- Joined
- 6 July 2010
- Posts
- 279
- Reactions
- 3
Thanks
TGA - Thorn Group
- Thread starter McCoy Pauley
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tga thorn group
I have been spruiking up TGA for so long, I must sound like a broken record. Since 2007 until a few days ago, I have been a regular buyer, having bought eighteen times at prices ranging from 55 cents to $2.03, to average $1.07. I have never sold TGA, and at last count I have 348,500 – 167,000 in my SMSF and 181,500 held in my own name. I mention these facts so that you know that I am a serious investor in TGA, and you can be reasonably sure that I watch TGA like a hawk, especially as my enthusiasm for TGA is not shared by many investors who are not slouches, and I perennially wonder if I am out of step.
Opinions on the value of TGA range roughly from $1.50 to about $3.00. The differences of opinion stem from differences of perception about the dynamics of the TGA business model, and to a much lesser degree the metrics used.
Let us first clarify the metrics. The profit after tax was $22,038,000, but the one-off NCML acquisition costs were $1 million, so the normalised profit was approximately $23,038,000. The weighted average number of shareholders at 31/03/2011 was 130,737,000, and hence the normalised EPS is 17.622 cents. The ROE is 26.07%, calculated thus:
Earnings YE 31/3/2011 -- $23,038,000
Equity - start of year ---- $81,767,000
Equity – end of year ----- $95,003,000
Average Equity ----------- $88,385,000
Earnings/Av Equity (ROE) ---- 26.07%
If one uses PER to guesstimate an intrinsic value for TGA, then if one thought it was a risky stock, one might use a PER of 9, and the EPS of 16.9 cents as shown in the Morningstar figures one sees via Comsec and Westpac, then one could derive a value of 9 x $.169 = $1.52. The basic EPS mentioned in the TGA report for YE 31/3/2011 is 17.01 cents, and the diluted EPS 16.86 cents, so using either of these makes a minor difference of about a cent. Using the normalised EPS of 17.622 cents times 9 gives $1.59. This normalised EPS is the sensible figure to use, so let us now see how the guesstimated intrinsic value would vary by using different PERs:
PER -------- EPS $ ------ Value Share $
9 ----------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.59
10 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.76
11 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.94
12 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.11
13 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.29
14 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.47
14 .5 ------ 0.17622 -------------- 2.56
15 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.64
What PER is apt for TGA? A high one in my view, because the business has been around for over 70 years, it has an ASX record of steady and growing EPS, it has a good ROE of 26%, its income is substantially contracted rental streams with a history of very low default and on average these commitments have over two years to run, its customer demographic is little impacted by the rate of interest, the Australia-centric nature of the business obviates currency risks, and for the first time TGA's management have stated that the year ending 31/03/2012 will be excellent (to quote: “. . . the company expects a substantial increase in earnings in the financial year ending 31 March 2012 due to a full year contribution from the acquisition of NCML and solid organic earnings growth from the existing business.”). I could go on pointing out the unique strengths of TGA – the sole purposeof which is to ensure that you select an appropriate PER, if that is what you use, or the appropriate internal rate of return (RR), if you guesstimate intrisic value using RR as part of the calculation.
I pulled out a few good shares last night to see what PER is now applicable to them – to wit:
---------- SP ----- PER
UGL ---- 15.23 --15.55
WOW -- 27.38 -- 15.56
TRS ---- 10.60 --14.07
JBH ---- 16.53 -- 13.59
MMS --- 10.20 -- 17.84
MTU ----- 3.45 -- 14.2
Average PER -- 15.135
All the above suggests to me that TGA is at least worth $2.50 using a simple PER approach.
If you divide the ROE by a required rate of return (RR) to arrive at a factor to uplift the Book Value (Equity per share) to arrive at an intrinsic value, then the RR that you select will make a huge difference to what you think TGA is worth. In simple terms, ignoring retained earnings, you get the following results in respect of TGA. The average equity for TGA for the year was 67.61 cents per share, so if you use an RR of 10%, and an ROE of 26.07%, then the factor would be 2.6, which multiplied by 67.61 cents gives a share price of $1.76.
However, if the company retains 50% of the earnings, the factor increases. By my calculations Roger Montgomery should (but does not) arrive at a factor of about 4.1123 (the decimals are not intended to convey conviction), and multiplying that by 67.71 cents gives $2.78. Roger recently wrote that he valued TGA at $1.57, which is what would happen if one used an RR of about 14% (I have not double checked this – suffice to write that one can get at any value by simply adjusting the RR). If I could get 14% from a bank, I would not bother investing in the ASX, I would put the lot in the bank and live of the interest, and hence I think that for TGA, a 10% RR is reasonable. Do your own research, and select your own RR.
I think TGA falls within Roger's top 20 ASX-listed companies, and he classifies it as an A1 company, which in itself suggests a low RR. I am a bit surprised at the low intrinsic value that he has calculated for TGA.
As I have written before, I think TGA is worth something north of $2.50. Some people think it is worth $3.00, and some about $1.50. Let us see what Mr Market decides in coming months.
Opinions on the value of TGA range roughly from $1.50 to about $3.00. The differences of opinion stem from differences of perception about the dynamics of the TGA business model, and to a much lesser degree the metrics used.
Let us first clarify the metrics. The profit after tax was $22,038,000, but the one-off NCML acquisition costs were $1 million, so the normalised profit was approximately $23,038,000. The weighted average number of shareholders at 31/03/2011 was 130,737,000, and hence the normalised EPS is 17.622 cents. The ROE is 26.07%, calculated thus:
Earnings YE 31/3/2011 -- $23,038,000
Equity - start of year ---- $81,767,000
Equity – end of year ----- $95,003,000
Average Equity ----------- $88,385,000
Earnings/Av Equity (ROE) ---- 26.07%
If one uses PER to guesstimate an intrinsic value for TGA, then if one thought it was a risky stock, one might use a PER of 9, and the EPS of 16.9 cents as shown in the Morningstar figures one sees via Comsec and Westpac, then one could derive a value of 9 x $.169 = $1.52. The basic EPS mentioned in the TGA report for YE 31/3/2011 is 17.01 cents, and the diluted EPS 16.86 cents, so using either of these makes a minor difference of about a cent. Using the normalised EPS of 17.622 cents times 9 gives $1.59. This normalised EPS is the sensible figure to use, so let us now see how the guesstimated intrinsic value would vary by using different PERs:
PER -------- EPS $ ------ Value Share $
9 ----------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.59
10 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.76
11 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 1.94
12 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.11
13 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.29
14 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.47
14 .5 ------ 0.17622 -------------- 2.56
15 --------- 0.17622 -------------- 2.64
What PER is apt for TGA? A high one in my view, because the business has been around for over 70 years, it has an ASX record of steady and growing EPS, it has a good ROE of 26%, its income is substantially contracted rental streams with a history of very low default and on average these commitments have over two years to run, its customer demographic is little impacted by the rate of interest, the Australia-centric nature of the business obviates currency risks, and for the first time TGA's management have stated that the year ending 31/03/2012 will be excellent (to quote: “. . . the company expects a substantial increase in earnings in the financial year ending 31 March 2012 due to a full year contribution from the acquisition of NCML and solid organic earnings growth from the existing business.”). I could go on pointing out the unique strengths of TGA – the sole purposeof which is to ensure that you select an appropriate PER, if that is what you use, or the appropriate internal rate of return (RR), if you guesstimate intrisic value using RR as part of the calculation.
I pulled out a few good shares last night to see what PER is now applicable to them – to wit:
---------- SP ----- PER
UGL ---- 15.23 --15.55
WOW -- 27.38 -- 15.56
TRS ---- 10.60 --14.07
JBH ---- 16.53 -- 13.59
MMS --- 10.20 -- 17.84
MTU ----- 3.45 -- 14.2
Average PER -- 15.135
All the above suggests to me that TGA is at least worth $2.50 using a simple PER approach.
If you divide the ROE by a required rate of return (RR) to arrive at a factor to uplift the Book Value (Equity per share) to arrive at an intrinsic value, then the RR that you select will make a huge difference to what you think TGA is worth. In simple terms, ignoring retained earnings, you get the following results in respect of TGA. The average equity for TGA for the year was 67.61 cents per share, so if you use an RR of 10%, and an ROE of 26.07%, then the factor would be 2.6, which multiplied by 67.61 cents gives a share price of $1.76.
However, if the company retains 50% of the earnings, the factor increases. By my calculations Roger Montgomery should (but does not) arrive at a factor of about 4.1123 (the decimals are not intended to convey conviction), and multiplying that by 67.71 cents gives $2.78. Roger recently wrote that he valued TGA at $1.57, which is what would happen if one used an RR of about 14% (I have not double checked this – suffice to write that one can get at any value by simply adjusting the RR). If I could get 14% from a bank, I would not bother investing in the ASX, I would put the lot in the bank and live of the interest, and hence I think that for TGA, a 10% RR is reasonable. Do your own research, and select your own RR.
I think TGA falls within Roger's top 20 ASX-listed companies, and he classifies it as an A1 company, which in itself suggests a low RR. I am a bit surprised at the low intrinsic value that he has calculated for TGA.
As I have written before, I think TGA is worth something north of $2.50. Some people think it is worth $3.00, and some about $1.50. Let us see what Mr Market decides in coming months.
- Joined
- 30 November 2010
- Posts
- 337
- Reactions
- 0
Yes the RR significantly affects the IV. 14 percent is on the high side but I think the RR is used discretionarily based on any number of factors. eg competitive advantage, barriers to entry, track record, industry etc
I get 2.10 as the current IV using 14percent RR.
skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
Great post and thanks for sharing.
Personally I would value TGA using a PEG of 1. Given that they are growing NPAT at ~15%, a PE of 15 and value of $2.6 seems fair. This obviously is subjected to them maintaining their growth...
Careful with your list of comparables - while they are all good companies, they have vastly different risk and growth profiles (e.g. UGL is in engineering, building trains with the biggest risk being project stuff up, while MMS does salary packaging with the biggest risk being regulation changes).
I did not select companies with the same profile as TGA, in part because I have trouble even thinking of one, and the ones I picked probably do not have on aggregate the positive qualities of TGA. I had written such a long post that I did not exhaust all TGA's good points - it's a stock from heaven. All I want to imply is that TGA should enjoy a high PER.
On the negative side TGA is a small cap, and for the big boys, there is not enough volume traded daily, and hence they give TGA less focus than it deserves, which mutes its SP. This is one reason why we little guys can outperform the instos - we can find gems like TGA, and invest in dollops large enough for us, and get good returns. As TGA grows and its track record lengthens, the instos will dribble in.
Anyhow, I am pleased that you concur that TGA is worth more than my bottom-line $2.50. The 24/5/11 dated presentation has the NPAT growing over the last four years at a CAGR (for 2007-2011)= 36.9% - higher than you wrote.
How many companies have an SP equal to or lower than their intrinsic value derived via the Roger Montgomery method using an RR of 14%? I imagine very few, no more than can be counted on the fingers of both hands. If I am right, then we should exit the ASX en masse, or 14% is too high (except for poor stocks). I am trying to arrive at a fair value from the whole-market perspective (a price to which the market should trend over time), not a bargain-basement price that a few lucky investors might stumble onto.
Like you I got in early on this stock and my average buy price with 100,000 is 90.5 cents...I did have 140,000 but sold 40,000 at $2 .28 when they peaked first...invested that into CCV....
TGA has had a rest and with the positive figures and remarks of substantial growth happening gut feel is it can take out the high and then see what happens....a run of 20% after taking out the high doesn't seem outlandish to me....It's in a growth phase do the figures another 10 Mil on the loan book at 38%...all those people renting flat panels can borrow money as well...plenty of room for growth...it will hit the wall one day but I can't see that happening for a while.
I see this as a plus, for a small cap to be rated so well. Has lots of potential.
Another company thats way under its IV at the moment is ZGL, Zicom.
In addition VOC, Vocus.
They are about the only 2 I can think of that are well under IV. Id have bought shares in ZGL today if it wasnt for my lack of knowledge in the company.
VOC im still toying with. I feel like they may go lower as when RM rates a company the prices become artificially inflated.
People seem to get different values using RM's method, so it would be interesting to see the arithmetic. Actually, I think RM's premium for non-dividend paying firms is too high, so I would not be surprised if some folk down-factor it.
The important point for me is what is a reasonable RR for a superb company - one in the top-20 of RM's list of A1 companies? Even RM said he is now holding a great deal of cash, and I would be surprised if he gets half that RR on that money. My view is that to calculate fair value to which we can reasonably expect the market to trend over time, we should use an RR that is reasonable for a premium-quality stock. To arrive at a price that one might want to use to buy bargains, one should use a margin of safety (MOS) factor. That is, use RR to give fair value within the framework of the stock's metrics and the risks, then use a MOS factor to set the buy-n price. This avoids semantic misunderstandings in forums like this.
The factors determining an apt RR, or an apt PER, are very subjective, so one can expect them to vary from investor to investor.
McCoy Pauley
Get out of here Budweiser!
- Joined
- 12 November 2009
- Posts
- 616
- Reactions
- 0
IMO, using a required return rate of 14% for TGA is too conservative for this type of company. Perhaps a higher margin of safety can now be justified due to the debt TGA has taken on to finalise its latest acquisition, but I would be looking at using a RR of 11%-12% for TGA.
- Joined
- 30 November 2010
- Posts
- 337
- Reactions
- 0
IMO, using a required return rate of 14% for TGA is too conservative for this type of company. Perhaps a higher margin of safety can now be justified due to the debt TGA has taken on to finalise its latest acquisition, but I would be looking at using a RR of 11%-12% for TGA.
I agree I reckon it is the debt that is worrying RM and why he has put an RR of 14 percent on TGA.
What is the debt to equity ratio?
Is it published in current data on any of the brokerage sites?
- Joined
- 13 August 2010
- Posts
- 100
- Reactions
- 0
Generally shares are priced on the basis of estimated future earnings or potential, and using a DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) calculation as follows -
Current EPS 17c
Anticipated future increase 12% pa
(Based on an increase of 12% since listing, and a 2010/11 increase of 13%)
DCF valuation would be $2.50.
Current EPS 17c
Anticipated future increase 12% pa
(Based on an increase of 12% since listing, and a 2010/11 increase of 13%)
DCF valuation would be $2.50.
- Joined
- 30 November 2010
- Posts
- 337
- Reactions
- 0
BUt if those earning are debt fuelled then the formula is very misleading.
- Joined
- 13 August 2010
- Posts
- 100
- Reactions
- 0
Not really.
The interest on the debt is already covered prior to calculating NPAT, which is then used in turn to calculate EPS.
- Joined
- 30 November 2010
- Posts
- 337
- Reactions
- 0
If the debt is long term and the interest rate is not fixed then there could well be problems.
This debt issue creates a valuation problem for TGA for me, because the significant metric in my calculations is the normalised EPS of 17.62 for YE 31/3/11 (the actual EPS being 17.01 cents), which arose substantially without contribution from NMCL, whereas the recent debt increase relates to the NCML acquisition, and we expect growth to be increased because of NCML. If one wants to consider the negatives (the debt impact), then it is unreasonable not to include the positives.
The new net debt-to-equity ratio of 28.4% is hardly threatening. This is why I have been disinclined to calculate a value based on YE 31/3/11 EPS and historical growth trajectories that do not accommodate NCML, and then downscale the intrinsic value by increasing the required rate of return because of the increased debt. In effect I simply accept that the acquisition of NCML will do shareholders no harm – a leap of faith, admittedly. If you think management erred, uplift your required rate of return, or pick a lower PER, or change whatever is appropriate for your approach to stock valuations.
TGA's management have averred that they expect the NCML will be EPS accretive in 2012 pre amortisation of intangibles. This suggests TGA will write off some of the NCML-related intangibles in the year ending 31/3/2012, which will lower EPS.
This is all too complicated for a financial primative like me, so I end up by holding that TGA is worth about $2.50, and if I want to buy it cheaply, I would apply a margin of safety of 25%, and buy at $2. If I did not own many TGA shares, and I had idle funds, and I could not find another gem at a 25% discount, then I would continue to buy at prices somewhere between $2.00 and $2.50 – say $2.30.
Just a thought. If NCML cost $30 million, and this was five times EBIT, then NCML should contribute an EBIT of $6 million. If we assume interest would be 10%, the the interest would reduce the profit before tax to $3 million, and the profit after tax should be $2.1 million, or about 1.6 cents a share, which is about 10% on this past year. I think this helps to justifies ignoring NCML and its impact on debt on the basis that it is at worst neutral. If the NCML business morphs well into the whole TGA business with synergies to boot – e.g., utilising debt handling mechanisms and gaining access to new customers – then that will manifest itself in time, and the SP should follow in the long run, and I as a long-term investor should be happy.
TGA's management intend to raise equity to fund the NCML acquisition via a rights issue. I wonder why they bother, because the debt could be whittled away via retained profits fairly quickly. I am unsure how this affects the value one should ascribe to TGA shares today.
The net effect of all this waffle is that I am disinclined to value TGA at a lower value because it acquired NMCL, and to be conservative, I will not uplift the target value either, or at least not now.
PS
Below are some calculations I played with today. I think the factor that Roger M uses for no-dividend situations is too high, and hence the resultant $2.78 intrinsic value is too high, or I have cocked up other calculations. Roger only gets $1.57, so he probably uses a highish required rate of return, but this suggests a PER of 8.9, which I think is too low. The answer, I think is somewhere between $1.57 and $2.78.
Earnings normalised - ignore $1m NCML cost -------- $23,038,000
Equity - start of year ------------------------------------ $81,767,000
Equity - end of year ------------------------------------- $95,003,000
Average equity per share ------------------------------- $88,385,000
ROE - normalised earnings/av equity ----------------------- 26.07%
Shares in TGA --------------------------------------------- 130737000
Average equity per share ------------------------------------- 0.6761
EPS (normalised) ---------------------------------------------- 0.1762
RR - required rate of return - use 10.00%
Assume Payout Ratio 50%
Montgomery Factor if DPS=EPS ------------------------------ 2.6066
Montgomery Factor if no dividend ---------------------------- 5.6181
Average Factor-------------------------------------------------- 4.1123
Intrinsic Value = av factor x av equity per share ----------- $2.780
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 20.00% --- $2.224
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 25.00% --- $2.085
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 30.00% --- $1.946
Values for different price earnings ratios --------- PER
- - This PER required to get valuation of $1.57 8.9 --- $1.568
------------------------------------------------------- 10.0 --- $1.762
------------------------------------------------------- 11.0 --- $1.938
------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 --- $2.115
------------------------------------------------------- 13.0 --- $2.291
------------------------------------------------------- 14.0 --- $2.467
------------------------------------------------------- 15.0 --- $2.643
- - This PER required to get valuation of $2.78 -- 15.8 --- $2.780
The new net debt-to-equity ratio of 28.4% is hardly threatening. This is why I have been disinclined to calculate a value based on YE 31/3/11 EPS and historical growth trajectories that do not accommodate NCML, and then downscale the intrinsic value by increasing the required rate of return because of the increased debt. In effect I simply accept that the acquisition of NCML will do shareholders no harm – a leap of faith, admittedly. If you think management erred, uplift your required rate of return, or pick a lower PER, or change whatever is appropriate for your approach to stock valuations.
TGA's management have averred that they expect the NCML will be EPS accretive in 2012 pre amortisation of intangibles. This suggests TGA will write off some of the NCML-related intangibles in the year ending 31/3/2012, which will lower EPS.
This is all too complicated for a financial primative like me, so I end up by holding that TGA is worth about $2.50, and if I want to buy it cheaply, I would apply a margin of safety of 25%, and buy at $2. If I did not own many TGA shares, and I had idle funds, and I could not find another gem at a 25% discount, then I would continue to buy at prices somewhere between $2.00 and $2.50 – say $2.30.
Just a thought. If NCML cost $30 million, and this was five times EBIT, then NCML should contribute an EBIT of $6 million. If we assume interest would be 10%, the the interest would reduce the profit before tax to $3 million, and the profit after tax should be $2.1 million, or about 1.6 cents a share, which is about 10% on this past year. I think this helps to justifies ignoring NCML and its impact on debt on the basis that it is at worst neutral. If the NCML business morphs well into the whole TGA business with synergies to boot – e.g., utilising debt handling mechanisms and gaining access to new customers – then that will manifest itself in time, and the SP should follow in the long run, and I as a long-term investor should be happy.
TGA's management intend to raise equity to fund the NCML acquisition via a rights issue. I wonder why they bother, because the debt could be whittled away via retained profits fairly quickly. I am unsure how this affects the value one should ascribe to TGA shares today.
The net effect of all this waffle is that I am disinclined to value TGA at a lower value because it acquired NMCL, and to be conservative, I will not uplift the target value either, or at least not now.
PS
Below are some calculations I played with today. I think the factor that Roger M uses for no-dividend situations is too high, and hence the resultant $2.78 intrinsic value is too high, or I have cocked up other calculations. Roger only gets $1.57, so he probably uses a highish required rate of return, but this suggests a PER of 8.9, which I think is too low. The answer, I think is somewhere between $1.57 and $2.78.
Earnings normalised - ignore $1m NCML cost -------- $23,038,000
Equity - start of year ------------------------------------ $81,767,000
Equity - end of year ------------------------------------- $95,003,000
Average equity per share ------------------------------- $88,385,000
ROE - normalised earnings/av equity ----------------------- 26.07%
Shares in TGA --------------------------------------------- 130737000
Average equity per share ------------------------------------- 0.6761
EPS (normalised) ---------------------------------------------- 0.1762
RR - required rate of return - use 10.00%
Assume Payout Ratio 50%
Montgomery Factor if DPS=EPS ------------------------------ 2.6066
Montgomery Factor if no dividend ---------------------------- 5.6181
Average Factor-------------------------------------------------- 4.1123
Intrinsic Value = av factor x av equity per share ----------- $2.780
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 20.00% --- $2.224
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 25.00% --- $2.085
Buy-in price giving a margin of safety = 30.00% --- $1.946
Values for different price earnings ratios --------- PER
- - This PER required to get valuation of $1.57 8.9 --- $1.568
------------------------------------------------------- 10.0 --- $1.762
------------------------------------------------------- 11.0 --- $1.938
------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 --- $2.115
------------------------------------------------------- 13.0 --- $2.291
------------------------------------------------------- 14.0 --- $2.467
------------------------------------------------------- 15.0 --- $2.643
- - This PER required to get valuation of $2.78 -- 15.8 --- $2.780
I sent my views on TGA to Roger Montgomery in two blog postings, and I got a pat on the head for both. With luck this might prompt RM to reconsider the RR (required rate of return) for TGA. By the way, and I might have posted this before, the most generous valuation of TGA that I have seen comes from Clime - see:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d-thorn-on-track/story-e6frgac6-1226043486422
Clime's $2.90 valuation is high, but if TGA sticks to its past trajectory, it is achievable - it will just take time.
As a second aside, I was surprised to see that Wam Research Ltd (ASX code WAX) had 2,522,541 TGA shares at 31/3/11. See:
http://www.wamfunds.com.au/WAM/media/WAMMedia/WAM Research/WAXNTAMar11.pdf
Wam's top 14 holdings in value are:
As at 31 March 2011 the top listed equities (value over $1 million) were as follows:
Code Company -------------------------------------- Market Value $ -------- % of Gross Assets
MMS McMillan Shakespeare Limited ----------- ------ 6,262,425 ----------- 5.7%
NAB National Australia Bank Limited ----------------- 5,635,000 ----------- 5.2%
CCP Credit Corp Group Limited ----- ------ --------- 4,896,767 ----------- 4.5%
WBC Westpac Banking Corporation ------------------ 4,781,250 ----------- 4.4%
APE AP Eagers Limited ---- ------------ --------------- 4,289,173 ----------- 3.9%
WBB Wide Bay Australia Limited ----- ---------------- 4,094,373 ----------- 3.7%
CBA Commonwealth Bank of Australia --------------- 4,029,560 ----------- 3.7%
SGN STW Communications Group Ltd ----- ---------- 3,951,256 ----------- 3.6%
MYS MyState Limited ------------------------- ---------- 3,438,413 ----------- 3.1%
RHG RHG Limited ---------------------------------------- 3,144,182 ----------- 2.9%
ANZ Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd -- 3,113,750 ----------- 2.8%
BRG Breville Group Limited ------ ------------ --------- 2,877,404 ----------- 2.6%
SAI SAI Global Limited ---------------------------------- 2,598,938 ----------- 2.4%
TGA Thorn Group Limited -------------------------------- 2,522,541 ----------- 2.3%
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d-thorn-on-track/story-e6frgac6-1226043486422
Clime's $2.90 valuation is high, but if TGA sticks to its past trajectory, it is achievable - it will just take time.
As a second aside, I was surprised to see that Wam Research Ltd (ASX code WAX) had 2,522,541 TGA shares at 31/3/11. See:
http://www.wamfunds.com.au/WAM/media/WAMMedia/WAM Research/WAXNTAMar11.pdf
Wam's top 14 holdings in value are:
As at 31 March 2011 the top listed equities (value over $1 million) were as follows:
Code Company -------------------------------------- Market Value $ -------- % of Gross Assets
MMS McMillan Shakespeare Limited ----------- ------ 6,262,425 ----------- 5.7%
NAB National Australia Bank Limited ----------------- 5,635,000 ----------- 5.2%
CCP Credit Corp Group Limited ----- ------ --------- 4,896,767 ----------- 4.5%
WBC Westpac Banking Corporation ------------------ 4,781,250 ----------- 4.4%
APE AP Eagers Limited ---- ------------ --------------- 4,289,173 ----------- 3.9%
WBB Wide Bay Australia Limited ----- ---------------- 4,094,373 ----------- 3.7%
CBA Commonwealth Bank of Australia --------------- 4,029,560 ----------- 3.7%
SGN STW Communications Group Ltd ----- ---------- 3,951,256 ----------- 3.6%
MYS MyState Limited ------------------------- ---------- 3,438,413 ----------- 3.1%
RHG RHG Limited ---------------------------------------- 3,144,182 ----------- 2.9%
ANZ Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd -- 3,113,750 ----------- 2.8%
BRG Breville Group Limited ------ ------------ --------- 2,877,404 ----------- 2.6%
SAI SAI Global Limited ---------------------------------- 2,598,938 ----------- 2.4%
TGA Thorn Group Limited -------------------------------- 2,522,541 ----------- 2.3%
Pay the money by the due date by 30/06
either cheque or bpay
With cheque you want to post a few days before it close
bpay maybe 1 day before and to be sure 3 days just in case
banks has a computer meltdown.
I would do bpay,.. your reference number is unique so they know who you are...
