Firstly liquidity – as an investor said to me recently, “If shareholders are concerned
about getting in because there’s insufficient liquidity to get out, they aren’t the sort
of shareholders you want.” Another said “there’s just not an opportunity to get set”.
Interesting perspectives! Unfortunately there isn’t much we can do about liquidity.
We have 15.4 million shares on issue and given we have focused primarily on
organic growth, this capital structure is not easily changed.
Yep turning 10K into half a million over the last 10 years is way boring. Yawwwn. Nothing to see here move on.Not sure what the CAGR is but must be too booring
maybe I should research some guys drilling holes in the ground hoping to find something to dig up.
we are up to page: 34 on the TZL thread
If I own 1 share at $11.50 or 10 shares at $1.15 after the split I would be very happy either way with the 7% plus and growing dividend yield. Sp appreciation is almost certain to folllow.
Hi robusta
In theory the share split should make no difference. But in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
I'm wondering if the increased liquidity will lead to some degree of PE expansion. In one way this would be a bit of a shame because despite DTL's historical performance it has always remained relatively cheap which is great for ploughing the dividends back in.
I’m wondering why they have chosen to increase liquidity now – Is it about keeping fund managers happy as it approaches possible inclusion in the ASX300 or is about something else – I noticed two directors selling in August, does that have any relevance?
10 Year total return charts from Morningstar’s FinAnalysis.Off-topic - but craft, what are you using to generate the company vs asx historical graphs?
That’s the million dollar question - perhaps literally. All I can safely say is that I’m comfortable holding and even topping up based on currently known information. Who knows what tomorrow will bring – certainly not me.do you think the growth can continue into the future at anywhere near the historical average?
I had a peek at this company as it came up on my scan, but i decided against it as I dont really understand how the company will fare in the changing tech environment (the cloud etc).
Would be very interested to hear from people more familiar with the workings (both positive and negative) of the company and the most likely future direction of it as technology moves away from 'physical' software.
Hi R&R Last years AGM presentation had a section which addressed concerns a prospective investor might have. Well worth a read to get the companies perspective, cloud computing is considered page 23-25.
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101105/pdf/31tpybvtsylsds.pdf
That aside I still have reservations about the future of the space this company operates in. Technology wise.
DTL has a very low fixed capital requirement. It funds it growth through its working capital. Take out the working capital (current assets and liabilities) then do an ROA calculation. It doesn't require long-term debt or equity injection to fund its operations or growth due to this tremendous cashflow provided by working capital alone.I guess that there's something that I don't understand
ROA = 9%
ROE = 50%
Net Margin 2.2
Asset Turnover 4.2
Financial Leverage 5.5
Yet very little debt (?)
If so why is it called 'financial leverage'?
cheers
tk
DTL has a very low fixed capital requirement. It funds it growth through its working capital. Take out the working capital (current assets and liabilities) then do an ROA calculation. It doesn't require long-term debt or equity injection to fund its operations or growth due to this tremendous cashflow provided by working capital alone.
$56 million cash at last reporting date compared to $30 million in equity. Does this help?
Look at net profit or sales compared to fixed assets. Working capital is in a constant state of flux and can be recycled many times per period.
Operating margin is low because it is a low-cost base, high-variable cost service provider. DTL focuses on cost leadership & high volume of transactions.
I guess that using the Dupont equation, DTL comes out with high leverage simply because they have high current liabilities - so in a way they are borrowing from their suppliers. Is this right? Or should I be asking in a different forum where they discuss these things - any suggestions?
Is this considered a good type of leverage compared to long-term debt where the company would have to be paying interest? Is DTL particularly good compared to other companies in not paying suppliers straightaway?
It's much better to use your suppliers to finance your operations than to use debt. You get ~30 days to pay and you're not charged interest. A lot of high turnover retailers (supermarkets, Reject Shop etc) will often have negative working capital because their suppliers are funding it.
A company's ability to use their suppliers to create float is really dependent on what they are selling and how long it takes to transform what their suppliers sell them into whatever they want to sell.
Thanks for that. So I think I'm understanding that a high ROE due to high leverage is good provided that that the high leverage isn't because of a lot of long-term borrowing which increases risk.
Should one look for other companies like DTL in this respect? I was thinking that one would easily screen for them by looking for
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?