Manx Financial Share Discussion Threads

[smithie6] 16/4/2024 20:47

Stewy_18
Did you vote against the 21% pay rise for the bod ?

(To do that you would need to vote against approving the AR for 2023 since there is surely no specific agenda vote for the 21% pay rise).

-----

I encourage everyone to vote for the shares they hold. As you see fit.

Give separate yes/no votes for the different agenda items. Or take the easy option, like me, and ask your broker to vote NO to everything. ;-)

[smithie6] 16/4/2024 20:20

Stewy_18
...imo the investor relations are arguably poor since Jim Mellon & Gregory Bailey between the 2 of them + conversion of loan notes perhaps have enough votes to win any vote (JM has 19% & GB has 15%, added = 34%
& in any vote that is surely enough to win if another holder of >3% voted with them to get 37-38% since many votes (except for accepting a takeover offer) only get < 76% of shares to be voted, sometimes only ~50% of shares are voted. (Many PIs never vote, & many brokers don't allow their clients to vote because of the extra work for the broker).
So perhaps the directors honestly give a damn about informing the PI shareholders. It takes time & effort & the exec dirs perhaps think they are already busy enough.

The PIs are imo along for the ride, without any voting power to change anything.
However the biggest shareholder holds about 20% (Aeternitas Imperium Privatstiftung. *1) and could push for changes if they wanted. (~1% more than JM who has 19%). Although they perhaps are not fussed enough to try to reduce the number of directors who have been on the bod for >17 years, or protest about the bod's 21% pay rise. Although maybe they might vote against it, we have to wait to see. (But then they perhaps couldn't get any private meetings with the bod to discuss progress/plans).

Personally I don't think a lot of the holders of >3% live on the IoM. But it is a tax haven, & JM is resident there for that reason so I guess there might be a few more rich people there like him. (But if it was me I would prefer Jersey or Monaco or .....since the IoM weather is not ideal & the sea water is surely freezing all year round).

*1. Biggest shareholder has an address in a tax haven if my memory is correct. One time it was I think in Lichtenstein & another time in British Virgin Islands or somewhere.
RNS on 20/3/2020 gives their office address as
Industriering 14, 9490 Ruggell, Liechtenstein.
Is it the holding of a fund or just 1 person ? no idea.
They went to 9-10% when Aaron Banks was selling shares in early 2020, & others were perhaps selling as the COVID crisis hit.

A lot of the big shareholders are linked to tax havens, IoM (JM (19% + CLNs, most of the bod dirs), Lichtenstein (Aeternitas Imperium Privatstiftung 20%) , British Virgin Islands (Zeno Capital >4% at one time, now ?)...
Do any of the people involved know each other at all ?

[smithie6] 16/4/2024 20:09

Spangle93
..'Denham Eke also been on the bod for 17 years'

!! :-(

So, at least 2 dirs have been on the bod for 17 years. :-(

(+ JM. But he would have >30% if he converted his conv. loans, which would be the biggest shareholding; which is perhaps sufficient argument to stay on the bod)

[stewy_18] 16/4/2024 13:03

People, I'm not sure who is invested here but you can vote for/against the re-appointment of Mr Eke by voting in the AGM agenda

TO RE-APPOINT MR DENHAM EKE, A DIRECTOR RETIRING BY ROTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANY'S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

I have done so via my broker. Something has to change at board level IMO.

Very disappointed in last nights Mello. I found the opening 5-10 minutes completely unnecessary and very wooden and perfunctory. That left no time for questions which I guess was their goal? The have no need to state a disclaimer for 1 minute. No one is going to invest off the back of that presentation. Just a wasted opportunity to attract new investors.

Is it just the case that this is a jobs for the boys company?

I guess all the major investors in MFX are probably known to the board and live on the island, so they know they don't need to do anything in terms of investor relations? This is probably the grim reality of the situation.

If that is the case, then liquidity will be the killer here.

If you can't invest in size, why invest at all? I was hoping liquidity would improve as the story developed. I think the way they have reported their results and lack of forecasts have not helped at all.

So next news in 5 months time.

Nice.

[nakedmolerat] 16/4/2024 12:46

i think this is where i prefer time and they seem a bit more transparent

[spangle93] 16/4/2024 12:21

If they were bothered about anyone attending, they wouldn't hold it in the Isle of Man

Jim Mellon may be boss of Master Investor, but for his own bank he's not exactly retail investor friendly

Smithie - you could also point out that Eke has been on the board for 17 years - rather longer than expected under good governance

[davidosh] 15/4/2024 13:20

They should provide a zoom access for the Agm

[smithie6] 15/4/2024 11:24

Btw

Voting at the AGM.

If people communicate their voting intentions to their broker there is a good chance that your broker will submit those votes. My (low cost) broker has.

I am voting NO to all resolutions since I don't agree with
- false data presented by the chairman & the directors in the intro section of the accounts & in presentations
(The chairman states the PAT of PA Ltd is £2.1m while note 32 says it is £1.7m. The Chairman Jim Mellon needs to get his act together).
- the chairman appointing 2 related parties on the bod. (Denham Eke & Gregory Bailey). The chairman has too many votes/people/pawns on the bod imo)
- the senior non-exec, 73 years old, having been on the bod since 2007 !, reeks of chumminess imo, & breaks the good governance guidelines imo (which is for a max of 7 years I think)
- 21% pay rise for the bod, too high imo
- the high number of directors, too many imo.
- too many directors over 70 years old imo
- one non-exec receiving >£90k at this small cap company, too high imo
- the lack of transparency imo in the reporting (£7m for commissions !!, up £4m from £3m yet no explanation at all !)
- the large reduction in underlying performance of the company but with the directors pay increasing 21% !!

Each person to their own view.

[smithie6] 15/4/2024 11:18

Thanks for posting that.

[davidosh] 14/4/2024 23:22

So many posts on here thst you miss the key info...

melloteam 27 Mar '24 - 16:50 - 2093 of 2211

Just to let shareholders and prospective investors know that Manx Financial Group will presenting on the MelloMonday webinar, starting at 5pm on Monday 15th April 2024.

Use code MMTADVFN50 for 50% OFF.

[smithie6] 14/4/2024 19:28

...sounds very interesting, especially the comparison & contrast by the 3 panelists between TIME & MFX

-----

Ticket price. £19.50.

[davidosh] 14/4/2024 17:29

MFX are presenting tomorrow evening on #MelloMonday and as a double bonus you can compare and contrast as Time Finance (TIME) will be analysed by our three BASH panelists



Do join and no doubt Smithie6 will be asking questions

[smithie6] 14/4/2024 15:49

... presentation at Mello... tomorrow I think
~6:20pm Company presentation by Manx Financial Group

Which is ~19:20 for those of us in warmer climes in the EU, if their country uses CET.

[stewy_18] 14/4/2024 11:50

Good luck getting an answer Smithie, The questions should be asked at Mello.

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 19:10

PAT as a % of deposited money, over the years

=======

2023
£6.1/£390m = 1.6%
Including 100% of the profit from PA Ltd.

If exclude the one off capital gain from treasuries, £1.7m PAT, then PAT = £4.4m (6.1-1.7)
4.4/390= 1.1%.

If exclude the one off capital gain "and" the profit from PA Ltd of £1.7m....in order to see the undertaker performance.
Then PAT = 2.7/350 (4.4-1.7= 2.7) (350, estimate of deposits if remove an amount lent to PA Ltd, since excluding the PAT from those funds)
= 0.8%.. dismal imo.

=======

2022
= £4.3m (PAT)/£304m (deposits)= 1.4%
(One could discuss whether it should be total assets, but since only ~10% higher it doesn't completely change the result)
======

2019
= £2.7m (PAT)/£210m (deposits)
= 1.3%

-----

Conclusion
The fall in the PAT in 2023 as a % of the amount of deposits is clear to see.

1.3% in 2019 & 0.8% in 2023 if exclude the one off gain due to treasuries & the profit from PA Ltd.
:-(

Clearly, imo, the profit performance from the main business of MFX has really reduced.
And imo it is too low. & that imo the company should explain it to shareholders & explain if they can get it back to the % it was in 2019, 1.3%. Still an unacceptably low %, but much better than 0.8%.

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 15:30

CT
If of interest I have just updated my post about labour costs.

I make the increase in labour costs, apart from PA Ltd + a staff rise for inflation, charged to P & L, as ~£500k,

If the main exec for Conister UK gets £250k/year, perhaps a £100k pay rise from £150k, & expenses that accounts for a solid part of the £500k increase.

My conclusion is that the increase in annual costs (charged to P&L), so far, due to the UK licence is not so big as was perhaps thought.
(There are other costs, which are capitalised, as given in the AR)

-----
A major part of the increase in labour costs was due to adding the 32 staff of PA Ltd ...for 12 months versus ~3 months in the prior year. I estimated that change as ~£1.2m
But !
It was not solely a cost....
...the extra labour cost from PA Ltd added ~ £1.7-0.3m = £1.4m of extra overall profit to MFX from 100% of PA Ltd "after" deducting all costs including labour.

So, imo the overall increase in labour costs is "not" the cause of the notable reduction in underlying profits at MFX.

The increase in comission costs of £4m looks like a much bigger contributor to the underlying reduction in the MFX profit.

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 15:07

(perhaps I correct myself

While NatWest profit was very good, imo, (& the share price has risen from 180p to 280p !!, as the Nigel Farage saga & chairwoman negligence faded in to the rear view mirror)

The company's forecast for '24 does say this
"Management has guided for a c 12% RoTE in FY24 with conservative interest rate assumptions and expects margins to bottom in H124 and improve in H2 and beyond"

So, it looks like margins have also been under pressure at NatWest, not just at MFX, as I had thought.
However I think that the nett interest margin at NatWest has stayed almost unchanged, despite apparently being 'under pressure' & as a result the share price has gone from 180p to 280p.

Whereas at MFX the underlying profit % from normal lending has notably reduced. imo because the co. has offerred unusually high % interest in order to attract a rush in deposits, +~50%.

Can MFX in 2024 get this money to produce an increase in underlying profit ?
In 2023 the underlying profit fell, despite the massive increase in the size of the loan book !

[castleford tiger] 12/4/2024 14:41

@daviddosh could you post the web link for those on here please

[castleford tiger] 12/4/2024 14:41

Join us next week for MelloMonday

5pm Keynote Speaker
5:20pm Company presentation by European Green Transition
5:50pm Company presentation by Zinc Media
6:20pm Company presentation by Manx Financial Group
6:50pm BASH Panel with Damian Cannon, Kevin Taylor and Leon Boros




MelloMonday Zoom Webinar Link, Monday 15th April 2024, 5pm

[castleford tiger] 12/4/2024 14:39

a buyer...........wow

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 13:56

Post in the process of being written
======

Are we clever , & motivated, enough to compare MFX performance ratios with those for other banks (which means bigger banks since MFX is alone I think in being so tiny).
(Data has been taken from the financials pages on advfn, in order to save time. This has the risk of not being correct data).

NWG
Lloyds
MFX

- (attributable or total ?) PAT as % of revenue
1) NWG. 4.6/14.8= 31% (need to check the data used, since 31% looks too high)
2) Lloyds
3) MFX . Incl. 100% of PA ltd (because the revenue number is for 100% of PA ltd)
= 6.1/45.3 13.3%
Total-gross minus the one off due to capital gain on treasuries of £1.9m pbt, say £1.7m pat (IoM) =4.4/43.6= 10.1%



- costs as % of revenue



3) MFX
(The accounts are 'poor', there is no summation give for costs such as labour costs & other costs)
= 24? /45.3= 53%
(The chairman gives a different % but since imo any text from the chairman can not be trusted I will ignore his number-calculation. eg. the number he gives for the PAT of PA ltd is £0.4m higher than what the auditted accounts give !! FFS !!)

- nett interest margin
(= The difference between income from financial assets (loans etc) minus interest (& related costs) cost of those assets (money paid out to depositors etc)
1) at NatWest this is given as ~2.9%, if it is for the same ratio.

3) MFX
Income from loans= £45.4m +1.5 +4.0 (commissions received)= £50.9m
Interest paid out to depositors= £14.5 + £7.3 (commissions paid out)= £21.8m
Difference between these= £29.1m
Amount of deposits = £390m
Result = £29.1/£390m= 7.5%
But final margin was £6.1m /£390m= 1.6%. a very low % !!
This is PAT including 100% of PA Ltd, divided by the amount of deposits.
If remove the capital gain on treasuries (£1.9pbt, £1.7m pat) due to being a one off, then £6.1m reduces to £4.4m.
The resulting margin for that = £4.4m/£390m = 1.1% !!
Terribly low !!
Considering the risks of bad debts when lending out a big % of the deposited amount of £390m (~£350m was lent out) and other risks due to doing business then a nett PAT margin of 1.1% of the funds deposited is just unacceptably too low imo.
(My guess is that other banks would not take on or do any lending that produced a net PAT margin of just 1.1% of the funds deposited).

What do other people think ?

======

And if the ratios for MFX are not as good as at the other banks, can MFX take any action to reduce the difference?

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 12:00

Ah, it's on line.
I can try.
What time is kick off ?

[castleford tiger] 12/4/2024 11:23

Mello is on line why are you not participating?

[smithie6] 12/4/2024 11:04

Questions for the Mello presentation

If someone is going perhaps they could consider to ask these questions.

1) Does the company reply to shareholders' e-mailled questions ?

(I say it doesn't!)

2) Can the company justify the 21% increase in pay for the bod when the underlying profit is down versus 2022 ?

3) Does the company agree that the data & comparison with 2022 at the front of the 2023 AR is actually false data for the listed company LSE:MFX & what it owns (50.1% of PA Ltd & not 100%) ?

4) Does the company accept that the PAT for 100% of PA Ltd stated by the chairman on page 8 of the AR of £2.1m is not in fact true ?
(Note 32 on page 90 of the accounts state that the PAT of PA Ltd is £1.7m, not £2.1m)

And hence that the accounts do not give a true & fair report of the financial situation of the company as required by the Company Act 2006 ?

5) The amount paid in commissions has increased by £4m to £7m.
This is a massive amount wrt the PBT of the company.
The underlying profit has fallen versus 2022.
The loan book has increased by about 50%, a massive increase.
Has the company taken on a lot of new lending at loss making rates (including the £7m in commissions & the required increase in staff costs due to the high inflation) which has caused a fall in the underlying profit ?
Would the company have done better to have grown its loan book by a smaller amount but at % rates that allowed a profit to be made ?
Does the company think it can increase its % margin in 2024 or make a massive reduction in the £7m paid for commissions in order to recuperate the underlying profitability ?

6) The renumeration of the non-exec. director Gregory Bailey was doubled in 2023 to ~£59k.
Yet he only participated in 5/8 board meetings.
His background is not in banking & appears to only hold a board seat because he owns 15% of the company & is part of the concert party with the chairman JM.
What are the reasons for his renumeration being doubled ?

7) The chairman has a number of related parties on the bod (such as Denham Eke (he is an employee at JM owned & controlled companies) & Gregory Bailey (part of the JM concert party).
One could argue that they are yes men to give the chairman more power in bod meetings.
Does that break the guidelines for good governance?

(Pals & mates or employees are clearly not very good for doing a supervisory function. If Denham Eke went against JM then he risks losing his directors role at a number of JM controlled companies & hence most/all of his salary income !)

8) Banking costs
We're £0.9m in 2023.
Money going out of MFX.
MFX has 2 banking licences.
Can MFX do this banking work in-house in 2024 & reduce the amount spent on the use of external banking services?

9) The 2023 H1 results had this text from the chairman
"our foreign exchange advisory business thrives on these turbulent market conditions,.."

In 2023 , in reality the profit from FX advisory business halved to £0.7m.
A material loss of profit for the MFX group.

Does the chairman accept that he intentionally lied in the H1 accounts ?

10) The chairman of all of sub-committees is a non-exec that was appointed in 2007. And now 73 years old. So, he has been on the bod for
~17 years !!

Surely this blows a big hole in the good guidance recommendations, combined with the 2 related parties that the chairman has on the bod. I think the recommendation is that non-exec serve a maximum of, is it, 7 years, not 17 years. 17 years seems like a lifetime.
Is it surely not time for renovation in this role ?

11) The AR says that the increase in interest rates in the last 2 years has caused the margin at MFX to reduce.
At high street banks they have maintained their margin & "all" major banks have "increased" their profits & they forecast higher profits in 2024.
The same is also true imo for virtually every bank in the EU. They are all doing better !
Yet, at MFX the chairman writes 'oh, it is all so challenging '.
(However, sadly, we know we cannot trust what he writes).

Why is the underlying profit performance at MFX not up, as has happened at all the other banks ?!

(Underlying PAT has reduced, if remove the one off capital gain due to treasuries. And even worse if also remove the extra £0.85m due to owning 1/2 of PA ltd and worse still if also remove the extra income due to higher % interest received on tens of millions parked in UK Govt treasuries/gilts).

[smithie6] 11/4/2024 20:09

Staff costs
...was mentioned in some recent posts

What is the real data ?

From the AR
" Staff At 31 December 2023, there were 193 members of staff (2022: 168), of whom 16 were part‑time (2022: 13)"

Note. Number of staff at PA Ltd was 32.
Cost £1.4-1.6m imo.
And £400k in 2022, ~3 months.
Increase in MFX '23 accounts due to buying PA Ltd = £1.0-1.2m, imo.
Out of an increase of £2.2m, excl MFX bod dirs.
And if ~500k was due to a pay rise due to inflation then only ~£500k was due to other factors, such as any IT work charged to P& L and any other labour costs charged to P & L. Some labour costs have been capitalised, ie. not charged to P &L.

2022 £9.8m incl. bod = £0.8m. excl MFX dirs = £9.0m
2023 £12.2m incl bod = £0.97m excl MFX dirs = £11.2m

2 full time directors & 6 part time dirs.
So, staff excluding dirs :-
2022 166 full time + 7 part time
2023 191 full time + 10 part time

If we assume for these calculations that part time is 1/2 time working.
Then
2022 = 169.5 full time workers
2023 = 196 full time workers

average cost per worker, incl. The company's social security costs, pension contributions etc:-
2022 =£9.0m/169.5= £53.1k
2023 = £11.2/196= £57.1k

However, note that these numbers are effected by higher pay to the directors of all the subsidiaries & the addition, for the first time for 12 months, of the high pay to the exec. directors of PA Ltd.
The most common cost will be notably lower.
And the actual pay to a worker, after pension payments, company social security etc etc is of course notably lower.

The numbers & the increase from 2022 to 2023 seem pretty logical to me....when one considers the addition of the staff of PA Ltd & the need to increase wages due to the high inflation in 2023.
However, the fall in underlying profit (once remove :- 1) the one off capital gain in treasuries, 2) the PAT from PA Ltd, & 3) the increase in profit due to higher % interest on treasuries) despite a ~50% increase in the loan book infers imo that the nett margin was/is too small.
How much were any other one off costs ?
Is there a licence payment to make to the UK for having the UK banking licence?

-------

The bod did the best, they awarded themselves a pay rise of £0.17m/£0.8m = 21% !!
(I will vote no to that for my shares, taking the mickey imo)

Yet the MFX PAT if one excludes the big one off gain in treasuries was down versus 2022 !!
(& if also exclude a) the increased PAT cash input from PA Ltd & b) the higher cash input to profit from the higher % return from treasuries.
Then the underlying PAT looks even worse versus 2022.
Yet the bod award themselves a 21% pay rise & without any comment or justification in the AR.
I don't understand.