Small Cap Value Report (Tue 5 Mar 2019) - BILB, SWL, SBIZ, DEB

Tuesday, Mar 05 2019 by
64

Good morning, it's Paul here!

Here's today's usual placeholder. I'm making an early start today, in order to cover today's news, and then circle back to finishing off yesterday's report, plus telling you about my meeting yesterday with management of Revolution Bars (LON:RBG) which went very well. There was so much to take in, that by the time I got home yesterday, I'd used up all my mental bandwidth for the day. That's the trouble with trying to write a report, and have meetings on the same day.


Taking a quick look at the day's top % movers (at 09:10) which fall within my remit;

Bilby (LON:BILB) - down 39% on a trading update - must be a profit warning, I'll look into that below

WH Ireland (LON:WHI) - down 29% to 45.5p on news of a discounted £5m placing

Swallowfield (LON:SWL) - down 13% on interim results - I'll take a closer look below


Looking at risers, the ones that interest me today are;

Netcall (LON:NET) - up 14% to 34.5p on interim results

SimplyBiz (LON:SBIZ) - up 6% to 192p on full year results. I've reported positively on this company before, so will review these results below

That's my initial to do list, so let's get cracking.



Bilby (LON:BILB)

Share price: 40p (down 39% today, at 09:42)
No. shares: 40.5m
Market cap: £16.2m

Trading update

Bilby Plc, a leading gas heating, electrical and building services provider, announces the following trading update for year ending 31 March 2019.


Checking back through my notes here on 11 Dec 2018, this contracting group put out a mild profit warning.

Today it warns again, due to problems with various contracts. That's the Achilles Heel of contracting type businesses, and why I avoid this sector altogether now. The work tends to be low margin (due to competitive pressures), and sooner or later something awful seems to go wrong with contracts, leading to cost over-runs, disputes, etc.

Helpfully, the company does today quantify the likely outcome for the year;

As…

Unlock this article instantly by logging into your account

Don’t have an account? Register for free and we’ll get out your way

Disclaimer:  

As per our Terms of Use, Stockopedia is a financial news & data site, discussion forum and content aggregator. Our site should be used for educational & informational purposes only. We do not provide investment advice, recommendations or views as to whether an investment or strategy is suited to the investment needs of a specific individual. You should make your own decisions and seek independent professional advice before doing so. Remember: Shares can go down as well as up. Past performance is not a guide to future performance & investors may not get back the amount invested. ?>


Do you like this Post?
Yes
No
66 thumbs up
2 thumbs down
Share this post with friends



Bilby Plc is a building services company serving local authorities, housing associations and domestic customers. The Company operates through provision of support services segment. It provides outsourced services to the public and private sectors. The Company and its subsidiaries operate in the gas heating, electrical and general building services industries. The Company's building services include internal and external building maintenance, refurbishment and conversion projects, living solutions, domestic and commercial plumbing, bathroom plumbing and installations, ground works and roofing. Its electrical services include testing and commissioning services, and installations. Its gas services include servicing and repairs, fault finding, system upgrades, meter connections, full central heating systems, boiler installations and cooker installations. The Company is a holding company for P & R Installation Co Ltd, Purdy Contracts Ltd, DCB (Kent) Ltd and Spokemead Maintenance Ltd. more »

LSE Price
48p
Change
-2.0%
Mkt Cap (£m)
19.5
P/E (fwd)
3.4
Yield (fwd)
6.8

Swallowfield plc is a United Kingdom-based company, which is engaged in the development, formulation and supply of personal care and beauty products. The Company has presence across other European Union countries and rest of the world. The Company offers its products in various product types, such as personal care aerosols, hot pour, premium liquids/tubes/roll-ons, fragrance and gifting, and color cosmetics and pencils. The Company's manufacturing, filling and aerosol packaging capabilities include traditional system in tin-plate or aluminum cans to bi-compartmental systems, such as bag on valve (BOV) and bag in can (BIC). The Company offers its products in various brands, such as TRU SHAVE and MR JAMIE STEVENS. The Company offers a range of services, such as project management, sourcing, manufacturing and logistics. The Company offers warehouse facilities for chemicals, raw materials and finished goods, as well as a global distribution network capable of bespoke delivery. more »

LSE Price
190p
Change
 
Mkt Cap (£m)
32.6
P/E (fwd)
7.1
Yield (fwd)
3.9

SimplyBiz Group PLC is a United Kingdom-based company, which provides business support and financial market services. The Company provides with access to advice on a range of financial needs, from mortgages protection, to investments, estate planning and taxation. The Company provides guidance and support from a regulatory perspective and provides access to business development support, such as technology solutions, marketing and events. The Company has partnered with insurance, investment and mortgage providers. more »

LSE Price
225p
Change
3.0%
Mkt Cap (£m)
217.8
P/E (fwd)
17.0
Yield (fwd)
1.9



  Is LON:BILB fundamentally strong or weak? Find out More »


47 Comments on this Article show/hide all

Camtab 5th Mar 28 of 47
1

Did all the BKS holders see the attached presentation. Very good.

https://www.piworld.co.uk/2019/03/04/beeks-financial-cloud-bks-h1-results-february-2019/

| Link | Share
DJCP 5th Mar 29 of 47
4

In reply to post #454983

@mrosbiston (#27) re City Financial share holdings.

@Luthrin posted about this on Friday's SCVR (post #65) which has a couple of links
https://www.stockopedia.com/content/small-cap-value-report-fri-1-march-2019-duke-rbg-rmv-453208/#comments

This may also be of use - searching for City Financial words on RNSs :
https://investegate.co.uk/Index.aspx?searchtype=1&words=city+financial

| Link | Share | 1 reply
davidjhill 5th Mar 31 of 47
2

In reply to post #455028

Thanks Rhomboid - useful.

I will bet that the 1.4m of Somero Enterprises Inc (LON:SOM) shares dumped in the market and causing the 8% drop that got discussed briefly here was them then!! Glad I topped up on the drop now :)

| Link | Share
ISAallowance 5th Mar 32 of 47
4

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned 4imprint (LON:FOUR) yet, which announced final results today. At a market cap of £572m it's only just out of small cap territory. In summary, revenue up 18% (organic growth), PBT up 9%, EPS up 22%, dividend up 25%. They make promotional material (company branded mugs, pens, etc) and have largely US sales.

EPS +22% was greater than PBT +9% largely due to the US tax changes resulting in effective tax rate of 20% vs prior year 29%.

PBT +9% was lower than revenue +18% due to reduction in operating margin from approx 6.6% to 6.1%. They address this in the results and state it is due to a ramp up in brand advertising this year.

They sound confident in the future, and are increasing distribution capacity in Wisconsin to support further growth.

Balance sheet is sound, with net cash and net tangible assets.  There is a pension deficit, but not large in the context of the company size, and the scheme is closed.

Chart looks great, with a pop from a base on results today, and a steady but slowing rise over the last few years.

The Stockopedia computers like it, with a stockrank of 89, and high-flyer classification.

I don't hold, but am considering taking a starter position tomorrow. Any thoughts welcome before I commit!

| Link | Share
shauniekent 5th Mar 33 of 47
1

In reply to post #454953

These articles were interesting and some of the best refutation of blockchain that i've read. I'm fundamentally bullish on bitcoin, the more i learn on the subject the more my conviction grows. And i'll mention that i am the kind of person who looks for hype in the stocknarkets and shorts it :-) Like any wise investor though i seek out the criticisms and as yet i havent found anything to alter my fundamental conviction.

Id encourage anyone with the time to understand Bitcoin more. Be careful to differentiate between Bitcoin and other blockchains.... they are almost entirely get rich schemes following on bitcoins coattails. Bear this in mind while reading the articles because some of the criticism is rightfully levelled at some blockchains but doesn't hold true against Bitcoin.

I wont bore people with in depth responses to the articles key criticisms but as a theme many related to the 'on and off ramps' to bitcoin rather than the bitcoin blockchain itself. We are still early days and the related infrastructure and services are in their infancy. Wait until these are mature and you'll have missed the investment opportunity.

Oh and just one more thing which is a key point to understanding Bitcoins value. It is a store of value first, payment system second.

All the best,
Shaun

| Link | Share | 2 replies
Nick Ray 6th Mar 34 of 47
1

In reply to post #455043

I'd suggest people listen to the piworld podcast before rushing to judgment. Bitcoin and blockchains get fairly short shrift before getting into the meat of Erik's arguments. Cryptocurrencies are not what is being promoted.

| Link | Share | 1 reply
FREng 6th Mar 35 of 47
13

In reply to post #455043

For anyone who wants to understand how bitcoin and the blockchain work, my Gresham College lecture is online. The slides from the lecture are also online and I wrote an accompanying paper that gives all the references (and takes less time to read than listening to me talk).

I think that distributed ledgers such as blockchain will be important and there will probably always be some "cryptocurrencies", but I very much doubt whether Bitcoin itself will remain significant other than as the trailblazer.

All these technologies depend crucially on the security and correctness of the software that has been written to implement them, and none of the existing blockchains and wallets have used provably correct software development methods such as those used for military secure systems and for the iFACTS air traffic control system. So they almost certainly contain errors, as the users of several cybercurrencies have already discovered to their cost.

If you treat Bitcoin as a "store of value" you are betting that no-one discovers how to exploit these  software errors.

Personally, I wouldn't make that bet.

| Link | Share | 1 reply
mrosbiston 6th Mar 36 of 47

In reply to post #455028

thanks very much all

The exposure to Ten Entertainment (LON:TEG) sticks out to me


| Link | Share
JezWhy 6th Mar 37 of 47

In reply to post #454968

"(Books do not make a lot of money)" - listened to the Radio 4 money box podcast about authors writing for a living and they interviewed Mark Dawson, he writes through Amazon and is making over 7 figures a year he says - nice money! https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002ml5

| Link | Share
simoan 6th Mar 38 of 47
1

In reply to post #455053

I'd suggest people listen to the piworld podcast before rushing to judgment. Bitcoin and blockchains get fairly short shrift before getting into the meat of Erik's arguments. Cryptocurrencies are not what is being promoted.

I did but unfortunately my BS detector exploded. What Erik and many other people who come at this from a technology standpoint fail to understand is the importance of trust. That is the reason I provided a link to the Schneier article in Wired. 

We live in a world where trust is decreasing by the day, not increasing, so it is difficult to see anything worthwhile happening in my lifetime. Any financial system has to be built on trust and if you thought Brexit was difficult to negotiate just imagine sitting the EU, Chinese, Russians and Americans round a table to agree on an international digital currency.

Who knows.. by the time anything worthwhile comes to fruition it will probably be made worthless by the widespread availability of Quantum computers!

All the best, Si

| Link | Share | 1 reply
timarr 7th Mar 39 of 47
2

In reply to post #455348

Hi Si

Who knows.. by the time anything worthwhile comes to fruition it will probably be made worthless by the widespread availability of Quantum computers

Indeed, I'm fully expecting this to be the next big thing :)

I'm not quite so pessimistic as you on blockchain. Schneier is correct, as usual, on the nature of trust in blockchain systems - if trust is dependent on technology then you're ultimately trusting the developers of the technology. And having worked around a few software houses I'd rather not, if you don't mind.

However, where I think he's wrong is by setting one standard for existing technology and another for blockchain. Partly that's because of the hype around blockchain, but there's no reason we should expect it to be better or worse in implementation terms than any other technology. If we set aside the "bigger trust in technology" issue and think about it in pure implementation terms the question is whether there are reasons for preferring blockchain over existing technology in any specific use case.

In many cases - as Schneier points out - the answer is no, you can use a big database and achieve similar results, at less cost. But there are situations where blockchain does look like it offers some advantages. In the UK, for instance, the FCA is looking at blockchain based audit which would allow automated analysis of company accounts. There are certain features of that situation that are appealing - in particular there's minimal downside to a problem with coding; basically it'll throw up false positives. And if helped catch issues like those at Patisserie Holdings (LON:CAKE) then it would be a valuable addition to our current armory of tools.

Another area where it looks like it may offer distinct advantages are where you have complex internetworking - each network boundary introduces translation issues (and therefore potential technology failures) and additional costs. Again this needs to be backed up by regulation, as part of the total trust environment, you can't simply rely on technology.

I'm not a starry eyed enthusiast by any means - and I think unregulated cryptocurrencies are unicorn faeces - but if you strip away the hype and treat blockchain as another tool which in certain circumstances is beneficial then you can find genuine opportunities, On the other hand, leaping on those as "proof" of its general applicability would also be nonsense - horses for courses, and all that jazz.

timarr

| Link | Share
simoan 9th Mar 40 of 47
1

In reply to post #455128

Hi FrEng,

For anyone who wants to understand how bitcoin and the blockchain work, my Gresham College lecture is online. The slides from the lecture are also online and I wrote an accompanying paper that gives all the references (and takes less time to read than listening to me talk).

A very interesting talk and a good introduction to bitcoin and DLT for lay people, so thanks for posting the link. It was probably as good a description of how digital signatures work as I have seen although I hope you use your own personally generated key pair with your email to avoid weak primes :-). My own interest in blockchain applications id via my day job in particulars from the cryptographic algorithm and data security side of things, and more latterly the privacy and trust aspects of (supposedly) secure systems. 

All these technologies depend crucially on the security and correctness of the software that has been written to implement them, and none of the existing blockchains and wallets have used provably correct software development methods such as those used for military secure systems and for the iFACTS air traffic control system. So they almost certainly contain errors, as the users of several cybercurrencies have already discovered to their cost.

I would add that even more importantly ALL software-based technologies like blockchain depend on the security and correctness of the hardware platforms on which the software runs. This is not a given. As someone interested in cybersecurity you will only be too aware of the subversion of hardware by state actors, in particular those highlighted by Snowden. What state actors can do today, criminal gangs will be able do tomorrow. If you can't trust the hardware, then by definition you cannot trust the software that runs on it.

I completely agree with Schneier here - trust is absolutely critical to adoption of blockchain technology, and yet in reality, provably 100% trustworthy hardware and software is very very difficult to achieve. I can maybe see some private type blockchain applications taking hold, particularly where there is no financial incentive to subvert them but I can't ever see the widespread adoption of a digital currency standard in my lifetime (and I'm not that old!). There are of course privacy aspects to all of this and I would not be happy to have my own personal details transmitted in the clear on a public blockchain. I dare say that any government use of blockchain will also not include the option to opt out. 

I would be interested to here your thoughts on the Schneier article and the options for investing in DLT technology (for those readers interested), if you have the time.

All the best, Si

| Link | Share
simoan 9th Mar 41 of 47
1

FREng,

Sorry, but in my previous post I meant to reference unintended hardware attacks. Until the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities were discovered, no-one mistrusted the Intel and ARM CPUs that most of our digital lives depend on.

https://meltdownattack.com/

And then with regard to hardware subversion we have the ongoing Huawei saga. It seems to me we live in a world where trust is deteriorating, and in that environment I do not see blockchain/DLT flourishing.

All the best, Si

| Link | Share | 1 reply
timarr 9th Mar 42 of 47
1

In reply to post #456423

Hi Si

How is blockchain different from any other transactional technology? They're all built out of hardware and software developed by inefficient humans. They're all flawed, but that doesn't stop us using chip cards or relying on cryptography or smartphones, etc, etc. because we have to balance security against convenience. Otherwise we'd still be sending people out on horseback to courier bearer bonds and contending with a plague of highwaymen.

In the end blockchain is just a ledger with some interesting properties which can be deployed in a number of different ways. In some situations it's probably better than existing technologies, in many it isn't.

timarr

P.S. You can't put an identity on a blockchain because it's irrepudiatable. Under GDPR we have the right to be forgotten, which is tricky if you can't delete the ledger record. So we're all safe until March 29th, at least :)

| Link | Share | 1 reply
simoan 10th Mar 43 of 47
1

In reply to post #456428

How is blockchain different from any other transactional technology? They're all built out of hardware and software developed by inefficient humans. They're all flawed, but that doesn't stop us using chip cards or relying on cryptography or smartphones,

Because it is distributed and (in theory at least) no-one takes ultimate responsibility for fraudulent transactions and more importantly these transactions cannot be undone. I don't know about you but despite my best efforts I've had fraudulent transactions on my credit card and I still use it to make internet purchases because I know the card issuer is going to cover any losses. Were that not the case I may be less inclined to use it. However, I presume you are referring to the use of blockchain where such an institution still plays this role?

The point I was making to FREng about hardware was really just to remind him that software does not run in splendid isolation. I apologise, it's an old habit having spent the past 30 years reminding software engineers of this fact :-) Actually, one of the strengths of blockchain is that verification takes place across multiple nodes using a range of different hardware and software platforms. However, if someone just happens to get hold of your personal keys by hacking your platform, that's not going to be much consolation, so the risks are real.

In the end blockchain is just a ledger with some interesting properties which can be deployed in a number of different ways. In some situations it's probably better than existing technologies, in many it isn't.

I agree. I said I could see DLT being deployed in some private, non financial applications. I can definitely see it being useful where there is no financial incentive to gain the system and so the cost of doing so is not worth the effort. For currencies though the situation is different... I can just see a Bond film where the villain strokes his cat and hits a return key to steal all the money in the world and bring down the entire global financial system :-)

P.S. You can't put an identity on a blockchain because it's irrepudiatable. Under GDPR we have the right to be forgotten, which is tricky if you can't delete the ledger record. So we're all safe until March 29th, at least :)

This is my concern, and of course, we already have the Investigatory Powers Act. However, you don't have to explicitly identify someone to provide information about them and what they are doing. A public blockchain is a perfect way to do traffic analysis in the same way that messaging metadata can provide as much information as the content of the message itself.

All the best, Si

| Link | Share | 1 reply
timarr 10th Mar 44 of 47
4

In reply to post #456458

Hi Si

Well, "blockchain" is a technology that can employed in a wide range of ways. There's a taxonomy of different types, as outlined in the diagram in this article:

https://www.chyp.com/a-legacy-...

Bitcoin runs on a double permissionless public ledger - the ledger is public and integrity is maintained because users are incentivised to do on the ledger, via rewards for mining. But there are other types - particularly private ones like Bankchain (a private, permissioned ledger) or Ripple (a private, privileged ledger). Even within public ledgers there are a range of possible consensus mechanisms, the Bitcoin variety is an example of a type, not an invariant model.

The point I'd make is you can't extrapolate from the flaws of a Bitcoin style public. double permissioned proof-of-work variety blockchain to all blockchain technology. Most of the investment is going into other areas or even into different consensus mechanisms that are less vulnerable.

Bitcoin style blockchains are popular because neo-liberal, anti-authoritarian activists see them as a way of achieving trust without needing a central counterparty. This is good, because they're putting their money into ridiculously risky schemes and will lose it all, and thus pose less of a threat to society. It's bad, because it's obscuring the value of the technology and people conflate the Bitcoin style blockchain with all blockchains.

As a general point unregulated cryptocurrency is an idiotic idea for many reasons of which your point on reversals is only one: after all reversals are only possible on credit cards because Visa and Mastercard make it so. There are still two underlying ledger entries - a debit and a credit. The first one doesn't cancel the second out, they both still happened, the ledger is a record of what happened, not the eventual outcome.

And as for identity, the triangulation of data to determine identity as you describe should be outlawed by the ePrivacy Regulation, which is an extension to GDPR. But all technology is flawed, and no doubt someone will find something. But that's what happens when people and technology collide: things go wrong, it gets patched. C'est la vie.

timarr

| Link | Share | 1 reply
simoan 11th Mar 45 of 47

In reply to post #456508

Hi timarr,

Well, "blockchain" is a technology that can employed in a wide range of ways. There's a taxonomy of different types, as outlined in the diagram in this article:

https://www.chyp.com/a-legacy-...

Bitcoin runs on a double permissionless public ledger - the ledger is public and integrity is maintained because users are incentivised to do on the ledger, via rewards for mining. But there are other types - particularly private ones like Bankchain (a private, permissioned ledger) or Ripple (a private, privileged ledger). Even within public ledgers there are a range of possible consensus mechanisms, the Bitcoin variety is an example of a type, not an invariant model.

Yes, I understand there are different approaches and consensus mechanisms of which bitcoin is just one. However, I think for most applications there is some kind of viable alternative to using even a private blockchain with permissions/privileges, so I still pretty much concur with Schneier when he says:

Private blockchains are completely uninteresting. (By this, I mean systems that use the blockchain data structure but don't have the above three elements.) In general, they have some external limitation on who can interact with the blockchain and its features. These are not anything new; they're distributed append-only data structures with a list of individuals authorized to add to it. .... They're blockchains in name only, and -- as far as I can tell -- the only reason to operate one is to ride on the blockchain hype.

I know you don't agree, so we'll have to beg to differ on this point. I can understand why people like the FCA are looking at use of blockchain (particularly for financial compliance and regulation purposes) but as things stand this does not seem very well advanced, it is still a technology looking for a killer application. And let's face it, it is not exactly a new technology - just new to a number of bandwagon followers. In that respect, the hype around it is not currently well founded.

And as for identity, the triangulation of data to determine identity as you describe should be outlawed by the ePrivacy Regulation, which is an extension to GDPR. But all technology is flawed, and no doubt someone will find something. But that's what happens when people and technology collide: things go wrong, it gets patched. 

Obviously, your faith in regulation is far greater than mine. And of course, to patch something you need to know there is a bug in the first place. No-one really knows if the Meltdown and Spectre bugs had been utilised before found comparatively recently by Google researchers. Seeing that the bug had been present in Intel CPUs for many years I think it would be naive to assume someone had not already found and used it. 

C'est la vie.

I don't think most users can accept this "shit happens, so what?" approach to the deployment of technology in the real-world, and certainly not the customers I work with. For public blockchain applications it's not really much of a selling point is it? :-) Especially if by deploying it you are putting information into the public domain that was not previously public and/or easily accessible. This leads to potential reputational risk, breach of customer trust, and ensuing litigation for banks, corporations etc., and at the very least gross privacy invasion if incorrectly used by governments.

All the best, Si

| Link | Share
timarr 11th Mar 46 of 47
1

Hi Si

Clearly no point in going round the houses with you on this one. However on this:

I don't think most users can accept this "shit happens, so what?" approach to the deployment of technology in the real-world, and certainly not the customers I work with.

You're wrong - there's never been a perfect technology released and there never will be. Users value convenience over security and expect that someone will fix things when it goes wrong. When the thing that goes wrong is regulated - such as the use of chip & PIN cards - then they're right. When the thing that goes wrong is unregulated - such as Bitcoin or any of its progeny - then they're wrong.

If we only issued perfect technology we'd still be looking at the lever and wondering how to get rid of the pivot :-)

timarr

| Link | Share
simoan 11th Mar 47 of 47

You're wrong - there's never been a perfect technology released and there never will be. Users value convenience over security and expect that someone will fix things when it goes wrong. 

Sorry I was not making a case for perfect technology!! That's a ridiculous assertion. As an engineer I know full well it does not and never will exist. The point I was trying to make is that everything in life has a risk and reward trade-off and the deployment of blockchain technology is no different. When I say "users" I was referring to the corporations and governments that may deploy a blockchain (not their customers, consumers, population etc.). If they fear that reputational risk is too high, particularly in being an early adopter, then the technology will never take off or at the very least it will take far longer to reach critical mass than all the evangelists predict.  We see this time and time again with newer technology. 

As you say, not much point in debating this further. This is after all an investment blog and the bottom line is there is absolutely no investment angle to this unless you want trade cryptocurrency or buy shares in IBM et al.

If we only issued perfect technology we'd still be looking at the lever and wondering how to get rid of the pivot :-)

Yes, but please don't try and paint me as some kind of luddite. There's a world of difference between between a pragmatist/realist and someone that doesn't believe in technology. 

All the best, Si  

| Link | Share

Please subscribe to submit a comment



 Are LON:BILB's fundamentals sound as an investment? Find out More »



About Paul Scott

Paul Scott

I trained as an accountant with a Top 5 firm, but that was so boring that I spent too much time in the 1990s being a disco bunny, and busting moves on the dancefloor, and chilling out with mates back at either my house or theirs, and having a lot of fun!Then spent 8 years as FD for a ladieswear retail chain called "Pilot", leaving on great terms in 2002 - having been a key player in growing the business 10 fold. If the truth be told, I partied pretty hard at the weekends too, so bank reconciliations on Monday mornings were more luck than judgement!! But they were always correct.I got bored with that and decided to become a professional small caps investor in 2002. I made millions, but got too cocky, and lost the lot in 2008, due to excessive gearing. A miserable, wilderness period occurred from 2008-2012.Since then, the sun has begun to shine again! I am now utterly briliant again, and immerse myself in small caps, and am a walking encyclopedia on the subject. I love writing a daily report for Stockopedia.com on most weekday mornings, constantly researching daily results & trading updates for small caps. Cheese! more »

Follow



Stock Picking Tutorial Centre



Let’s get you setup so you get the most out of our service
Done, Let's add some stocks
Brilliant - You've created a folio! Now let's add some stocks to it.

  • Apple (AAPL)

  • Shell (RDSA)

  • Twitter (TWTR)

  • Volkswagon AG (VOK)

  • McDonalds (MCD)

  • Vodafone (VOD)

  • Barratt Homes (BDEV)

  • Microsoft (MSFT)

  • Tesco (TSCO)
Save and show me my analysis