Aisin (TSE:7259) reported a net profit margin of 3.4%, a significant jump from last year’s 0.6%. The company also posted earnings growth of 479.2% over the past year, well above its five-year average of 1.4%. Looking ahead, earnings are forecast to grow at 6.7% per year as the company continues its streak of profitability and margin improvement. Investors are now weighing positive earnings momentum, constructive valuation signals, and minor questions around dividend sustainability as they assess the results.
See our full analysis for Aisin.
Next, we will see how these headline numbers measure up against the market’s consensus narratives, highlighting where expectations meet results and where surprises emerge.
Curious how numbers become stories that shape markets? Explore Community Narratives
TSE:7259 Earnings & Revenue History as at Nov 2025
Net profit margin reached 3.4%, reversing course from last year’s low of 0.6% and signaling that the shift into profitability now looks more durable over a multi-year horizon.
The prevailing market view sees this margin restoration as heavily supporting the case that Aisin is adapting to sector challenges by building quality recurring profits, rather than just chasing short-term gains.
Ongoing annual earnings growth at 1.4% over the past five years now gets a boost with a sharp 479.2% jump this year, implying a reset of stable returns at higher levels.
Analysts will closely watch if the projected 6.7% annual earnings growth materializes, especially as the company’s profitability profile continues to improve year over year.
Aisin’s share price stands at 2,774.5, notably under the DCF fair value of 5,082.25 and also trades at a price-to-earnings ratio of 12.1x, which is below the peer average of 15.8x but slightly above the industry average of 11.6x.
The data-driven analysis points to a balanced view that recognizes the valuation discount as a meaningful positive for value-seeking investors, while keeping sight of possible reasons for the gap.
The P/E discount suggests that the company is comparatively undervalued versus peers, reinforcing structural strengths such as sustained profitability.
However, with a minor flag about dividend sustainability and the share price below DCF fair value, investors remain cautious not to overlook long-run capital returns in pursuit of immediate bargains.
The only material risk spotlighted is the minor question over whether Aisin’s current dividend can be maintained, especially as the company pivots to driving up profit margins and earnings growth.
What is surprising is that despite the margin and profitability improvements, there is still skepticism about payouts keeping pace going forward.
Steady revenue growth forecast at 2.3% per year and improving profits should support healthy cash flow, but a more cautious stance remains around capital allocation.
This risk does not undermine the growth story, but adds a layer of due diligence for investors prioritizing income reliability alongside capital appreciation.
While Aisin’s strong margin recovery and attractive relative valuation catch headlines, prevailing market analysis keeps a close eye on future growth delivery and dividend consistency as the multi-year turnaround takes hold.
Don’t just look at this quarter; the real story is in the long-term trend. We’ve done an in-depth analysis on Aisin’s growth and its valuation to see if today’s price is a bargain. Add the company to your watchlist or portfolio now so you don’t miss the next big move.
Despite profitable growth and valuation appeal, Aisin’s ongoing dividend sustainability concerns create some uncertainty for investors seeking steady income and long-term reliability.
If consistent and robust dividend payouts matter to you, uncover better income opportunities with these 1993 dividend stocks with yields > 3% to target companies with yields that historically outpace uncertainty.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include 7259.T.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
In 2014, something strange happened to the fish off the West Coast of the United States. The ocean warmed fast and stayed that way for a long time. This wasn’t a small change – it was a massive heat wave, and it seriously messed with marine…
Institutions’ substantial holdings in Tristel implies that they have significant influence over the company’s share price
The top 9 shareholders own 52% of the company
Analyst forecasts along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business
We’ve found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free.
To get a sense of who is truly in control of Tristel plc (LON:TSTL), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. We can see that institutions own the lion’s share in the company with 88% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company.
Given the vast amount of money and research capacities at their disposal, institutional ownership tends to carry a lot of weight, especially with individual investors. Hence, having a considerable amount of institutional money invested in a company is often regarded as a desirable trait.
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Tristel.
View our latest analysis for Tristel
AIM:TSTL Ownership Breakdown November 2nd 2025
Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.
We can see that Tristel does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company’s stock. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. When multiple institutions own a stock, there’s always a risk that they are in a ‘crowded trade’. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Tristel’s historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there’s always more to the story.
AIM:TSTL Earnings and Revenue Growth November 2nd 2025
Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. We note that hedge funds don’t have a meaningful investment in Tristel. Liontrust Asset Management PLC is currently the largest shareholder, with 9.9% of shares outstanding. Rathbones Investment Management Limited is the second largest shareholder owning 8.4% of common stock, and Raymond James Wealth Management Limited holds about 7.7% of the company stock.
We also observed that the top 9 shareholders account for more than half of the share register, with a few smaller shareholders to balance the interests of the larger ones to a certain extent.
While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock’s expected performance. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.
The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves.
Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group.
Our information suggests that Tristel plc insiders own under 1% of the company. It appears that the board holds about UK£631k worth of stock. This compares to a market capitalization of UK£177m. Many investors in smaller companies prefer to see the board more heavily invested. You can click here to see if those insiders have been buying or selling.
The general public– including retail investors — own 11% stake in the company, and hence can’t easily be ignored. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders.
It’s always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Tristel better, we need to consider many other factors. Take risks for example – Tristel has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of.
Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.
NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content?Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
You have heard and read so much about people using weight loss injections to get slim, you feel it is time to give it a go in the run-up to the festive season. The problem is cost.
But it seems there are other options rather than getting a prescription from a doctor and going to the pharmacy. A text message arrives giving a link to a site with much cheaper medication – and with no need to go through official channels. And you saw a similar ad on social media the other day, so you decide to go for it.
The problem is these ads are almost certainly scams. In the best-case scenario, you will be sent nothing and lose whatever money you paid. In the worst, you receive a fake version, with unknown ingredients that could lead to severe health problems.
The popularity of legitimate weight loss medications has led to a rise in fake goods hitting the market and scams set up to simply take people’s money.
The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has warned against buying these illegal weight loss medicines without a prescription from beauty salons, fake pharmacy websites or via social media, saying they could contain “toxins and other ingredients that could cause real harm”.
New figures from the high street bank Santander show a sharp rise in the number of customers who have been affected by the fraud. The bank says the amount of money lost to scams involving weight loss injections, pens, tablets and fat-dissolving products between July and September this year, was more than double the total sum stolen in the previous three months. The average scam costs victims £120, it says.
“Fraudsters are actively exploiting people’s insecurities and health concerns, with these scams soaring in recent months,” says Michelle Pilsworth, the bank’s head of fraud.
What it looks like
Most take place on messaging apps and social media. On socials, an account may mimic the brand that you are looking for, but there will typically be subtle differences in spelling or logos.
The messages or posts will often use urgency-laden phrases such as “limited-time offer”, “exclusive deal” or “free giveaway”.
As the price of some legitimate weight loss jabs, such as Mounjaro, has increased recently, the fraudsters will price their “product” lower.
“Buying from unverified sellers online can come at a serious financial, health-related and emotional cost,” says Pilsworth.
What to do
As with all scams, the old adage applies: if it appears too good to be true, then it probably is.
The MHRA has warned people to be extremely cautious when buying medicines online. They should only be obtained from a registered pharmacy using a prescription issued by a healthcare professional, it says. If sourced elsewhere, they may pose serious risks to health.
Criminals can go to great lengths to make their site or social media page look as authentic as possible. If they claim to be an online pharmacy based in Great Britain, you can check the website of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to ensure this is properly registered.
Together, the patient and the doctor can discuss which functions are necessary, and which are ‘nice to have’, as well as what cost to the battery there is for each option
Klaus Witte
Dr Klaus Witte, Senior Lecturer and Consultant Cardiologist…
Victims of the car loans scandal could miss out on more than £4bn in compensation if the City regulator ploughs ahead with plans for an “insulting” interest rate in its redress scheme, consumer groups and claims firms say.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been accused of offering a reduced rate of interest which will be added to compensation from banks for borrowers caught up in the car loan commissions scandal.
Claims law firms and consumer groups say borrowers should be offered the same terms as Marcus Johnson: the sole driver whose case was upheld by the supreme court in a landmark case in August.
While the terms of the final payout are sealed, Johnson is widely believed by industry experts to have received about 7% interest on his compensation package, after judges ordered the parties to negotiate a “commercial rate”. But the watchdog has proposed a rate of 2.09% on the compensation.
The FCA has estimated that victims payouts will average £700 resulting from 14m unfair loans, costing lenders – including Lloyds, Barclays, Close Brothers and the financial arms of manufacturers like Ford – a combined £11bn.
Critics say these terms are “unacceptable” and will ultimately rob drivers of another £4bn of compensation, based on calculations outlined in the FCA’s own consultation documents.
Darren Smith, the managing director of the claims law firm Courmacs Legal, said: “The FCA’s proposal to cap interest at 2.09% is frankly insulting to the millions of victims who were overcharged, many well over a decade ago.”
He said lenders would not stand for cut-price rates being offered to consumers. “It exposes a staggering hypocrisy,” Smith said. “If the boot was on the other foot, and a bank was a successful claimant in a commercial dispute, would they meekly accept 2.09% on their losses? [Lloyds Banking Group’s chief executive] Charlie Nunn would rightly be asking the general counsel at Lloyds to demand the full commercial rate of interest from the wrongdoer.”
The scheme is meant to draw a line under the scandal, which centres on unfair loan commission payments paid to car dealers by banks and specialist lenders. The FCA has estimated that 14m historic car loan contracts that may be deemed unfair because of these commission payments.
When discounting administrative costs, about £9.7bn of the £11bn sum will go straight to consumers. However, that sum is based on paying out a 2.09% annual interest rate on base levels of compensation.
Marcus Johnson, whose case was upheld by the supreme court in a landmark case in August. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian
Consumers would be due £14.3bn if the interest rate were closer to 8%, according to FCA documents. That rate of 8% is what has historically been paid out alongside successful county court cases, and by the Financial Ombudsman Service before its own rates were cut earlier this year.
The current proposals mean a consumer will on average receive about £700 in compensation, rather than £1,030 at the 8% rate.
“The interest rate is way too low, in my view,” said Martin Lewis, the founder of MoneySavingExpert, in his BBC podcast this month, adding that he was planning to raise the issue in his response to the FCA consultation.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Kevin Durkin, of HD Law, who represented Johnson during his supreme court case, agreed, told the Guardian that the FCA’s proposals were “unfair” and did “not adequately compensate consumers enough for the many years they’ve suffered under an unfair relationship with their lender. The FCA redress scheme should reflect what the supreme court awarded to Mr Johnson.”
Consumer advocates have also raised concerns. Alex Neill, a co-founder of the consumer rights organisation Consumer Voice, said: “The proposed rate of interest is unacceptable and would leave drivers losing out on £4bn they’re rightly owed.
“Suggesting that those hit hardest – who have already faced extra costs due to this mis-selling scandal – should negotiate for a fair rate themselves is clearly unworkable.”
However, the Financing and Leasing Association (FLA) said the interest rate should reflect changes to compensation payouts at the FOS, which earlier this year were cut from 8% to the average Bank of England base rate, plus 1%. “The FCA is applying the same rate” in its redress scheme, the FLA said.
An FCA spokesperson said:“Our proposals take account of court decisions on redress. We believe interest that links to the Bank [of England] base rate is fair, proportionate and aligns with the planned approach of the Financial Ombudsman.
“Consumers would have the right to challenge this if they have evidence this was unfair to them. We welcome feedback on our proposals.”
BBC
BBC
