The prolonged Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) review of the CTD acquisition
not only disrupted trading but also required a high level of one-off and advisory
costs. The trading loss of £1.7m was a little higher than originally anticipated and
one-off costs amounted to £5.2m, so in total weighed on reported PBT to the tune of
£6.9m. Management anticipates CTD will generate a profit in FY26, which we assume
will be H2 weighted given the CMA review and continuing challenging backdrop.
The improvement in the adjusted gross margin reflects a combination of positive influences
such as better price inflation, lower discounts and better sourcing, partially offset
by a greater contribution from the lower-margin business versus Topps Tiles branded
stores and greater trade penetration.
There were a few headwinds with higher staff costs in FY25, including the 6.7% increase
in the National Living Wage and the increase in employer National Insurance contributions
from April, as well as higher performance-related pay. The company also invested in
marketing and systems and to support growth in Online Pure Play so that on a gross
basis adjusted operating expenses increased by £10m versus FY24, or just over 8%.
Management’s focus on cost savings and efficiencies and some savings from operating
fewer stores (297 Topps Tiles branded stores at end FY25 versus 301 at the end of
FY24) restricted growth in adjusted operating costs to about 4.7% in FY25. This was
lower than the 7.75% growth in adjusted operating profit, and hence there was a significant
improvement in the adjusted operating margin.
Total adjusting items, both operating and financial, netted out to a £0.9m benefit
versus statutory profit.
The strong profit growth enabled management to surprise with a much higher final dividend,
which took the FY25 total dividend to 2.9p per share, versus our estimate of 2.6p
per share. The payout ratio on adjusted EPS was 85%, lower than FY24’s 100%, as the
company moves towards its medium-term target for a payout ratio of 67%.
Cash flow and balance sheet
Underlying operating cash flow generation before working capital improved versus FY24,
however free cash flow generation was much lower than the previous year mainly due
to two items. First, and most significant, FY25’s working capital was marginally negative
versus the inflow reported for FY24, which was helped by the phasing of payments to
trade creditors, which fell after the FY24 period end. Second, CTD’s operational cash
flows and the advisory fees for the CMA review weighed on free cash flow.
By the period end the adjusted net cash position of £7.4m, before lease liabilities
of £99.8m, was marginally lower than FY24’s £8.7m. The drawings from the company’s
£30m revolving credit facility were lower at £11.0m versus £15.0m at the end of FY24.
Current trading, outlook and M&A
Given the lacklustre consumer sentiment over the last few months, ahead of the Budget,
it is no surprise revenue growth in the first nine weeks of FY26 has softened a little
from the strong growth in Q424 and versus the positive growth reported through FY25.