Phillip Reid
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... mercersroadI agree with a lot of what you say. I particularly agree with the last sentence. However they had come under a lot of criticism previously for suspending the div, and I believe they wanted to show the market that they were willing to give generously with the special div, and they expected the market to express that in a higher valuation of the company. Maybe I am being naïve, anyway the market didn't oblige. What do you think they would have done if the market had re-rated FTO at that time. I think that would have met their criteria for maintaining a London listing.That is when I think they decided to go ahead with the present scheme. Possibly it was plan B and always on the back burner.The only other thing I do think they could have done was to go for a listing in Hong Kong, either as well as, or instead of London; they would certainly have been better received there. Not in Shanghai or Shenzhen though, the latter two are too unpredictable. I also agree about the next set of results, - will show a company in rude health.Finally though we all seem to agree that their offer is not in keeping with a consensus of valuations of the company and the CVR is rubbish.
Jag3
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... BTW I include myself among the conspiracy theorists.
Jag3
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... OK we've been done if you believe the conspiracy theorist among us , but whatever we think, we have no proof of any wrong doing by the BoD's and the Scheme was approved in our courts! I cannot see any chance of of overturning this decision or amending it in any way but wish mercersroad good luck with his legal challenge.
Roger Baron
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... Phillip, I agree with Mercersroad. I think most small shareholders, especially us long term holders, would have been happy to have continued to hold shares for the foreseeable future and simply received a steady dividend income from what had become an Investment Company. If a significant proportion of future income was distributed to shareholders as divs I would not have been bothered by a low share price - but of course in that scenario the share price would obviously have been a lot higher anyway.
mercersroad
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... But Phillip, they didn’t do everything they could to create shareholder value; they did everything they could to destroy it once they had pitched for their Clause 9 waiver. If they had held most of the windfall dividend in reserve they could have sustained a predictable dividend stream over the transition period that would have underwritten a viable long term return.One of the most cynical aspects of this offer (which was a good six months in the making) was the way it was made before the results of the first full year in the company’s new incarnation had been posted. I bet my bottom dollar they will show a company in rude health belying the downbeat forecasts made on the totally irrelevant interim figures. Even then the company stated there had been no material change in trading conditions which would lead us to infer earnings per share from ongoing operations will be at least 3p, which values the bid at a little over three times annual earnings. We the PI were tolerated fellow travellers as a source of cheap equity in the recovery period but when we became surplus to requirements they had no compunction in short changing us. We got what they thought we deserved.
Phillip Reid
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... MKKKI am with Bravon up to a point. IMO the BOD did everything they could to create shareholder value.When eventually they concluded that the market was not going to express that value. They devised the plan to give shareholders something, but erred on the mean side, possibly because the market had been erring on the mean side and in their opinion, that would mean that the shareholders would never profit by keeping FTO in the LSE. Therefore they presumably concluded that anything above a nominal amount for shareholders, rightly or wrongly (IMO wrongly) they deserved anything over and above that nominal offer for shareholders. Yes, it also seems that towards the end (after determining their course of action), their utterances were made to deter the market from any uplift, whilst they presented their plans.The biggest insult for S/H was the CVR, - nothing made to look like something or tried to make look like something. Just my penn'orthPR still bitterly disappointed. (just a phrase - not saying that I am bitter)
MKKK
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... May I add one further comment to this debate between Bravon and mercersroad. At the (I think) 2012/2013 AGMs considerable emphasis was put on the directors' determination to do whatever they could to increase shareholder value. They were unhappy with the share price which seemed to significantly undervalue the company. At the time I felt this a rational assessment and something the market seemed to like as well for a while. Nevertheless despite clearly improving numbers the share price fell. Then the special dividend. Then an offer to investors based on an uplift from what seemed to be a particularly low share price. So whilst I follow much of what you post Bravon, I'm afraid I don't have the 'feel good factor' about it you do. The question I ask myself is this; are the people opposite me negotiating in good faith? In this case I no longer think they are, and anything I can learn from the experience I will act on in future.
mercersroad
12 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ....... Bravon. I’m slightly bemused you should think I’m throwing my toys out of the pram. But apart from that there seem to be two separate issues here.You seem to take offence at the idea I’m impugning the good name of Daniel Chiu and the Fortune board. You say: ‘I have no time for insults or insinuations of wrongdoing where there is no reasonable foundation’.Well I suppose I have to take issue right there because I believe we do have reasonable foundation which is why we are resorting to the law to challenge in the first instance the CVR.You say: ‘Let's shrug off this feeling of 'entitlement' to stuff we are not actually entitled to; certainly shareholders own a slice of everything, but being able to realise the value is a very different concept from having it on the books.’Well, there’s the rub. Of course we are not entitled to all the CGG shareholding, the concept of restricted realisation holds, but we are entitled to some, and that ‘some’ is certainly more than zero. And, by the way, according to the Companies Act Justice Rose was plain wrong to say the market price determines the value of an enterprise irrespective of the underlying assets.Where indeed I may have got a little carried away with myself was to bring in Uncle Tom Cobley and all but on the day the Hillsborough fans finally got the truth as to what happened three public enquiries and twenty six years ago (not that I’m in any way equating our issue with Fortune to the Hillsborough tragedy) I feel strongly we need to stand up and be counted; nothing ventured, nothing gained. On a personal note I find it strange you can find anything good to say about Daniel Chiu after the CVR. I made due allowances for cultural differences, the obfuscations, the authoritarian almost paternal touch that invited you to ‘trust me’. Well, I did trust Daniel Chiu until I observed in the past six months a pattern of travesties that taken singly might in Oscar Wilde’s famous dictum have been unfortunate but taken together were careless or even worse. Then the final ‘trust me’ of the CVR to be triggered under undisclosed conditions purely at the company’s discretion and expire in a year, elegantly finessed by the independent directors informing us it was unlikely to have value. And why on earth would Chiu and co sell CGH shares if they don’t have to when the whole purpose of setting up CGG was to establish a ring fenced springboard to greater fortune and glory?
urbanferret
12 Mar 2015
Re: payment? Thanks Roger, appreciate it!
Roger Baron
12 Mar 2015
Re: payment? Correct, assuming you mean 10p and not 0.10p!
Roger Baron
12 Mar 2015
Re: payment? Correct.
cookie
12 Mar 2015
Con te Partero:Its with great sadness that its over I will miss the the very informative and sometimes the ridiculous comment on this board I wish you all the very best of luck and a happy life in the future
cookie
12 Mar 2015
RE PAYMENT YES
urbanferret
12 Mar 2015
payment? Hello, would someone mind confirming that I have understood correctly? I had a small but long standing holding in FTO. Am i right that shareholders are being given 00.10p per share and cheques are being sent out to shareholders by 23 March?
MKKK
11 Mar 2015
Dealing with Chinese I was about to consider having components made in China for a product I am shortly to launch. For most of the twenty years I have invested in FTO I was comfortable that my money was in honest hands. I think for most of the time it was. However the behavior these past couple of years has affected my thinking. I will now endeavor to place the work here.
