Ann: Annualised Turnover Ambition for FY2021, page-134

I'm not sure if the author is dishonest or a moron, but it's one or the other.

The article doesn't even seem to be trying to hide the fact that it's a blatantly biased hit piece (I'm not sure what the motive for pushing a biased bearish angle is, but it's clearly there), and goes clearly overboard, using inappropriate metrics, making extremely bearish assumptions to the point of being obviously unrealistic, ignoring positives, and sometimes outright misrepresenting facts. The conspiracy theorists would probably say he's obviously being paid by institutions who want to encourage people to sell at this point, taking profit so the instos can buy up, and hey, they may be correct, but it's possible that he simply wants to take a contrary view to get clicks. It's possible that he genuinely believes TNT is overvalued (though it definitely doesn't seem to be the case), but if so, he's still clearly exaggerating to push an agenda.

To dissect the article...

He first states that RRR is different from revenue guidance. Well, yeah... so what? Guidance is still fantastic. It's like he is trying to use trickery to make the reader make a false assumption.

His next paragraph makes a baseless assumption which I disagree with. He doesn't even try to back his figures up, so I can't shoot down his argument, but I disagree.

He then spends paragraphs saying that 'one off costs' like acquisitions should not be counted as one off costs, even though they obviously should. They are acquisitions, not operating costs, even if they make more than one acquisition. Once acquired, TNT isn't paying further acquisitional costs, but the author makes a false (and apparently deliberately, knowingly false) implication that somehow they will. It makes no sense, which is probably why two and a half paragraphs are required to try to spin this deception.

He finishes that spiel by saying trust in management is required if we are to believe the figures. He says this as though TNT is unique in this way as opposed to this being the reality of any company, and also ignoring the fact that TNT's management has very much established a track record of delivering on promises and doing what they say they will, etc.

In the next paragraph, he yet again tries to encourage readers to distrust management (this is a tiresome theme in the article), makes some conservative assumptions but presents them as optimistic, and totally ignores the fact that revenue is steadily growing every quarter, instead acting like the current quarter is the best things will ever get.

Next paragraph, he again acts like he is being generous (he says he'll give TNT the benefit of the doubt, when really he's just taking a conservative figure based on the actual data, and implying that there is some unseen reason to have heavy doubt... constant and tedious negative slant with zero basis through this article...). He again presents his conservative estimate as though it is generous, doubtful and static, when in reality it is a conservative estimate of a data point on a rapidly growing trend.

More negative implication without even any attempt as showing evidence, until he claims (without any referencing at all) that 'his research' indicates the industry mean EV/EBITDA is around 15 (no attempt at all to show where this figure comes from, and it's clearly not a figure applicable. For reference, if applied to TNT over time in the way he suggests, TNT's market cap should have increased radically more than it has!).

More negative spin in following paragraphs without justification, until he says organic growth has been sluggish (he says this after we get a $180M RRR month, after an expected $150M, and we'd been expecting even reaching would require a decent acquisition, but it happened on organic growth...)

He finishes up with what reads as a carefully-worded disclaimer, acknowledging that long term it'll probably do well, and that if things go according to blue sky scenario the current share price is good. He still words it in a way as to sow doubt, but the meaning of the words are clearly there to act as a disclaimer so he can say 'I predicted it would go well long term, and as it turns out, they did get the blue sky scenario I acknowledged was possible' (even though actual blue sky scenario would see us at $5-10 in around 2 years, not that I think actual blue sky scenario is likely).

Authors like this deserve a literal slap across the face. Trash articles like this make the investing world worse.

Keep in mind that through my entire time posting on TNT, I've always been a holder, and I've always been respectful and acknowledged people who put forward legitimate bearish points, and defended them when others have attacked them, as long as they were saying well-founded things, or speaking in good faith. I've also sometimes stepped in with bearish points myself, sometimes getting attacked here for it (when I sold some of my holdings in the mid and high 30s with a view to buying back lower, there were some less than pleasant words directed my way!). But this article is complete shameful garbage.