Azure Share Discussion Threads

[Abuse team] 04/1/2006 01:56

Post removed by ADVFN

[anomalous] 01/1/2006 05:06

Happy New Year all

The Exchange must look to New York
By Robert Peston (Filed: 01/01/2006)
Daily Telegraph

On January 1 of most years over the past two decades, any commentator indulging in seasonal predictions could look smart by forecasting that the London Stock Exchange would do something dim in the subsequent months.


Its strategic and managerial howlers were the stuff of legend: an important information technology project, vital to the future of the City, would be botched; there would be acrimony and blood-letting on the board; it would attempt a merger against the wishes of important customers.

The middle initial in LSE stood for "stupid" (actually, it used to be the first initial until a self-deprecating re-brand added the "London" prefix).

So ritual Champagne-spraying must be in order now that an adventurous Australian investment group, aided by a Portuguese business and some hedge funds, is offering to buy the famously blundering bourse for £1.5bn.

Well, that would be hasty. The LSE's current management team, led by Chris Gibson-Smith, the chairman, and Clara Furse, the chief executive, has shown a surer strategic touch than their predecessors.

And - at the risk of mooning history and common sense - there is evidence that the LSE has reinvented itself from its origins as an incestuous City club into a professionally run company.

On one view, it is a gorgeous business in that it is generating a return in cash which is a multiple of its cost of capital, and most analysts forecast that it will continue to do so for years.

The rate at which the LSE throws off cash is redolent of a dominant vendor in a growing market. But part of the success of the current management is that it appears to have resisted the temptation to become an arrogant over-charger: squeals from customers are surprisingly rare.

Even so, surely all of that corporate progress is heartwarming but irrelevant if the wacky Macquarie consortium is prepared to pay the market price to purchase the LSE.

There is a big hypothetical here. Macquarie's opening offer of 580p per share has been spurned (rightly) by the LSE's largest shareholders, Threadneedle and Scottish Widows.

But if Macquarie were to add another 100p or so - such that the ratio of offer price to current earnings per share was comfortably above 20 - conventional shareholders would find the terms hard to refuse.

Still, network economics provides a credible argument why brave shareholders might be rewarded in the long term even if they turned down an offer that nudged 700p. Broadly, the big spoils are likely to come if the LSE apes the international expansion strategies of the successful British moneybrokers, ICAP and Collins Stewart Tullett.

Or to put it more specifically, the LSE should merge with Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange. The motive would be to add customers en masse and an ocean of liquidity to a combined trading platform, using the benefits of scale to relentlessly drive down costs.

The cultural fit with a US market would be far better than with a Continental one, for all the pathetic and desperate attempts by Deutsche Börse and Euronext to seduce the LSE into marriage. And the efficiency gains would be immense, especially if the deal coincided with a streamlining of associated clearing and settlement services.

On the other hand, no such transatlantic merger can be effected quickly. And it would be unrealistic to expect LSE shareholders to reject the certainty of Macquarie's cash for a theory about where the big-money jackpot may lie.

So if shareholders capitulate, and if the LSE starts to speak with an Aussie twang, should any of us be perturbed? Is there anything about the LSE that means it should be protected by the Government or relevant regulators from a foreign takeover, even though a series of much larger market-leading British companies - from O2, to P&O to BPB - have been bought by overseas rivals?

Well, patriotic arguments for spurning bids are normally the resort of xenophobes or desperate managers fearful for their jobs. And in this case it would be particularly hypocritical and dangerous to argue the nationalist case: as a country, we trouser a massive dividend in jobs and tax revenues from overseas firms that dominate our booming financial services industry.

That said, the LSE does have an importance to the British economy out of proportion to its relatively small market value. As a provider of cost-efficient listing and trading services, it is a magnet for valuable inward investment to the City and elsewhere. A growing and respected LSE is disproportionately good for the UK - and vice versa.

The question to be asked about the Macquarie bid is nothing to do with nationality, but is about its plans to de-list and privatise the LSE.

Floated in 2001, the LSE's subsequent prosperity is correlated with its accountability and transparency as a publicly listed company. What's more, the floodlights that permanently shine on any quoted company are a protection against clients being ripped off or a balance sheet becoming dangerously overstretched.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Macquarie has any intention of engaging in sharp practice or of loading up the LSE with excessive debt. But the whole point of private companies is that they are more private and more opaque than public ones (doh!). Also, Macquarie's hedge-fund partners tend to eschew publicity as if it were pure poison.

However, Macquarie is brimming with confidence that there is no risk of a regulator impeding its takeover of the LSE - which is understandable on a conventional reading of European and UK competition law.

But even if there is little scope for the Government, or the Financial Services Authority or the Office of Fair Trading to block the deal on the basis that it would be against the interests of the British economy in a general sense, there is a competition angle that should be explored.

Pressures on the LSE's prices are greater when its rivals and customers have the clearest view of what it is doing. It would be bad for competition if this view was obscured by privatisation, especially since so much of what the LSE does has the characteristics of a monopoly.

To lose the Ashes so soon after regaining them would be bad enough. For the OFT to gaily wave through the Macquarie bid, and potentially limit the prospects for a business that provides the UK with competitive edge, would be tragic.

[uknighted] 25/12/2005 10:13

Merry Christmas to all Action group members, particularly Nigel, and all supporters - even Jacko.
And a very prosperous, healthy and peaceful 2006.

[anomalous] 24/12/2005 00:53

Dear RSV/AZH holders

I'd like to wish you all a happy and enjoyable Christmas break with your families, relatives and friends.

The Action Group is still working towards getting the justice we deserve and countdown is still proceeding to the Main Event.

Keep watching the newspapers - because the LSE are about to get the worst New Year's present they could possibly want and as RSV Holders, we will all get our chance to tell the world our story, about how the AIM has become the thieves paradise it is and how the regulators have failed the people they were supposed to protect and ROBBED them of their compensation.

[greenchair] 21/12/2005 15:13

Elegantly put VH.

I couldn't agree more. No more AIM for me. Sticking to the FTSE and OFEX.

Once burnt......Well the scars remain forever...

[anomalous] 21/12/2005 11:35

We're top of the world, says London market
By James Moore and Sophie Brodie (Filed: 21/12/2005)
Daily Telegraph

The London Stock Exchange yesterday said that it had cemented its reputation as the world's global exchange by attracting 129 international companies from 29 countries to its markets.

The exchange also said that this year was the best for new flotations on the main market since 2000, with the lightly regulated junior Aim market seeing record business.

Overall some 77 companies floated on the main market, with 318 joining Aim.

The figures are expected to be used by the LSE as further evidence of its strength in its battle to remain independent in the face of a hostile takeover offer from Macquarie.

LSE shares closed down 2½ at 618½p yesterday but that was still some 38½p higher than the Australian investment bank's 580p cash offer, which has already been rejected by the LSE's two biggest shareholders.

The LSE said it was winning more business from the US, where the corporate governance reforms introduced by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have deterred a number of companies from quoting their shares on American exchanges.

The LSE said: "Of those companies that considered listing on a US exchange, 90pc felt that the demands of Sarbanes-Oxley made listing in London more attractive."

However, the Association of British Insurers warned that London's standards must not be allowed to drop. Peter Montagnon, head of investment affairs, said: "It's good that the City is attracting new business, but any sacrifice in the quality of listings would not serve the market well. The quality of overseas audits, as with UK audits, is important."

Some shareholders are concerned that London's reputation has been put at risk in the rush to do business, particularly with companies from the former Soviet Union.

In addition to the 77 flotations, a further 21 companies took secondary listings in London. Together, the 98 raised £9.8billion. That compares with 68 firms that joined the main market last year, raising £4.07billion. The tally is still well below that for 2000, which saw companies raise a record £17billion at the height of the dotcom boom.

The LSE said that a survey of 80 international firms that floated on its markets showed that access to capital was the main reason for going public for more than three-quarters of respondents.

Macquarie is working on its offer document but has yet to give an indication on when it may be published.

[clocktower] 21/12/2005 11:30

Good luck all here but talking of fraud, if this has not already been posted (sorry if it has) Gerald Smith...IZODIA is in Jail as he breached his bail conditions..Bail was refused.he is a resident of Jersey but appeared in Blackfriars Crown Court on Dec 12th.


I bet that news pleased a few.

[anomalous] 21/12/2005 11:19

Stock still
(Filed: 19/12/2005)
Daily Telegraph

In the past few weeks, Aim has attracted just as many headlines for its troubled stocks as it has for its star performers.

Langbar International stunned investors when dealings in the cash shell's shares were suspended after the group revealed it had been subject to serious fraud.

Last week Highbury House, the publisher chaired by former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, also saw dealings in its stock suspended as refinancing talks failed.

Biofuels Corporation has drawn unwanted attention as the biodiesel group has tumbled from August's high of 189.5p to 87.5p as it tries to sort out its finances and potential bidder D1 Oils walked away.

At first sight, these cases could be seen as indicative of a more general malaise in the regulatory environment for Aim companies. David Wilkinson, a partner of entrepreneurial services at Ernst & Young, said: "It has always been accepted that, as a market for less-mature, growth companies, Aim carries a higher level of risk.

"The returns can also be higher, but you would not want your gran to invest her life savings in Aim stocks."

Investors will clearly be asking whether the way in which Aim is regulated has played a part in the recent disasters.

However, Mr Wilkinson said: "It is inevitable that some entrepreneurial businesses, striving for too much growth or over-dependent on a small number of large customers, will hit the rocks from time to time.

"But the market also places considerable reliance on the nominated advisers to ensure that the companies have genuine businesses with sensible prospects."

[anomalous] 18/12/2005 21:08

Wrong again Jaknife - we were not laughed out of court. The reason the Judge could not award us the compensation, was because of the LSE.

The Judge agreed that the MMs had defaulted on their contracts and failed to settle according to the LSE Rules. She disagreed with the MMs claim that they could use 'best endeavours' to settle.

The Judge also remarked that the MMs did not take any and all reasonable steps to ensure their settlement obligations. In other words, they made contracts whilst they were not in possession of the shares - they were short, but it was a covered short.

Shore Capital stated to the Financial Times on 3 December 2003 that:

"We have no knowledge of any intended legal action against us. In any event, we were puzzled why this would be contemplated as we had no material position in Room Service - short or otherwise."

Yet the Judge agreed that:
SHORE CAPITAL HAD BROKEN THE LSE SETTLEMENT RULES
Quite simply, any position that causes a member of the Exchange to breach the rules of the Exchange IS a material position.

The Court agreed that they had failed to deliver and were therefore 'short'. It might be a covered short - but it was short none the less.

This means that the statement made in December 2003 was false and misleading. The person concerned could be prosecuted for making a misleading statement under the FSMA and under the circumstances, we will accept a public apology from him. Failing that, he may receive a writ for a private prosecution in due course.




Now we know who's been paying you.

[uknighted] 18/12/2005 15:39

JakNife - 18 Dec'05 - 15:29 - 5249 of 5250


"Shore Cap and Winterflood were both buying their shares from Evolution (or so they claimed) but EBG did not have the shares to deliver to them either."

You appear at last to be acknowledging that Shore Capital and Winterflood were only dragged into this affair as a consequence


So Jacko. If you go out with some friends and they decide to rob a bank whilst you are with them, and they throw you a sack of cash which you catch and run off down the street with it, then in your eyes you are not guilty - you have just been "dragged into it".
Presumably, in this scenario, in your eyes you are as guiltless as Shore and Winterfloods.

Ho ho ho
Happy Christmas to you in your private world.

PS I had to copy and paste your posting because I cant be certain that you wont go back and edit it when you realise what a stupid comment that was.

[anomalous] 16/12/2005 15:25

This post was copied from iii where I responded to someone that was advocating that we ignore political pressure and try to apply pressure to the SFO to recover your money:

I disagree with you roughdiamond. There are ways that the shareholders can apply pressure to get a FULL repayment of the amount that they paid for their shares. All they have to have is the courage to stand up and ask for it.

It's quite clear that the people who started this whole thing off are experts at conning people and they led Pearson up the garden path. The trouble with confidence tricks is that people 'want' to believe in the story and that is what the confidence trickster, the grifter plays on.

Whilst I agree that it would be impractical to institute reporting requirements for all RNSs, the AIT and Langbar cases tell us that the people who make RNSs must be accountable for them. They are not merely a breach of the AIM rules or the FSMA, they destroy the entire credibility of the market. That's why the market must come down hard on anyone tempted to falsify documentation or releases. If one can not trust announcements, then why should anyone ever invest again.

There are targets that would yield the shareholders the compensation they deserve.

Firstly, I believe the Institutionals are holding back on claiming their rights and letting the recovery expert see if he can collect the insurance payments for the D&O and PI insurance, from those that made false statements, or failed in their due diligence on the IPO. There might be enough spare after the Inst. have been paid for the rest of the shareholders to get something.

Secondly, the biggest target of all, is the market themselves. The majority of people bought on the strength of the RNS statement. They invested in Langbar because someone said that this company had the funds. We all know and believe that because the law, the FSMA, says that it is an offence to make a false statement of fact, that therefore any RNS has to be true. The shareholders were give false confidence by the law. The fact that the statement came from the Regulated News Service - part of the LSE - gave the statement it's credibility and enhanced the confidence that people placed in its authenticity.

If people had not seen the RNS, the majority would not have bought the shares. They relied on the RNS being the truth. They believed in the law. The LSE owes a duty of care to the public - through the Recognition Requirements, to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to maintain the credibility of the market and for the proper protection of investors. This is in the law - it is in the duty that the LSE owes to the FSA as a licensed, Regulated Investment Exchange.

The LSE have damaged market integrity by failing to ensure that all companies entering their markets, have been properly vetted. It is one of the FSA's statutory obligations to maintain market confidence, but how can people have confidence in a market where the Regulated Investment Exchanges do not check their members correctly, to ensure that they are not only competent, but also are exactly what they say they are.

There are parallels between what has happened here and Enron and that's why the States now have Sarbannes Oxley. To put it simply, the market has damaged it's own integrity and the shareholders have lost confidence in their ability to maintain a fair and level playing field.

The shareholders need to exert as much politcal pressure as they can to investigate why this happened. The SFO will chase the fraudsters, but we all know that their chances of getting anything back are negligible at best. The thieves may never be caught or even serve a day in prison.

However, there is one party that they can look to to compensate them. The party that gave them the confidence to invest in the share. The people that gave the RNS it's credibility and encouraged people to believe that the news was truthful and fact. They are the AIM - the LSE.

This is the target that you should 'aim' at! They are the ones that are most vulnerable and they know it. You may not start a peasants revolt - or rather a PI revolt, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, metaphorically speaking and plans are afoot that will give you your chance.

You will get your day, either in compensation or to tell the world about the truth behind the Alternative Investment Market - The Thieves Paradise.

I wonder how long before the LSE wakes up and smells the roses?!!!

[vanhalen] 16/12/2005 13:42

One of my best investment decision's so far this year.

Another 2,500 AZH

Look at 'em motor :-)

[anomalous] 16/12/2005 13:35

Hang on to the hope of long-term value from the LSE
Tempus
The Times
Robert Cole

SHAREHOLDERS in the London Stock Exchange may be sorely tempted to sell up. Macquarie, the Australian private equity player, has formalised its bid at 580p but there seems almost no chance that a deal will be done at this level. If the LSE agreed to the 580p terms it would rank among the biggest U-turns since Napoleon turned his back on Moscow.

If Macquarie is successfully rebuffed shares will fall back towards levels seen before bid fever broke out almost exactly 12 months ago. The 580p terms are 45 per cent above the 400p seen then. The premium is 61 per cent compared with the 360p average price the shares traded at between December 2003 and December 2004.

LSE shares may not go all the way back to 360p - not least because Euronext, among other potential bidders, lurks in the background. But they could slump back below 500p.

The 580p price also looks generous when judged beside commonly used valuation benchmarks. It is 12 times cash operating profits for the current financial year and 19 times post-tax earnings. If LSE pays the 12p dividend of forecasts, the stock would yield only 2per cent at 580p. That suggests the price is a full one.

The temptation to sell out now is heightened by the fact that shares are trading in the market at 615p, 6 per cent above Macquarie's terms. If Macquarie lifts its offer - or some other predator enters the fray - they may only match the current market price. The 6 per cent current market premium will certainly eat into whatever extra may be offered.

But shareholders should resist the temptation to sell. Macquarie's input here is purely financial. There is no reason to believe the new owner will lead to an underlying operational improvement. Indeed, Macquarie, addressing fears of possible mismanagement, has emphasised how little the management strategy would change if it owned LSE.

If there is no significant management advantage to be had from selling, current owners should hang on to benefit from the progress made. The alternative will see value flushed away.

Some investors may be tempted to sell and buy back later at what may be a lower price. But buyers of stock at current levels could be hedge funds happy to see LSE sold for any sort of short-term profit. A share sale, in other words, could assist a takeover of LSE that would put the longer-term returns beyond the reach of public market investors. Hold firm.



Wonder if he's going to regret this tip?!!!

[anomalous] 04/12/2005 14:48

Australian bank prepares hostile takeover of LSE

Richard Wachman
Sunday December 4, 2005
The Observer


Macquarie, the Australian investment bank, is ready to launch a hostile bid for the London Stock Exchange before 15 December, the deadline for an offer set by the Takeover Panel three weeks ago.
Last-minute preparations are being made to structure a deal that will allow the LSE's users - banks and stockbrokers - to participate in an offer by holding shares in a special investment vehicle that would make a bid on behalf of the Australians.

Macquarie is being advised by Goldman Sachs. Goldmans will provide some financial backing for the bid by taking an equity stake in the bidding vehicle or by providing bridging finance.

The final decision on whether to go ahead with an offer awaits the Macquarie board's approval. Chief executive Alan Moss is expected to hold a meeting of his senior directors in London toward the end of this week, which could pave the way for an announcement soon.

However, analysts caution that Moss may abandon his plans if the LSE's share price rises sharply in the next few days, as he is thought to be firmly against paying above about 680p a share, which would value the LSE at more than £1.5 billion.

Some of Macquarie's directors are thought to be nervous about bidding as Paris-based exchange Euronext could counter-bid, although an offer from the continental exchange would have to meet conditions laid down by the Competition Commission.

However, Jean-Francois Theodore, Euronext's chairman, is facing pressure from shareholders not to overpay. Senior LSE directors led by Clara Furse and Chris Gibson-Smith are thought to be holding out for 800p. On Friday, the price closed at 600p.

The LSE's users are understood to have sought assurances from Macquarie that it will not increase transaction charges if it is successful with a bid.

In Britain, Macquarie owns the M6 toll road, the Isle of Wight ferry and NTL's transmission network.