly sit comfortably a clothing company making a big wad of finance money on top of the profit from selling clothes - the whole rationale of that is pretty ridiculous - but if that's what consumers want ...... From a risk perspective there are always regulation concerns although i would like to thing Next would be squeaky clean in that regard - the problem here being brutal is that i guess they probably make it too easy to order on tick online perhaps as a shareholder i query the company about their policies in that regard. What a crazy first world problem we have at times.
Slightly surprised by the muted reaction this am - i am guessing there is something that has spooked the market that i haven't seen - unless it is the profit splits i have mentioned above. Market's don't normally worry about moral quibbles like mine though.
Reaction must be to the statement about the degree of unpredictable change in the future.
I take a different view of the finance side (you must remember also to remove the associated fiance cost from the numbers). I see it as being a service to customers rather than a form of exploitation. My worry is mostly about how dependable it is as a source of profit - but that applies to every strand, so that's OK.
What I particularly liked in the statement (I've not read it all in detail) was a change in cost allocation to better reflect the actual profitability of the segment. The importance of the accounting metrics reflecting the real world is much underappreciated as a source of poor decision making in businesses. One of the issues I believe that Restaurant (LON:RTN) screwed up.
Next (LON:NXT)
"I have to admit it doesn't particularly sit comfortably a clothing company making a big wad of finance money on top of the profit from selling clothes"
Just looking at the half year results, the finance sales numbers are:
134 interest income
(19.1) bad debt charge
(21.3) overheads
(17.8) costs of funds
75.8m net profit
Wow, 75.8m net profit on 134m revenue. That's because they are charging 23.9% interest rate but 88% of their customers are low risk. Defaults reported at only 4.3%.
Yes, it means this customer profile should be able to obtain much cheaper credit elsewhere, but I guess the convenience of a one-stop shop makes it work.
Clinigen (LON:CLIN), I'd be interested on your views. particularly on how one should consider contingent liabilities, which have put a large hole in actual profits.
IG Group (LON:IGG)
I sold out a while back on back of the lower profit projections for the current year and it would be a couple of years probably for them to recover. It looks like forecasts have continued to drop although the pace in those downgrades has certainly slowed.
The results today look very solid - revenue up 11% on the average last year when ESMA took effect - not sure if the number is as good as it sounds if there was exceptional disruption immediately after the new rules - but it seems like they are now firmly back on track and perhaps there will be scope of the projections to now turn upwards rather than drift downwards. I am guessing the market probably always knew the company was likely to rebound.
I don't think i am tempted to buy back yet at current price but things look like they are now trending in the right direction at last.
Morning Graham,
Not such a small cap, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on IG Group (LON:IGG), if nothing else it may have a read across to smaller competitors.
I was happy with results, although it sounds like august was a good month which makes me wonder how poorly things were going in the first 2 months. Revenues are back to where they were in Q1 last year which was only marginally impacted by regulation changes. I was pleasantly surprised by this.
They've gone to great pains to point out that Q1 revenues are more or less on par with Q1 last year and much improved on the average of Q2 -Q4 last year. This approach makes sense to me and I don't see why they shouldn't approach it this way, but am I not being cynical enough? Am I missing something in the change of reporting style?
Hi doug,
Thanks for your early request on IG Group (LON:IGG). Hopefully I made a decent stab at covering it. Cheers.
My morning smallcap tweet: Two warnings
Bilby (LON:BILB), Newmark Security (LON:NWT), Safestyle UK (LON:SFE), Cambridge Cognition Holdings (LON:COG), SIMEC Atlantis Energy (LON:SAE), Petards (LON:PEG)
Bilby (BILB) FY adj EBITDA £3.2m (£6.3m) vs prev guidance £2-3m. Adj pretax £2.5m (£5.8m). No final div. Curr trading in line. Guides FY20 underlying rev £59 million, adj EBITDA at least £4.5m.
Newmark Security (NWT) returns to FY modest profit. Rev up 22%. EPS 0.04 (-0.4). No F/C available. Confident outlook.
Safestyle (SFE) H1. Cuts FY profit outlook to £0.5m loss.
Cambridge Cognition (COG) H1 poor as guided in Aug. "Board believes that the Company has sufficient cash reserves to drive the business to profitability." Sounds a tad tight. Relentlessly positive outlook. "We look forward to a stronger H2 and a return to growth in 2020."
SIMEC Atlantis Energy (SAE) H1. Rev £2m (£1.3m) Cash down to £5.1m (£9.3m). Debt £3.6m. Op C/F -£7.6m (-£4.9m). "Both MeyGen and the Uskmouth project have created remarkable opportunities for the Atlantis team to forge new paths and demonstrate leadership in innovation and delivery of solutions..." Can you imagine Brunel spouting stuff like that?
Petards (PEG) H1 rev down 8%. Order delays means FY "satisfactory, albeit lower than previously anticipated, performance."