Jump to content



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



Yep know what u mean.


Really the time has passed where they can really come up with an excuse about the period ended 30 th June 2004. Then again maybe they can !!


Would be really annoyed if they did however. Think if the numbers were not going to be the good forecast made a few months ago they might have come out by now.

One big seller today. Maybe eat krull on this but sold half above $7.85 from what I had at an ave of $7.64 including bro so it puts me in somewhere around $7.43 for the remainder.


Just has me spooked. Think crucial if it breaks $7.60 not to be long.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



I have had enough.

Good run from the bottom to the top and with 9 in and out trades a return of just over 50% in 5 months. Around 21 % from being long the whole way up and just over 30% from the in and out trades. Not bad but this market seems heavy.


I was worried yesterday when it slumped but today loks even worse. Looks to me as though we are going lower. May just be the usual fun and games with this stock but when it failed to rally hard after 30 th June even failing to go thru $7.90 and a few big offers appearing up there the rest is history. Couldn't bring myself to sell yesterday and 10 cents higher but today have bitten the bullet.


Bigger picture.

Support minor at $7.50

Big support $7.20/25


Still have share buyback scheme with arould 11 million more to buy so expect support on dips.


Seemed to be a few very keen buyers around $7.60 priof to the 30th June but again may have been supporting the price for their books.


Look again below $7.30 not worth the agro and having the capital tied up here.


Shall pick a new stock to post on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This one has done well since it shed the old name and consolidated at 6:1. There were problems with the rising aussie dollar, but outsourcing to asia seems to have solved this. Also rumour has it that the US economy is on the way back up, so all this adds to a better SP for this one time old dog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what was its old name? Pac Dun - the dog of the century, has its management changed substanially since then? They have been moving offshore for years - Sri Lanka, all I can remember about this company is when the Euro came along they were able to find another excuse. Maybe I could be wrong - but I personally can not touch anything that was owned by Pac Dun and their culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Brewallabi


Don't cut your nose off to spite your face.


Cochlear was owned by Pac Dunlop.


Ambri was owned by Pac Dunlop


Pacific Brands was owned by Pac Dunlop


Repco was owned by Pac Dunlop


All great businesses, mismanaged and sold for half of their true value.


If you are talking about management then I am 100% with you.


Ralph was a disgrace as a chairman, and I bet he never even read his own chairman's reports. If he did, then he was a bigger fool and liar than I thought.

Thankfully he and the MD have gone. unfortunately Ralph is deputy Chairman at Telstra.


The current Chairman and Gold's alternative were there when they sold two of the above for a pittance. As was Elliot. Then they used the funds to pay US$ dominated debt when the Aus$ was at its lowest level. So they have already cost the Company nealy $1B.


The vision they had for the current company came from Mkinley (or something like that-which received millions for the report) after Boon had completely stuffed Ansell. Yet they gave Boon $3m bonus on retirement and still earning had not improved at all.


I think you are correct. They need to clean the Board right out before the investment world takes notice.












Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...



Saw my mistake from last month. Stock stopped going down and buyuers appeared from everywhere around $7.50. Slowly got some back but nothing like the 20% of capital I used to have in ANN.


Results just released and very slightly better than expected. Again they have confirmed 2005 target which should be an increase in the bottom line of the order of 30%. On top of this they have announced they are going to do an off market buyback of 17 million shares or around 10% of capital. Bottom line this will bring the P/E well down from the current level and maybe even as low as 12 at current prices.


Market has rallied somewhat. I have taken the profit. Whilst the accounts look excellent and the turn around certainly seems to be in place, I just feel a little flat on the whole thing.

Suspect we yet again range trade in the $7.85/$8.40 range. Longer term still bullish just suspect todays $8.15 is the middle of the range for the next few months. Longer term still

looking for the stock eventually to gradually climb higher.


I note several have pointed out mistakes of the board from the past. Yes they have not a lot to be proud of. Things look on track and for once no nasty surprises.

When you look at what Pac Dun owned thats nice, problem was debt as well as the fact the businesses were in different fields. Lucky with the amount of debt they were carring at the time they didn't choke. Always when people bring this sort of past history up I think of Alan Bond or Skasey and think how they went down and what they owned and now what it is worth. They had the right idea but as usual the banks and lack of cashflow got them.


ANN still a buy on dips and just a trading range for my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Moneymania and Kahuna1


I will take the capital appreciation.


However, I have a question for you guys, what reports have you been reading and how are you interpreting them.


Look at the facts - Sales down by 14%

Profit is up but not if you take out the non continuing businesses from last year.


The Ethics of this company have not changed one iota.


Notice how they have not reported the 6 months figures.

Facts are that the first 6 months this year were lower than the last 6 months last year.

The second six months this year are lower than last year.

The proof of this is in the dividend payments. Reduced by 36% from $0.11 to $0.07.

Yet they would tell you that it has grown.


Therefore the Company is not growing at all. Even if you take the figures in US$ they are etremely disappointing.


The $0.13 dividend equates to $0.026 in the old Pac Dunlop. Unfranked. Before it decided to "restructure" the old Pac Dunlop was consistently paying over $0.20 fully franked.


And you guys tell me that the restructure is successful. I need a bit more accounting lessons from you to convinve me we are better off now.


As for "no surprises" what do you call the "legacy costs" of US$6.7M.


In fact, if you take out the profit they made from the Sales Tax dept, you would find that this year's profit would look completely sick.


Guys, hope I'm wrong, but I think once analysts look into this garbage of a report there will be a run on the share.
















Link to comment
Share on other sites



Fair enough question on the face of it.


If you look at the raw sales numbers, yes sales would appear to be down from 2003.

Why ?? Well ANN got rid of a few businesses that they had that were at best marginal and at worst making a loss. So when looking at the total sales yes they went down, but if you sell 50 million worth of goods and it just breaks even and you see no hope for the future it is not much hope to keep them going. So what ANN did is either sold them or closed them down, hence the fall in headline sales. Loooking at the bottom line, what they made after everything including interest and tax the bottom line profit was up 70%. The estimate for 2005 is for this to increase from 2004 by around 30% as the costs of shedding the non core assets has been paid for this year.


In plain terms they estimated the 2004 results many months ago and they have come in slightly better than estimates. On that basis it gives me some confidence in the numbers for 2005 they also came up with at the same time. They also re confirmed the 2005 estimates with the current announcements. ANN in plain terms will be making 100% more than what it was in 2003. Debt levels will be much lower. On top of this the company has already purchased 10 million shares back and is about to buy back a further 17 million shares. This is well over 10% of capital for the upcoming 17 million buyback.


Your comments about the dividend are noted. They are only paying 13 cents per share this year. The real actual earnings per share were 39 cents per share. Somewhere around a 5% yield or a p/e of say 20. This year, with no resructuring costs the bottom line EPS I would expect somewhere in the order of 55 cents per share for 2005. On top of this the company plans to buy back 17 million shares or over 10% of listed capital. So insted of paying out the whole 39 cents they made, they are usuing it to buy back shares in the company.

Bottom line the P/E if they are correct will fall to somewhere around the 13 level.


If they were to pay out the earnings estimate this year if you take out the fact they will be buying 10% of the company back the actual earnings per share will rise from 55 to 61 just from this fact. At $8.00 this leaves me with a P/E of 13.11 or if the actually paid out 100% a yield of 7.625 %. Either way I believe as time goes on the price of ANN will slowly rise.

My longer term target is for them to have a p/e of 18 ... on this basis eventually if all goes well the shares should go somewhere around the $11.00 level, a rise of 25/30% from here.

Not too exciting but a reasonable expectation.


Hope this helps my reasoning.


Still bullish but buy on dips and sell into rallies. $7.85/$8.45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...