OmniChart

QPP melrosian 11 Nov 2015

Re: Private Co solutions It never ceases me being amazed that some private company solutions are never applied to AIM companies.Imagine I am right ( you dont have to believe that) and that in big picture terms there was a full fix for QPP . Lets imagine too that the fix boiled down to;1. Sack board and replace with those competent to roll sleeves up2 Full open honest appraisal /plan and 6 months sp suspension. 3 Plan for an extra £35m cash ( borrowed) for 18-24 months to allow QPP to get to 9 fig PBT and repayment of the £35M by processing the excess WIP on the books.As for 2 that would have sh*fted a lot of shorters as those managing the shorts got stuck for 6 months. Unfortunately those with geared positions would get hurt.However there was a body of ignored PI's and other Investors who could have saved the day. If shareholders had been offered a Fixed interest 6% 2 year Bond with a 10 % cash bonus at redemption it could have provided the needed £35M. If the new directors had said " we are in doodoo and banks dont want to give us £35M - and we dont want to give profitable business away .......and here is the business plan and cash forecast .........and when we have banked the £0.8Billion revenue we expect in the next 24 months ......we shall have scaled back WIP by 15% - repaid half of bank borrowing so that our borrowings equate to 1.5 X 1 month invoices ... we need the £35M ....then shareholders might well have divied up to protect their investment.I have been laughed off the park for suggesting this in other tight situations. Nevertheless£35m relative to the £1b proper value of QPP would have been affordable to most shareholders. It works in private companies. Heaven knows what this would have done to the SP when it recommenced trading. It might have meant QPP had a PE of 7 , like SGH has.It would have been cheaper than mezzanine finance ....and the banks would be happy.PI's would have been confident that it was headed fro 9 fig profits and very low gearing in 2 years. Mel

AMFW Damp Seaweed 11 Nov 2015

Re: Where's Lambrini gone? Kenj2,You have been around now for quite some time so you must know that pointing out the obvious failings of LG is a waste of time. Apart from a few new and naive lurkers, I doubt anyone takes her seriously.However in fairness I do look at her posts sometimes, because they are initiated by an algo trigger system. and it is always worth checking out if the is any substance to the recommendation. But, as we all know, DYOR and never rely on bb postings alone. ps For all we know LG could be a paid tr0ll.

ULT Damp Seaweed 11 Nov 2015

Re: click I'm really surprised to find anyone still here.Do you have a plan Wolly ?ps I would suggest that you remove the 's' from https when posting links as that will make it much easier for anyone who is interested to 'click' straight through to the link.So [link] [link]

QPP eagle51 11 Nov 2015

Re: Good news on SFO It never ceases to amaze me how many people get "share price" mixed up with "share value". I know: "how much are your shares worth? As much as you can sell them for". Agreed - at any point in time.The theory of successful investing (which has always passed me by - not the theory, the last bit) is that you look at the investment fundamentals, which are all about long term return - however that return comes; capital gains interest more people on AIM, dividend yield is the more usual measure for those buying the FTSE 100 and maybe a mixture of the two as you go down the size scale from there.The value of any asset bought for gain can only ever be the present value of all future income deriving from its ownership. In other words NPV, which is derived from discounted cash flow (DCF) models.If you are satisfied there is no change in the fundamentals that underpinned your investment decision and you don' have to sell, you can sit through adverse share price conditions and wait for the fundamentals to play out. Theoretically at least.Share PRICES are the result only of supply and demand - or at least they should be. They can be materially affected by sentiment that is not based on fundamentals. There are flaws in this argument. The whole system is subject to downward manipulation of prices overall, by improper regulation of the process known as shorting, which results in investor inputs into markets progressively being taken out by 'raiders', with progressively less money then remaining to 'chase' broadly the same number of companies listed in that market. I have no objection to the concept or practice of shorting - it is just another name for selling, with the intention of buying back when the price is lower. But this pre-supposes the shares are owned by the seller in the first place. How can you sell something you don't own - or at least have selling rights to? You have to borrow the shares to sell. Here again, I have no issues. There is no reason or logic behind saying anything should prevent an owner from lending shares to another to do with as he pleases, before returning them under the terms of whatever agreement is put in place. That's his prerogative.But where DO all the shares come from that are borrowed and shorted every day in the markets? The greater part of them, I would suggest, are beneficially owned by people who don't know they are being lent and would never give permission for their loan if it was sought. We all know pension funds do a lot of the lending. What are the trustees doing? Where is the possible upside for people who have invested their hard earned savings thinking they're safe? It is no coincidence investment returns have fallen so far over the past 20 years - the short-term attractions and bonus generating opportunities presented by the lending fees aren't half attractive. Until it is discovered that a group of investors' funds have been depleted through their shares being lent without their knowledge or permission, and the trustee and fund manager having the pants sued off them personally, nothing will change. These funds are required to disclose the results of their lending activities - and nor do they. Why not?And consider the following: why has the practice of shorting become so endemic since the explosion of internet broking, where investors' shares are held in nominee companies owned and controlled by these brokers, many being subsidiaries of investment banks, or the creations of other city-slickers? They try to come across as professional and friendly but I'm pretty sure money is right at the top of their agenda. They all say: "we would never engage in the practice of lending". Really? Individuals think that if they write a letter saying: "I forbid you to lend my shares" that will work. No it won't - they'd simply say: "we were holding 20m of those - none of the ones we lent were yours - any other questions?"So while people who are long on shares debate ad infini

OXS marcelluswallace 11 Nov 2015

Re: Very Near Future? Well, it has certainly been distant for a very long time..Quite obviously dissent on merits and/or quantum. ..At least Quiborax provides an insight in Stern's views on quantum. MW.

CWC idontwanttolose 11 Nov 2015

Re: Expectations Jimbo I think that they have until 19 th Nov to make an offer and it was indicated to be around the mid 80's

HLMA Yertiz 11 Nov 2015

Re: Uncharted heights Why? Please explain...or is this another of your 'pie in the sky' prophecies that might or might not come good?

SRES graham142 11 Nov 2015

Bad Luck Tried to buy a million twice at around 12.30 today , First attempt at 0.190 and when that failed tried at 0195....that also failed. Thought I would leave it an hour and then try again but hey presto.....look at the price jump. Sometimes ya just can't win.

ARM Mr Norvett 11 Nov 2015

Re: ARM 64-bit goes from strength to strengt... I think if Arm can get its act together in the 64 bit department it will be a real threat to Intel, only time will tell, but things move fast in this market.

QPP melrosian 11 Nov 2015

Re: Edison Research TopalovJust to add to that last post.......HL may be big ....and the timing of income uncertain, but presale and post sale those reporting have been talking about HL as a separate ring fenced issue.HL claims WIP sold for zero and an equivalent of 0.5 forward PE.Mel

RUR Leicesterboy 11 Nov 2015

Re: Short Term Facility Broomfielder better for discussion on London and South East BB ! More people discussing this share.LB

QPP melrosian 11 Nov 2015

Maybe The effect of the Thatcher revolution ( which ditched 3.5m textile jobs and means I cant buy a decent bit of sports jacket tweed) .......may end up with SGH reducing the ludicrously high cost of some London lawyers ( Patent law Corp Finance deals Aircraft leases Leasing companies Building contracts)and thus reducing the costs to business of doing business. You never know.Mel

FDP Brown Bull 11 Nov 2015

Re: Cracking results & share price movement Yes, I'm up 15% after only 5 months. Can't really ask for more.

GBO Mpg1 11 Nov 2015

Re: Globo's subsidiaries i think being able to detach youself from the story is a very good tip and prevents people from getting carried away.I would like to take a look into TA, andy can you recommend any books or online based tutorials?

QPP melrosian 11 Nov 2015

Re: Edison Research Dont agree. PwC could eliminate any value in WIP over and above the amount paid by SGH and "justify " near cash accounting. . Before the sale, WIP valuation may have lacked enough prudence, but the only proper pre sale way of valuing it, prior to sale, was accrual basis , adjusted by provision for prudence.We both know WIP for HL claims was sold for zero and a split of net future profit. We have been given guidance on future expectations and it would be odd not to be able to think we have a reasonable picture of the ballpark. If SGH is honourable ( "We are lawyers" ..I hope so. Cannacord estimates on ant SP is a long way away from Edison estimates on SGH Revenue. Edison dont say anything about sp target. None of us know the SGH costs of absorbing QPP PSD or their new fixed and variable costs. But lawyers have been around for a long time and I presume that SGH , post due dilligence, is not all wrong in noting that QPP PSD had an excellent business model. I reckon Edison wont be wrong with the revenue by more than 15%. SGH management would be daft not to adjust costs / shed unwanted WIP/ to ensure it had ballpark net profits of the order estimated by Edison ( and backed up by some of the SGH research stuff at the time of the purchase)What would be odd , as the dominant plc in the field,1. would be for SGH to lack the ability to snaffle up more competition once it has fully swallowed a purchase ( "3.5 accretive? " Greech) - 2 years?2. If it failed to manage its WIP to pay down debt3.If it did not already have the economies of scale etc, which already gives it competitive advantages.4. If it did not adjust its sales plan to attack other profitable arenas in the legal field. One day you may find SGH processing aircraft and rolling stock leases as well as ambulance chasing. That fits with their "We are Lawyers branding".All I am saying is that I agree with Edison revenue estimates, within 20% , and that a forward PE of 4 is cheap ..........that the reasons for the cheapness are probably to do with perceptions of high debt and a post deal equity overhang in the market. I have a notion that SGH will be slower growth for 3 years but not no growth. None of what I am saying is not obvious to shorters and they would be daft not to take profit sometime as common sense suggests a PE above 10 should be warranted. I have also repeated, and irritated many that an extra £30M ( at mezzanine high running cost) should have been quite enough to allow QPP PSD to deal with it all ( WIP financing) too. Someone somewhere said RT cant have that....and they were right. Rose and Sutcliff obviously had no sleeves ......because I thought the duty of a director was to look after the interests of shareholders. Perhaps they can afford sleeves now.Anyway we could have employed Joubert to deal with any immaterial skeletons. The big picture issue was financing WIP ( selling some?) until it was net cash generative.Little expertise needed to see that.Your reference to Cannacord SP estimation just isnt apt ( Edison estimates Rev; EBITDA, PBT and EPS ( which is net of everything). It is an attempt at obfuscation. .. and in my view you are just mudslinging probably to add to " Problem perception " ...where I see a 2 year natural management progression to PE over 10 from 4 now.........and a stonking profits jump in the year to 30 June. After publication of SGH results to June 2016 Borrowings wont look so high and will look even less so for 2017. Mel