OmniChart

QPP SugaToyBoyDaddy 14 Nov 2015

Re: Return of capital so in theory using a base price of £1.00, if they consolidate 10 old shares for 1 new share, you lose 90% of your share holdings, so they are returning 90p or 90% of your lossed value. then the shares price should normally rise by 90% as they say you dont lose value just share quantity. this equilibrium very rarely happens in consolidations as people lose any odd shares they have, and costs may be incurred during the process administration fee's etc. usually the new price is less than Par value and drops considerably on the day of the new shares admission for trading. some people prefer to sell their shares then buy back in on the drop after the consolidation.The difference here is the 90% or 90p/share pay back. surely that would impact on the new consolidated share price and drag it down to a Par value after the 90% payout is deducted.EG. if 100 shares at £1 and equals £100, becomes 10 shares at £10 equaling £100, then loses 90% value due to the payout, it will become 10 shares at £1 and a value of £10. add that to your £90 payout for the 100 original shares, that should bring you back to an even Par value with a smaller investment in company shares. But if you wanted to re-invest to a simular percentage of shares like you had previously, it would most likely cost you a higher share price to buy back in, and theres the costs involved if you require a certificate.On the other hand you can sell before the payout and get the current value, then buy back on the drop considering the risk that you may not get back in at a lower price than you sold your original shares for. The other thing is that if they choose to consolidate again in the future some people may get wiped out unless they buy more shares to stay in.Also, if the big investors find this more attractive after the consolidation, the price may not drop as much as suggested and you could be left out in the cold if you sell before hand. Its a tough one to call.!thats the way I see it anyway. but you would have to check it out for your selves incase I have got this all wrong.

ULT wulwirth 14 Nov 2015

o dear john [link]

TXO wanting_to_know 14 Nov 2015

Any News ? With 4 investments, can Tim Baldwin report any PROGRESS for TXO ?TXO used to be "Texas Oil & Gas"There seemed to be plenty of TB's "gas" in the RNSs (when they occasionally occur), but is there any OIL ?wanting_to_know

ULT wulwirth 14 Nov 2015

Not Good for your new business John, is it....The researchers' cognitive behavioral therapy is effective even lower than the standard treatment, but computers, computer, cognitive behavioral therapy for patients who do not try, you are bound by these methods, we have the problem that sometimes reluctant to participate, "he said.[link]

QPP melrosian 14 Nov 2015

Re: Return of capital However we got probity .Mel

WTM Ripley94 14 Nov 2015

Re: Bought at 88p HI ZuluRegarding you post have i calculated correctly you portfolio total is 1,363,000 when you posted.

GBO Mpg1 14 Nov 2015

Re: fao mpt1 Cheers mike I'll take a look

QPP oilovlam 14 Nov 2015

Re: OG eat my shorts OG/Tom, You aren't one of those bozo barack room lawyers who advised the SFO to take Olympus to court were you? Even Tom WHiningFroth would have known better - he is almost an expert on going to court after all. Perhaps the SFO should have sought his advice.The lawyer doesn't lose if they advise incorrectly. They get to go to court and earn loads of fees. They even win when they lose. SO you can hardly expect impartial advice from a lawyer, especially when the taxpayer will foot the bill.BTW I thought we were talking about allegations of fraud. I didn't know there was corporate manslaughter involved. Some real skeletons in the cupboard perhaps.The court ruling is an indication of what can and cannot stand a reasonable chance of prosecution. So you cannot take a company to court for lying to their auditor. extension if you are lying to the auditor you also lie to shareholders. It has to be an individual that the SFO has to pursue for fraud. QED. If you think otherwise then you are deluded. The SFO will never take QPP (the company) to court after the Olympus case was thrown out. Now RT & his acolytes is another matter.

NANO Kuss 14 Nov 2015

GTM bought back their recent short. Still reducing it appears. Lot's more to buy back...

HAWK old brown owl 14 Nov 2015

End Game? Nothing has changed about this co it was always a dirty business. So what happened to the rampers Atrocity Exhibition, Duck and Dive, Number7, Tas Devil and the rest of the 'clever' ones ??Check out the exchanges in jan2012 onwards. That bunch as expected were nothing but pump and dump merchants short termers peddling deceitful fantasy. Sorry for those who believed their bu!!5h•t. As for the DIrectors - SG made his bit and scarpered like all the rest, Bramhill (still scamming elsewhere) Tim Heeley ( he who was/inUS) etc, etc. Chuck The Joke still there though ( P45 coming up soon). So then 2.5 now 4 yrs on 2.1 and falling. the way what happened to the Swedish launderete?Clarence B see u r still around so expect you woul know the answers to some.....R O

SRES MISOLDB 14 Nov 2015

Re: Bad Luck Ha Ha.......that's the prob when your in transport, every thing has brakes, not breaks.....lol

QPP eagle51 14 Nov 2015

Re: Return of capital About £420m in cash is going to be paid out to shareholders on the register on the relevant date. Period. This payout is based on 450m shares (give or take) in issue before the consolidation.I don't know if there was another way to structure the capital return (of about 90% of the company's worth according to the market) so that the consolidation didn't have to be as 'brutal'. My personal view is that it will kill the price post payout. The market wasn't likely to value the remaining businesses and cash at much anyway - maybe the directors' and their advisers' "male chicken-eyed" logic suggested that QPP being a penny share again was 'non de rigeur'. Sadly, I think it's destined to be - whatever the share base - unless the new CEO pipes up quickly with some plausible reasons why it shouldn't.A 1:10 consolidation should theoretically result in (say) 10p a share becoming 100p a share. I don't think an unsophisticated gang of people waiting to see if there's anything still to be made off the skeletal remains of this company are going to care much that there are now only 10% of the number of shares in issue. They'll just trash them anyway. I'd have been inclined to reinvest a lot of the capital returned into QPP (or whatever it will be then called) if I'd seen a low share price I felt was unjustified. There's something psychologically different with a share that's 5x the price (it's never going to be 10x, which it should be if there's a 1;10 consol). Theoretically it would be better value but we all know about theory and practice.It's an own goal I'm afraid. First the breaking of a promise, now this. How much are these people being paid?

IVE nicname 14 Nov 2015

Re: round and round............. Carl Turpin you say - I seem to remember his uncle Dick, had a black horse.His little venture into the 'financial markets' ended in suspension too!They never learn. !!

EDEN 3Dimensional 14 Nov 2015

One day rodders [link] decent management behind us we would be flying by now, lets hope they pull their fingers out and start to either pay a divi or get their act together to make value for their shareholders.3D

WIN Tenobas 14 Nov 2015

Re: Half Year Results The detractors have not disappeared.The important developments in the half year were (least important first):1) The haulage business increased its profits by £1m for the half year.2) The actuary agreed to increase the discount rate on the pension liabilities from 3.25% to 3.8% in exchange for the company agreeing to stump up for administration costs in the future.3) The records management business OPERATIONS were sold.These made profits of £3.5m and were sold for £55.7m. This is a return of 6.2% foregone.The average group debt was £124m on which the interest cost was £5m. This is a cost of 4%. But the pension obligations being 1% of the total obligations were kept (£2.5m?).So a business earning 6.2% and one tenth of the group profits was sold presumably to try and bring the debt ratios into line.4) The assets of the pension fund fell by £71m ( £900m -> £830m?)This was a disastrous result;it conforms to the long term trend that the business shrinks by about 4% annually but the pension deficit grows by about the same amount. Including administration cost obligations the pension fund deficit already exceeds the market value.The annual cash payments into the pension fund will now exceed the earnings and still the deficit grows.We do not need to look far for the next financial crisis in the UK economy it will be the collapse of the Pension Protection Fund (unless the Treasury has already decided to let the pensioners take the hit).