RNS Number:4929L
Panther Securities PLC
26 April 2005
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
Introduction
It has been an exciting and busy year. I am delighted to report that our pre tax
profit for the year ended 31st December 2004 amounted to #3,139,000 compared to
#3,413,000 last year. However, these figures do not include the #6,670,000
realised profit transferred from revaluation reserves.
This realised profit previously shown in our reserves arose from the sale of our
largest asset, the Panther House complex, together with some other smaller sales
mentioned below. Despite these sales, our rental income receivable increased to
a very healthy level of slightly over #9 million for the year.
Eurocity Properties PLC
On 27th May 2004 we sold Eurocity (Crawley) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Eurocity Properties PLC. The company was sold for #718,000 less selling costs
which was satisfied by a cash payment of #68,000 and #650,000 in shares and loan
notes in Real Estate Investors PLC which was a new AIM listed property company.
In addition the purchasers repaid the inter-company debt due of #634,000 in
cash. The ordinary shares were issued to us at the placing price of 10p each.
The current market price is 10.5p per share which means that if sold at these
values we would recoup most of the cost of Eurocity Properties PLC from one
third of its assets.
Panther House/Gray's Inn Road/Churchills public house
Panther House, Mount Pleasant and 156/164 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1 were sold
at auction in July 2004. They sold for #8,810,000, a figure which matched our
most optimistic expectations and Churchills public house in Mount Pleasant was
sold after the auction at #940,000. Yardworth Limited, our wholly owned
subsidiary, took a 5 year management lease (with an option to break at the end
of the 2nd year) on Panther House at #400,000 per annum. This is mostly covered
by income from sub-licensees but includes a rent for the use of the offices we
occupy.
Most shareholders will know that Panther House was the company's Head Office for
70 years. It was initially bought by the original Levers Optical Company when it
went public in 1934 and, since my involvement with the company in 1972 we have
strenuously endeavoured to maximize its value.
Our first step was to create London's first business centre offering small
licensed units available at affordable terms to developing/embryonic businesses.
We subsequently acquired an adjoining leasehold and negotiated for 25 years with
London Regional Transport to acquire their freehold interest of this leasehold
property. At the same time we started to put forward various applications for
planning permission to further develop the site - all to little avail but much
frustration. The final outcome was financially successful after years of effort.
Hawtin PLC
On 21st June we acquired 15% of Hawtin PLC, an AIM listed company, at a cost of
#1,487,976 (Portnard Limited, one of my private companies, having previously
acquired 14.5%). The purchase price in both instances was 13p per share. Hawtin
PLC was previously a conglomerate which, in recent years, had sold off all of
its trading businesses whilst retaining its freehold factories as investments.
In addition it holds 35 acres of land in Blackwood/Gwent, South Wales which is
zoned for residential and industrial use. The latest revalued book value of
Hawtin PLC's net assets is approximately 16p per share. I have been appointed to
its Board have confidence that our investment will be successful.
Wickford, Essex
For some years we have owned a factory estate in Wickford, Essex which was held
on a long lease at a low fixed ground rent from Basildon District Council. In
May we purchased the freehold at auction for approximately #650,000 including
costs and whilst this expenditure produces little extra income, the factory
estate is now freehold and the quality of the investment is much improved.
Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent
In November 2004 we purchased a 1.6 acre freehold town centre factory investment
for #900,000, producing #70,000 per annum rent from The Royal Staffordshire
Tableware Limited. The property comprises over 100,000 square feet of
accommodation.
Abraxus
On 17th November 2004 we acquired approximately 25% of the equity of this small
AIM listed shell company for about #300,000.
Post Balance Sheet Trading Events
We sold the Abraxus holding for #90,000 profit on 17th January 2005.
Shareholders have been advised that on 28th February 2005 we completed the sale
of Copthall House, Coventry, at a price of #9,250,000, which was #4,000,000 in
excess of its December 2003 independent valuation. We consider this was an
excellent result.
Towards the end of February 2005, we also sold 14-18 King Street, Stirling,
Scotland for #525,000. This was one of the Eurocity Properties portfolio and
realized approximately 10% in excess of its book value.
The profits on all of these transactions will come into the current year's
figures.
Finance
In December 2004 we completed arrangements for a new #75,000,000 seven year loan
facility with HSBC Holdings plc, who are our main lenders, and with whom we have
had an extremely good business relationship for over 24 years. The interest rate
margin was on slightly better terms than previously and #50,000,000 of this loan
is now on a fixed rate. We still have approximately #24,000,000 of this facility
undrawn and available towards future investment acquisitions.
Dividends
An Interim Dividend of 4p per share was paid on 29th October 2004 and the
Directors are recommending a final dividend of 4p per share for the year ended
31st December 2004. In view of the sale of Copthall House in February 2005, the
Directors will be paying a special Interim Dividend of 10p per share for the
year in progress on the same date as the final dividend payment.
My Pension
A personal self-administered pension fund was set up for me in 1985 by the
Company which has made total contributions of approximately #280,000 (only one
fifth of the maximum under the new lifetime limits). My fund has been very
successful and as is usual with this Government under the new "pension
simplification process" I will be penalized for success with an extremely heavy
55% tax charge should I wish to draw the maximum pension available to me in due
course. To rectify this problem I am being paid a bonus of #350,000 for the year
ending 31st December 2004, and again for the current year. I am proposing to
waive my personal entitlement to the special 10p dividend payable in 2005 which
amounts to #426,000 so that other shareholders will not be unduly disadvantaged
by my bonuses. The net cost to the company for the two years would be about
#126,000.
Directors
It is with much sadness that I have to report that Peter Rowson will be retiring
after this AGM. Peter has been with the Company for 32 years and throughout that
time has shown a loyalty, diligence and work ethic that is an example to us all.
His ability to deal with all types of people and difficult situations calmly and
fairly has long been a source of amazement to me. On behalf of all staff and
shareholders I wish him well in his retirement.
For some years now at our AGM I have been asked about succession on my
retirement from active work, usually by shareholders who are much older than me.
I have no intention of retiring at present, but to ensure continuity of the
Board, I am pleased to announce that we are appointing to our Board as from 1st
July 2005 John Doyle (age 32), manager of our surveying department, John Perloff
(age 36), letting manager, and Simon Peters (age 28), as finance director and
company secretary.
WHAT A SHAMBLES
Shareholders will by now be very well aware of my immense irritation at both the
pervasive bureaucratic nightmare caused by ludicrous regulations imposed upon us
all by those who claim to be "protecting our interests" and the excessive
amounts of taxation levied.
Whilst I have only ever had shareholders comment that they agree with my views,
I am sure some do not and are not interested in reading about some of my
experiences and views as they are not strictly relevant to the company's
accounts or progress. For this reason I have written a supplement to my
statement and shareholders thus can read or ignore my views.
Outlook
I comment at length in my supplement on the political situation which I believe
creates the greatest risks and burdens to a small company such as ours.
Your Board, however, are unanimous in its view that whilst caution is the order
of the day, our group, which holds over #20,000,000 in cash and with our undrawn
facilities is well equipped to take advantage of any opportunities that may come
our way or indeed the stormy financial conditions that are sure to arise after
the next election.
Finally I would like to thank all our staff, professional advisors and the
numerous firms we deal with and of course our tenants who have helped to make
this another successful year.
A. S. Perloff
Chairman
26th April 2005
WHAT A SHAMBLES
Planning /Housing
In the current climate with low interest rates and strong demand, builders and
developers could easily provide more housing at lower cost more affordably for
first time buyers. There is a popular misconception that there is insufficient
land on which to build. This statement is utter rubbish. The only bottleneck is
the incompetence in the planning process accompanied by local authorities'
political correctness and their barely legal blackmail of developers with their
ridiculous demands for money payments under section 106 agreements for social
housing provision.
Ministers have shed bucket-loads of crocodile tears over the lack of suitable
low cost housing for essential workers and first time buyers, and in an effort
to shift the blame from themselves, commissioned a leading economist to report
on the housing market.
Before Kate Barker even put her pen to paper I knew what conclusion this
government will take from her report - TAX IT! - this is of course not the
answer to the problem.
An investigation of the property market should also have looked at all the
property auctions of the previous two or three years and seen what a huge amount
of housing, developed buildings and land had been sold by local authorities,
N.H.S. or other unaccountable bureaucratic bodies - much of this could have been
utilised towards solving the social housing and essential worker accommodation
problem.
The reason why they sell outright is that the money is needed to pay for the
Bloated Payrolls & Pensions of all planners, town centre improvement officers/
Bat/Spider/Newt protection officers, licensing officers, shopfront inspectors,
ethnic advice/legal aid centres etc etc. These people are all very well paid,
very well pensioned, have very good working conditions as well as having a work
absenteeism rate much higher than the private sector and of course well paid
holidays, all of which are risk free and paid for by the general taxes/council
tax mostly provided by the private sector for whom they have so little regard.
Our Company owns a vacant, derelict site in the centre of Ramsgate, which would
be ideal for 24/26 flats. Our architects consulted meticulously with the
planners as to what would be an acceptable development. Numerous revisions were
made until the planner was satisfied. The application was submitted with
optimistic expectation by our architects (not by me though!) and sure enough
three or four months later the senior planning officer recommended the
application should be refused, and it was. Almost as annoyingly, a week later I
received a letter, from a Ramsgate Town Centre's Improvement Officer,
complaining about the derelict site and threatening us that if we did not bring
it into use soon they might compulsorily purchase the property. They had a short
sharp answer to their letter which unfortunately required me to show some
self-restraint in the way I normally express myself.
I am currently in the process of trying to obtain planning permission to rebuild
my own house. This is normally a simple process as new for old is allowed even
in the "green belt" where I live. My application was submitted after long
consultation. After a suitable interval I phoned to ascertain when the
application would be submitted to the planning committee and I was told it was
going to be refused by way of "delegated powers" by the senior planning officer.
The reasons given were so patently incorrect that it was clear that the planning
department had not investigated the scheme at all. I phoned my local councillor
to complain and to ask him to request that it be heard by the planning committee
(only a councillor can make this request). It seemed the democratic process
began to work. The councillor investigated the matter and the "delegated
refusal" was abandoned and a thorough investigation was implemented which
revealed the new house was only 10% bigger than the old house - not the 30% the
planning officer had actually believed. The planning officer did not believe the
independent computer calculations of cubic content and required hand written
calculations. To further complicate matters we received a letter from "Batwoman"
(Hertfordshire environment officer) who informed us that our area was known to
have bats and a bat survey was required. This we did and the "Batologist" looked
in the rafters, up the eaves, down the nooks and round the crannies. He did not
find Bats, but concluded that because it was hibernation time it was possible a
Bat family could be hidden almost anywhere. He did however find two tiny pieces
of old bat droppings and thus a new survey will have to be carried out when Mr
Bat Van Winkle wakes up. It appears a Bat family has the right to claim asylum
in my rafters and would have to be provided with suitable alternative
accommodation if I wish to redevelop. To date, no rare spiders, newts, frogs or
flora have been found, all of whom appear to have "rights" which human Council
Tax payers do not appear to have.
For 18 years I have owned an old cinema in Hyde, south of Manchester, which was
always slightly unprofitable, but about 9 years ago, a multiplex cinema opened
nearby and thereafter I doubt if we even had 50 customers each week. The cinema
was closed and a planning application was made and granted for alternative
leisure uses and despite extensive marketing no user was forthcoming. Eventually
I obtained a new planning permission to demolish and rebuild with 29 much needed
assisted flats on the site. Within four or five months a number of local
residents petitioned the heritage department - which after a cursory inspection
- listed the property. The local residents are intent on converting the cinema
back to its original use as a theatre. The cost of this would be #2 to #3
million and the losses on running this venture would be hundreds of thousands of
pounds a year.
The theatre-lover promoters want lottery money for the capital costs and the
losses presumably to be paid by the local authority (none of their own money, of
course). I am a great believer in protecting our heritage, but this cinema is a
particularly unattractive building with a low level of Grade Listing. The
proposed squandering of so much public money is absurd as the building next door
to mine is a modern theatre which more than adequately provides for Hyde's
thespian needs. What is urgently required in Hyde is "Tuppence worth" of common
sense.
Whilst these restrictions to develop are going on throughout the country, it
appears that if you are a scruffy, mess making group of people who pay no
council tax, probably don't pay road tax or car insurance, but live (probably on
state benefits) in caravans, you can do as you like. The caravans you plonk down
on green belt land, in nice areas, which have been bought cheaply because of the
lack of possible planning permission, and if you call yourself "travellers",
then judges override all the objections and planning laws and grant "living
rights" under the "human rights" act.
That's the shambles of the planning system.
Transport
We all know that there are too many cars on roads laid out before the full
impact of the car transport revolution was fully understood. But how do our
representatives deal with the problem? They employ thousands of road planners
and specialist traffic consultants who after much thought and deliberation on
how to improve traffic flow find the solution - BUS LANES - which reduce the
useable road space into major towns by 25%. This alone causes major delays and
confusion. However, once bus lanes had been implemented, many traffic planners
may be out of a job - thus bicycle lanes are devised reducing fluidity and
creating more congestion. Further havoc is created by humps - bumps - bollards
and barricades being instigated - these of course have the added benefit of
needing regular changes, when a new more efficient design for road impediment is
designed.
In the first three miles of my journey home (mainly through Islington) I go over
60 bumps/humps - ie one every 100 yards. I calculate the extra cost to repairs/
servicing the nation's stock of motor vehicles because of this persistent
shaking is probably over #6 billion per year - I doubt if there are any net
benefits and probably explains why some of the 2.7 million people are able to
claim disability benefits because their bodies are being regularly jolted!!! I
am sure it is nothing to do with the fact that being classified as disabled
means the state pays you #20 a week more than if you are on the dole or that it
helps to keep unemployment figures looking impressively low.
This is bad enough, but in an effort to punish the motorist still further, not
only do local authorities forever carry out minor road works, they also allow
any Tom, Dick or Harry of a utility company to dig up the road for their own
purposes without proper consultation. These bodies do not liaise with each
other, thus making journeys on the roads far longer and more traumatic than
necessary. I am sure you will have noticed that the majority of road works which
are coned off, causing restricted traffic, rarely have any builders working. I
believe this is because jobs are awarded at lowest cost to contractors who take
on three or four times the work they have staff to immediately carry out - thus
having to take much longer on each job by moving workers from job to job to job.
There is no consultation or consideration for the road user.
This is the shambles of the roads.
The local authority has to devise ways to allocate street parking for its own
residents. It extracts more money from its residents by charging a fee for a
permit to park near their own home on the roads already paid for out of
exorbitant petroleum taxes. Most people are happy to accept this allocation
arrangement, but if a council creates 30,000 resident spaces it sells 40,000
permits. (I understand this is the case with all London Boroughs, but obviously
the figures vary): I call this fraud.
It could be said "Airlines do the same". Yes of course this does happen and
occasionally we may get "bumped off a flight" but then compare what happens.
Airline staff apologise profusely, offer alternative arrangements, free meals,
compensate you with money or put you up at their cost at a nice hotel. The
council's attitude to a resident who finds all the "resident spaces" full and
who either has to stop to take their children into school or collect a slow
walking elderly relative, or rush into a local chemist for an urgent
prescription is to issue a parking ticket for #50 if you pay without question,
the fine doubles if you dispute the situation. (This payment method I call soft
fraud)
To escalate this fraud councils directly or indirectly employ a uniformed army
of people most of whom unfortunately seem uninterested in your personal parking
predicament when you point out that you are a resident whose space has been sold
twice and used by someone else.
Whilst still on roads it's worth mentioning that police forces up and down the
country became jealous of the huge amounts of cash that local authorities were
milking from motorists and then realised they had the technology to grab their
share of the loot - speed cameras.
Under the false pretext of making roads safer, speed cameras proliferated. The
cameras are hidden away behind bridges or placed unobtrusively on dual
carriageway roads that should have higher speed limits or placed a few hundred
yards before or after a fast road speed limit changes - especially placed to
catch the unwary. In the last three years numbers of speeding fines have gone up
to an estimated 2.5 million per annum. Does this mean the public have taken up
formula one racing on our streets? - of course not. It just means better
technology has allowed for more motorists to be milked of their cash. This
advanced camera/computer technology could easily be focused on "real" criminals
with stolen cars, non-taxed, non-insured, non-registered vehicles or convoys of
travellers moving towards some scenic area.
But it won't happen - there is no money in catching criminals.
Taxation
We have a grossly unjust taxation system upon which I have written at length in
previous reports but I still feel repetition is not amiss.
Higher rate taxpayers, who as entrepreneurs substantially own the company they
work for, pay 40% income tax and over 20% National Insurance Tax on part of
their income. The profit in the company is further taxed at 30%. The company
also has paid: 3% or 4% stamp duty tax on property purchases; 5% insurance
premium tax; VAT at 17.5%, some of which is irrecoverable, and commercial
property rates even on empty properties.
After these deductions and corporation tax having been paid, if any money is
paid out in dividends a further 25% is paid by most recipient shareholders and
when this money is spent by them a further 17.5% is paid in VAT on most
purchases. In cases of purchases of petrol, cigarettes or alcohol, approximately
80% is tax. Additionally, very high Local Council Taxes have to be paid.
When one retires and sells one's assets, up to 40% tax can be taken in one hit
on the capital appreciation even if it has taken 40 years to accumulate.
Ultimately a further 40% tax is taken when you die.
The government spending is over #8,000 per year for every single person in the
UK.
This level of taxation as well as being inequitable is a disincentive to
enterprise and detrimental to the economy.
Capital taxation on disposal of shareholdings in a large diversified property
investment company such as ours which provides huge benefits to the small
business and entrepreneurial economy of the country is taxed at the highest
rate, whereas if one manufactured guns, land mines, poisons, flick-knives or
parking warden uniforms one would receive the most favourable tax treatment.
New legislation shortly coming into force will allow same sex marriages, where
leaving aside the potential for a "Brian Rix" theatrical farce out of this, one
asks why? - it is so some people whose sexual predilection is different from the
majority can benefit from the tax benefits that married couples enjoy, eg
exemption from inheritance tax to one's partner on death, together with pension
and asset transfer rights. A widow and widower who choose to live together for
companionship and to possibly ease the heavy cost of normal every day life and
council tax, or an elderly widow wanting to leave her home to a son, daughter or
friend who lives with her and looks after her don't get similar tax concessions
- What a disgrace!
It is truly ludicrous that inheritance tax payments can be different because of
one's sexual predilections. Morally repugnant is an inadequate description for
such a tax system.
Because same sex marriage is really only a tax concession, I would not be
surprised in due course to see the Inland Revenue investigate "civil
partnership" agreements to test that it is not an "avoidance scheme" and to ask
for visible proof that the partnership has been "properly consummated".
With so much publicity recently of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz I am reminded of many years ago when this company was still trying
hard to make a profit in our optical business, our top salesman was a European
Holocaust survivor who spoke with a thick mid European accent, worked very hard
and produced profitable sales for the company. I often felt that he had had more
than his fair share of misfortune in life. He had iron leg braces, his only
daughter was disabled and when he rolled up his sleeves to collect the boxes of
spectacle frames he was selling, you could clearly see the tattooed number on
his arm which said volumes for the hardship he had suffered under a
democratically elected government. He never ever talked or complained about
these previous hardships - which was in some ways surprising considering his
non-stop complaints about what was happening in our optical business.
One day he stormed into my office complaining, about what, I cannot remember !
but I remember his words well "Ven de fish shtinks it shtinks from de head". At
that time I thought he meant that the two optical directors were letting him
down on supplying the goods he had sold to his customers either in the
production process or delivering late. The words stuck in my memory and
gradually I came to realise it referred to me - I was the ultimate head of the
organisation - I did not understand the business, or give it enough attention
and let things run on without proper guidance. I was occupied elsewhere with
problems in our property interests - I WAS THE STINKER!
This story conveniently brings me to what is the cause of so many of our
problems - Central Government. Legislation is enacted on a mass of subjects by
people who have no experience in the subjects about which they are legislating
and they then compound the problem by not carrying out proper scrutiny. Vast
amounts of money are allocated to cure perceived problems in the mistaken belief
that this alone will create improvements.
Increased taxation charges on pension funds have reduced considerably the
expectations of a comfortable retirement for millions. Current younger high
achievers have had their ability to build a large pension fund curtailed, whilst
the M.P.s who passed the legislation, gold plate their own pension arrangements
with surreptitious amendments to the Finance Act and thus exclude themselves and
the judiciary from the pension fund limits. Once again it is a case of do what I
say and not as I do.
Most business owners are forced to have intricate discussions with the Inland
Revenue as to what are allowable business expenses - I doubt if M.P.s,
especially M.E.P.s, have the same vigorous inspection for their own large tax
free expenses - wives, girlfriends etc etc all go on the payroll etc. M.P.s are
allowed a second home allowance because it is assumed they need a house near
Westminster and one in their constituency. At least one MP claims #20,000 per
annum for a second home when it is rented out at #20,000 per annum - THIS IS
DISGRACEFUL.
M.P.s don't pay the congestion charge. Many M.P.s don't pay the huge
environmental tax charge that company car owners have to pay. If an MP uses his
private car for his constituency business he is allowed to charge 57p per mile.
Private owners using their car for business purposes are only allowed 40p per
mile - WHY? - most M.P.s have private parking provided for them untaxed - if
companies provide this for staff they are taxed as a benefit in kind. Some
Labour M.P.s promote restrictions on private education yet educate their own
children privately. They also recommend certain types of vaccination for
children but almost certainly carry out different, more expensive and probably
better vaccinations for their own children - in short, many M.P.s seem to be
bloody hypocrites.
In the early 19th century, the rapidly growing London was having health problems
caused by the huge amount of sewage flowing into the Thames, which at that time
still provided much of London's drinking water. However, when in 1858 a hot
summer produced such smells from the Thames that Parliament had to move out of
Westminster temporarily it was forced to provide the extra funds and impetus to
enable Bazalgette to complete the new sewage system throughout London and which,
amazingly, is still very much in use today. That year was called "The Great
Stink" of 1858.
When the populace as a whole realise how they have been ripped off with massive
additional taxes for no extra benefit; have had over 1,000 new regulations with
potentially imprisonable offences foisted upon them (even Passports for Horses &
Asses!!); have had uncontrolled and unquantified immigration to these shores
without consultation; have been persecuted insensitively by all and every form
of authority, then I believe 2005 or 2006 might become this century's "Great
Stink". This is why we are making a #25,000 donation to the Conservative Party -
on the basis that they can run the country on a far more efficient, honest and
equitable basis than the current bunch of STINKERS.
CONSOLIDATED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT
for the year ended 31st December 2004
2004 2003
#000 #000
Turnover 9,292 9,791
Cost of sales (1,487) (1,654)
------- -------
Gross profit 7,805 8,137
Administrative expenses (1,988) (1,336)
------- -------
Operating profit 5,817 6,801
Income from current asset investments 45 426
Income from associate 37 (67)
Profit on disposal of property 527 -
Profit on sale of subsidiary 303 -
Profit on disposal of investments 43 (20)
------- -------
Profit on ordinary activities before interest 6,772 7,140
Interest receivable 363 293
Interest payable (3,996) (4,020)
------- -------
Profit on ordinary activities before taxation 3,139 3,413
Taxation (1,605) (880)
------- -------
Profit on ordinary activities after taxation 1,534 2,533
Minority interests (4) 9
------- -------
Profit attributable to members of the
parent undertaking 1,530 2,542
Dividends (1,360) (2,125)
------- -------
Retained profit for the year 170 417
Transferred from revaluation reserve 6,670 -
Retained profit brought forward 12,714 12,297
------- -------
Retained profit carried forward 19,554 12,714
------- -------
Earnings per share 9.0p 15.0p
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
at 31st December 2004
2004 2003
#000 #000
Fixed assets
Tangible assets 87,821 93,996
Intangible asset - negative goodwill (571) (793)
Investments 2,893 723
-------- --------
90,143 93,926
-------- --------
Current assets
Stock 9,755 8,790
Current asset investments 323 797
Debtors: due within one year 4,263 5,580
Cash at bank and in hand 15,337 2,444
-------- --------
29,678 17,611
-------- --------
Creditors:
amounts falling due within one year (5,814) (5,767)
-------- --------
Net current assets 23,864 11,844
-------- --------
Total assets less current liabilities 114,007 105,770
Creditors:
amounts falling due after more than one year (58,925) (55,578)
Minority interests (94) (90)
-------- --------
Net assets 54,988 50,102
-------- --------
Capital and reserves
Called up share capital 4,250 4,250
Share premium account 2,886 2,886
Revaluation reserve 27,515 29,471
Capital redemption reserve 571 571
Negative goodwill reserve 212 210
Profit and loss account 19,554 12,714
-------- --------
Equity shareholders' funds 54,988 50,102
-------- --------
Net assets per share 323.5p 294.8p
CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW STATEMENT
for the year ended 31st December 2004
2004 2003
#000 #000 #000 #000
Cash flow from operating activities 7,360 2,242
Returns on investments and servicing of finance (3,594) (3,727)
Taxation (1,353) (1,097)
Investing activities 7,436 (3,388)
Acquisitions and disposals (42) -
Equity dividends paid (1,360) (2,036)
------- --------
Cash outflow before financing 8,447 (8,006)
Financing
Net proceeds of share issue - 48
Increase in debt 4,447 750
------- --------
4,447 798
------- --------
(Reduction)/Increase in cash in the period 12,894 (7,208)
------- --------
Reconciliation of net cash flow to
movement in net debt
Increase/(Reduction) in cash in the
period 12,894 (7,208)
Cash inflow from increase in debt (4,447) (750)
------- --------
Change in net debt resulting from cash flows 8,447 (7,958)
-------- --------
Movement in net debt in the period 8,447 (7,958)
Disposal of debt on sale of subsidiary 1,732 -
Net debt at 1st January 2003 (53,977) (46,019)
-------- --------
Net debt at 31st December 2003 (43,798) (53,977)
-------- --------
At 1st At 31st
January Cash Other December
2004 Flow Movements 2004
#000 #000 #000 #000
Analysis of net debt
Cash at bank 2,444 12,893 - 15,337
Overdrafts (1) 1 - -
-------- -------- -------- --------
2,443 12,894 - 15,337
-------- -------- -------- --------
-
Net debt due after 1 year (55,576) (5,087) 1,738 (58,925)
Net debt due within 1 year (844) 640 (6) (210)
-------- -------- -------- --------
(56,420) (4,447) 1,732 (59,135)
-------- -------- -------- --------
Total (53,977) 8,447 1,732 (43,798)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF TOTAL RECOGNISED
GAINS AND LOSSES
for the year ended 31st December 2004
2004 2003
#000 #000
Profit for the financial year after taxation and minority interest 1,530 2,542
Unrealised surplus on revaluation of properties and investments 4,714 11,399
------ -------
Total gains and losses relating to the year 6,244 13,941
------ -------
NOTE OF CONSOLIDATED HISTORICAL COST
PROFITS AND LOSSES
for the year ended 31st December 2004
2004 2003
#000 #000
Reported profit on ordinary activities before taxation 3,139 3,413
Realisation of property revaluation gains 6,670 -
------ -------
Historical cost profit before taxation 9,809 3,413
------ -------
Historical cost retained profit 170 417
------ -------
Notes
1. Basis of preparation - Report and Accounts
The preliminary results of the group, which are not statutory accounts, have
been prepared on the basis of the accounting policies as set out in the report
and accounts for the year ended 31 December 2003.
The financial information for the year ended 31st December 2003 is extracted
from the group's financial statements to that date which received an unqualified
auditor's report and have been filed with the Registrar of Companies.
The group accounts for the year ended 31st December 2004 have not yet been filed
with the Registrar of Companies or reported on by the auditors.
2. Dividends
The company has already paid an interim dividend of 4p per share (net) (2003:
3.5p (net)) and the Directors now recommend payment of a final dividend of 4p
per share (net) (2003: 4p (net)). The final dividend will be payable on 28th
June 2005 to shareholders on the register at the close of business on 27th May
2005.
3. Earnings
The calculation of earnings per ordinary share is based on earnings, after
minority interests, of #1,530,000 (2003 - #2,542,000) and on 16,998,151 ordinary
shares being the weighted average number of ordinary shares in issue during the
year (2003 - 16,922,408).
4. Annual General Meeting
The Annual General Meeting will be held on 23rd June 2005.
5. Copies of the Report and Accounts will be posted to shareholders shortly and
will be available from the Company's registered office at Panther House, 38
Mount Pleasant, London WC1X 0AP.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
FR UVSNRVBRSUAR
Panther Securities (LSE:PNS)
Historical Stock Chart
From Oct 2024 to Nov 2024
Panther Securities (LSE:PNS)
Historical Stock Chart
From Nov 2023 to Nov 2024
