We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fdm | FDMG | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 150.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150.00 | 150.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 07/1/2010 12:32 by davidosh Thanks guys and will chase my broker...I am looking to add to my MUBL holding whilst they are still on a p/e of 4 and with the ex divi date next wednesday plus trading update in two weeks. The dip on monday has come perfectly but funds from here would be nice. |
Posted at 16/12/2009 01:10 by gengulphus The latest RNS indicates that the concert party consisting of City Securities Limited, Rex Harbour et al has been in action again, this time buying 300,000 shares on Monday at a bit over 145.5p. It is very interesting, for two reasons:* It is a rule 8.1 announcement (i.e. one by an offeror or the offeree company or their associates) rather than a rule 8.3 announcement (i.e. one for holders of 1% or more of the shares) like their last announcement on December 2nd. * It is at a price above the current offer price. The Takeover Code says that the term "offeror" includes potential offerors, so I think the most likely explanation of the use of the rule 8.1 announcement is that they are declaring themselves potential offerors. (I don't think they can be the existing offerors or in concert with them, otherwise the existing offerors would have had to raise their offer to the level paid yesterday, and being FDMG or an associate of FDMG doesn't seem to me to make sense either.) I did sell about a third of my holding yesterday at prices of 142.5p and 145p (it's partly in a SIPP and partly in an ordinary dealing account, so two separate sales were needed) and was glad I'd kept my options open by not accepting the current offer - basically, I wasn't certain whether the price rise above the level of the existing offer was due to some serious action on a competing offer or was just a temporary response to some unfounded rumour, and wanted to hedge my bets between the two. Today's RNS makes it look much more like serious action on a competing offer at a level above 145.5p, and so I'll be hanging on to all of my remaining holding and certainly not accepting the existing offer until things become clearer or the market price rises significantly further! Gengulphus |
Posted at 11/12/2009 10:45 by gengulphus I'm fairly certain that if they don't reach the compulsory acquisition threshold and all the remaining shareholders stand firm, they can't actually force acceptance - after all, if they could, that would simply mean that the compulsory acquisition threshold is lower than it actually is! I don't know the full details of what they can do to squeeze the remaining shareholders out if they don't all stand firm, nor whether those details change when the company becomes private.A majority shareholder can however make life quite difficult for minority shareholders, even if they only go over 50%, not 75%, and so cannot delist the company. That applies especially if the majority shareholder has more financial clout than the minority shareholders and so can afford to indulge in "this will hurt me, but it will hurt you more" tactics such as cancelling dividends and doing a rights issue. An example is the Tesco takeover of Dobbies Garden Centres a few years back - Tesco only got about 60-70% acceptances on their offer because of a blocking holding of nearly 30% held by another shareholder, but declared it unconditional anyway. A year or so later, they cancelled the dividend, declared a rights issue to expand the company that the minority shareholder would have to take up to keep their holding above 25%, and made another takeover offer at a lower price than the first one. And once the minority shareholder had established this couldn't be blocked by legal means, they caved in and accepted that second offer, which then duly went all the way through to compulsory acquisition. Basically, the writing was on the wall: even if the minority shareholder could make the further investment required to keep the blocking holding, there was nothing to stop Tesco coming up with further company expansion plans that required another rights issue in another year's time, and so on - and their financial resources were going to run out before Tesco's! Obviously, Astra doesn't have the same sort of financial clout as Tesco, and so are unlikely to use exactly the same tactics. And you're talking about a holding that blocks compulsory acquisition, not the larger one required to block delisting. But I would be very careful about any plan to block Astra once they've got 75% control of the company - make certain you know what you're doing and what your contingency plans are, and definitely don't let those plans involve getting into a financially precarious position! Gengulphus |
Posted at 19/11/2009 16:02 by rbcrbc If Astra are serious about making an offer I can see no reason why they should wait for the last possible date.So with 7 working days and half an hour left I am tending to think that no offer will be forthcoming. So the main question is will Rex Harbour & Co. make a counter offer at 140p or higher (and I see no reason why they should start with a higher offer), or do they simply see the longer term value here. As they have only agreed to puchase 2m and keep their joint stake at 13.92% i.e. under the 20% threshold wheras they could probably have taken an option on all 29.54% of the family holdings had they been intent on an offer, I doubt Rex&Co will make an offer. So hopefully the offer is dead, and David (or Rex) has a new Chairman and Non-Exec lined up and we can see an increased dividend and start arguing about whether the cash should be returned to shareholders (via a tender offer that the family would probably particpate in) or invested in European Expansion. |
Posted at 23/9/2009 16:14 by gengulphus The trouble with that is that once a VC firm has 60-70% of the shares, what's to stop them squeezing out the rest of the shareholders? Take a look at what Tesco did to Dobbies Garden Centres a year or two after their first takeover bid left them with that sort of percentage - only the Tesco RNSes still seem to be visible, but basically they got about 65% acceptances on their initial offer at 1500p in 2007, being blocked from full control by a ~29% holder. Over the next year Dobbies stopped paying a dividend and announced a capital raising to expand the company, then Tesco made a second offer at 1200p - which the ~29% holder accepted. Of course, that ~29% holding wouldn't have remained above 25% and so a blocking holding unless its owner invested a considerable extra amount of capital in the company...In short, in that case getting ~65% control was enough for Tesco to ultimately succeed in getting the remaining shares at a lower price than the original takeover offer and in spite of the fact that the largest minority holding was enough to block all special resolutions on its own. Getting into the position of being a minority shareholder in a company with a >50% majority shareholder is a risk. Doing so when the majority shareholder is known to be acquisitive makes that risk a good deal bigger - especially if they've got enough financial muscle to be able to make the company being taken over into a cash sink for a few years... Gengulphus |
Posted at 21/9/2009 17:32 by rbcrbc I also think it is very naughty how todays RNS was issued only in the name of Astra 5.0 Ltd and no RNS was issued either in confirmation or response officially by FDMG, Therefore many FDMG shareholders may be totally unaware of this news.It would also be interesting to determine what In addition, Astra reserves its position in relation to the terms of any such offer (if announced), including without limitation the mode of implementation. actually means, they are obviously planning something a little different. |
Posted at 23/8/2009 13:05 by paulypilot Hi,My observation on the mooted MBO, is that generally the longer discussions drag on, the LESS likely a deal is to happen. Certainly by this stage, I'd be very surprised is anything were to happen, given that talks have been going on for well over 2 months, since the 4 June announcement That said, credit markets have been improving, and general business confidence getting much better over this period, so a VC is more likely to want to press ahead. The big stumbling block is that 120p is nowhere near enough to persuade shareholders to accept a buyout, it's just not going to happen at anything like that price. There is then a danger that management might become embittered & maybe try to de-list the shares, although there would be uproar if they tried that. I still think a substantial share buyback at current market price is by far the best way to enhance shareholder value. At the very least they should increase the dividend to pay out the bulk of earnings in divis. Why not? It makes no sense at all to just accumulate cash on the Balance Sheet, which then earns a negligible return from the bank. Regards, Paul. |
Posted at 17/8/2009 16:33 by rbcrbc Paul, Whilst I agree with your maths on the effect of a buy-back on EPS it is unfortunately NOT the case that buy-backs lead to increased dividends, so often they don't and there is absolutely no obligation for the dividend to increase pro-rata to the EPS. Also, don't forget, that there is plently of room here to increase the dividend substantially from current profits. (But it would make more sense to discuss that with tomorrows figures available, in case things have changed). I also didnt see many sellers at 110-120p so think they will have to move quickly up to the 200p mark before getting sellers for a buy-back and whilst I am very happy to trade out at 200p and back in after it falls when the buy-back ends, I don't really think management use of any buyback should really encourage short term traders. So, whilst I would prefer the cash to be invested back into growing the business either organically or by (overseas) acquistion. I think a one-off special dividend and live with the tax implications would be the simplest option. David, If our non-exec Karl does the business and issues a full and proper statement re: the MBO with the interims then I will (probably) be happy for him to stay. If not it is most definately time for a change. Do any of those on your 'waiting list' have easy access to Brighton ? |
Posted at 15/8/2009 11:21 by rbcrbc By far the best bet, instead of earning 0.5% on deposit on all that cash, is to distribute it back to shareholders via a large share buyback programmeWhilst I certainly agree that the uncertaintity needs ending and they have too much cash I am not convinced that a buy-back is the right option. I believe they have £10m cash. If they paid an average 150p during a buy-back they could buy 6m shares leaving some cash behind. That would reduce the shares in issue from 22m to 16m. And increase 'the directors' holdings (2.26m as at last accounts) from 10% currently to 14% thus making the next cheapo MBO (?150p) much more likely to succeed. I would prefer a doubling of the regular dividend and a one-off special dividend. If we dont get a decent, full and proper management plan for the cash pile and end of the offer with the results on 18th then I think it is time to impose a new Non-exec or two. Is it one Non-exec for each 20% of shares ? Paul, did you say that 40% of shareholders had offered a degree of support for the offer to be rejected ? |
Posted at 17/6/2009 15:13 by paulypilot Hi,It's obvious that management here like to sit on a thick wad of cash, which is no bad thing in these difficult ecomomic times. And it's also good to note that the growing cash pile (must be up to £11-12m by now?) has NOT been burning a hole in management's pockets. With most companies you would expect to see a cash pile of one third of the mkt cap being spent on either reckless & earnings diluting acquisitions, and/or heavy expansion capex. In this case seeing as FDM is a people business, it doesn't really need much capex to expand, and since their business model is proven both in the UK & overseas, there is huge scope for relatively cheap expansion of the existing business. This is why I like this company so much, and why I DON'T want to be bought out at a derisory price! This is what all FDM shareholders are saying to me too, jeez this company should be proud of their shareholder base, everyone thinks the business & management are fantastic! Seriously. Well, they are fantastic at running the business, but they are rubbish at engineering an opportunistic MBO!!! Going back to the cash pile though. There is no reason at all for FDM to maintain such a large cash pile which is earning shareholders a virtually nil return. THIS SURPLUS CASH SHOULD BE RETURNED TO SHAREHOLDERS - EITHER VIA A SUBSTANTIAL SPECIAL DIVIDEND OF 40P/SHARE, OR THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL SHARE BUYBACKS TO ENHANCE EPS & DPS. Like many shareholders, I am earnings spectacular returns on my investments right now, and it is most irksome that FDM are just inefficiently sitting on surplus cash, and doing nothing with it. Return it to the owners of the business! At the absolute least, I would expect to see a doubling or more of the existing dividends, perhaps to 7 or 8p/share. There is plenty of cash to cover it, and no risk. Incidentally, spikes & troughs in cashflow do occur, but it is perfectly acceptable to have an overdraft facility to give headroom for such movements. It's ludicrous to suggest that this company should keep 2 months TURNOVER as surplus cash in the bank, as someone suggested, it's just not necessary under any circumstances. So come on FDM management, please come out from hiding, and get on with your jobs, to run this fantastic business. Shareholders own the business, and we love it. We want to remain shareholders, and be paid better dividends please. If you want to buy the business outright, then cough up a fair price (200p+). Silence is NOT golden. Let's get this sorted out a.s.a.p., and send those money-grabbing Private Equity boys back to where they came from - do they think we are stupid or something ??? Onwards & upwards, and here's to a fantastic company in FDM !!! Paul. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
