||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Software & Computer Services
Real-Time news about Invu (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|riggedmarkets: anyone reading my posts
Im not discussing the share price or what I think it should or shouldnt be
Im raising some concerns about what happened in the past, which was possibly fraudulent and intentional....
and whether all links to that have been cut....or not
and the role the chairman played in that...and whether he should have left then
and whether the chairmans role in what has happened since breaks any regulations or should be investigated
eg. appears he might end up owning or controlling all of the A shares and one could argue the company....and whether that take over was done in a legal and correct manner
I note that issuing A shares appears to have got round any need to involve the take over panel....inferring that it was perhaps an intentional takeover process...intentionally done in a way to sidestep the controls/rules.
And hence, has the chairman been involved in the processes over the last 10 years of INVU ...that UK investors have coughed up perhaps 40M pnds..
did he co-operate with the use of false accounts ?
did he benefit from the use of false accounts, did he sell into the resulting high share price ?
..and he perhaps ends up owning the company with current cap. value of around 2M.....especially if the 2M is a small part of any larger gain he made in previous years if he sold a lot of shares at a high price and that perhaps still has X million left from past sales of INVU shares. I dont know, just asking the question. And perhaps all without any shareholder being aware of anything !.|
How long have you been a shareholder ?
Looking at the paperwork creates some questions for me
1) The company has just declared that the chairman has an interest in X % of the shares. A major amount.
And a result, which they have not declared is that, imo, the Chairman has an interst in 100% of the A shares !!
this was not revealed to ord. shareholders when they were asked to vote on the issue of the A shares.
Was the issue of the A shares ILLEGAL ...since basic information seems to have been intentionally hidden from shareholders. ie. that the chairman was so closely linked to 100% of the new A shares.
2) The accounting revelations in approx. 2008 imo looked like revelation of blatent fraud.
(the accounts had said that they had had sales of X (high) , but that they had not yet been paid. That created a high number for receivables but also a high level for profit since the sales were counted as having happened, just not yet paid for. So, a high EPS and hence a high share price Hence a high share price for any new share issues.
Then, the company declared that the reported sales had ...in fact....NEVER HAPPENED !!
The share price hence collapsed.
Where the 2 prev. exec. dirs. investigated as a result ?
If not, why not ?
Appears to me, that everyone who ever bought shares had a right to their money back.
3) Further to point 2, were the share issues also fraudulent and intentionally so since they used financial data which the directors, and imo the chairman, knew to be false. Hence the share price was artificially inflated...to intentionally fleece anyone subscribing for shares.
4) Did any directors or the chairman sell shares in any cash raising, or at any other time, pre- 2009 when the false accounting was revealed
in order to obtain personal cash benefit, ie. intentionally rip off new investors, knowing the accounting method and hence numbers were false ?
5) The 2 execs. were thrown out.
Why was the chairman not thrown out as well ?
He was an integral part imo.
6) Were shareholders intentionally tricked in the issue of the A shares ?.
By the chairman being linked to 100% of the new shares
and the wording of the conditions being intention to trick ord. shareholders.
The wording says that the A shares are equal to the ord. shares.
the co. paperwork also says that any distributions to shareholders will be proportional to capital. this is normal.
an A share has cap. value of .01p
while an ord. share has a cap. value 10 TIMES lower, 0.001p
hence it appears that ord. shareholders get virtually nothing compared to A shareholders, 10 times less.
while ord. shareholders think, imo falsely, they get equal distribution since the paperwork says 'equal', "pari passu"
7) If any scam or fraud has been committed, is de-listing a good way to protect the big shareholders and the chairman (linked to 100% of the priority A shares) from the AIM regulators and the FSA/FCC ?
(since these 2 are already overloaded due to widespread dodgy dealings on AIM and small staff numbers....if they havent got time to investigate every dodgy AIM deal then they sure havent got time to look at small unlisted companies....and various rules will then apply....
and if some rules were broken when on AIM....they wont have power to apply AIM penalties etc AFTER a company has de-listed.|
|graham1ty: Saw this before at LGT where we stopped the delisting. Claim that the share price sets too low a valuation on the Company. Announce delisting, share price halves. So this will have headlines "Invu delists at value of £1.6m", which will become the marker/guide price.
If the co was really going to be worth more as a non-listed company ( and they had persuaded us of that) then the price would go UP....it did not|
|cliffpeat: The statement refers to the "exit" strategy which suggests that this is at least on the horizon and the Board think they would get more for the company if it was unlisted.
"The Directors believe that any potential exit strategy is also impaired by the lack of liquidity in the Company's shares as this has a negative impact on the Company's share price and hence market valuation, indicating a valuation to potential acquirers below that of privately held peers."
So it seems to have a medium term upside. And perhaps dividends in the future too, if cash is not required for acquisitions.
I read somewhere that the typical cost of maintaining an AIM listing was £300/400k - so net profits get a boost.
This might be a buying opportunity - but will wait to see informed comment.|
The investment case
The share price of Invu has fallen by 97% over 5 years. This is despite a tripling over the past few months. The market capitalisation is £3.2m if you include all the shares entitled to a dividend (there are 168m ordinary shares and 305m 'A' ordinary shares which do not carry votes but have priority in a winding up. Only the ordinary shares are publically traded). Thus, the shares fall into the 'loser' category in a return reversal portfolio (see glen-arnold-investments.co.uk for a download of an academic article on the effectiveness of purchasing 'losers', and why)
Until 2012 the company had a string of losses. A massive debt burden almost caused its failure. The main lenders converted their claims into 'A' shares in 2011. Now the company is debt free. New management (January 2010), assisted by the removal of debt, have returned the company to healthy profit and growth with significant contract wins. Profit before tax in the year to January 2013 was £0.3m (2012: loss £0.3m) and net cash stood at £0.79m, with positive operating cash flow of £0.2m. The customer retention rate is 88% with long term service contracts (two-thirds of revenue is annual software support contracts) and gross margin is 84.7%. With a headcount of only 28 the company signed up 93 new customers in year ended January 2013. There are vast tax losses to carry forward.
The latest six months to 31 July 2013 show continued improvement: Revenue is up by 6.5%, net profit for the first half is up 269% compared with the previous year, and net cash now stands at £1.2m (2012: £0.6m). Working capital management improvements generated £0.36m of cash.
Applying some Piotroski factors to the annual results (see his paper from 2000). (1) Profitable? Yes (2) Operating cash generation? Yes (3) Improvement year-on-year in ROCE? Yes (4) Profit more than cash flow? No (5) Improvement in debt to total assets ratio year-on-year? Yes (6) Improvement in the current ratio year on year? Yes (7) Absence of significant share capital issues? Yes (8) Trading profit margin increase year-on-year? Yes (9) Improvement in sales to total assets ratio year-on-year? About the same (very slight worsening). Thus we have a Piotroski score of 7 or 8.
If a similar analysis is conducted for the latest six months compared to six months earlier the Piotroski score is 8.
1. I would prefer to be a long term holder and so do not want a takeover in the near term. What do you think are the chances?
2. What are your views on the trustworthiness of the directors and major shareholders?
3. Is the company very vulnerable to technological change? Does it have enough cash to pay for R&D necessary to compete?|
|oregano: So mkt cap = £3m, less cash of £1.2m, Enterprise value = £1.8m.
EBITDA annualising around £0.5m, so EV/EBITDA of 3.6x.
software businesses typically trade on EV/ EBITDA multiples of over 10x.
So a share price of 2p would be appropriate.|
|yump: Just had a good read through the finals and on first impressions, they seem to go into quite a lot of useful detail about where revenues come from, their split, margins etc. which seems unusual. Or rather, refreshing !
Re the share price it looks on first impression as if the horse has bolted, but I guess if they start growing a bit, a p/e of 10 is not very demanding. Say profits increased and gave an eps of 0.07p which would be a 16% rise - that would make them look cheap.
Will have to do a bit more reading and see what their USP is / competitors etc.|
|yump: Sort of vaguely interested here, but haven't followed it much before. Presumably there's a load of disappointed previous investors, but is it at a point where continuing in profit will at least continue to move it in the right direction, or are there some nasty gremlins hidden away.
They don't seem to be full of it at all, but maybe they were previously ?
Presumably having gone into profit it was marked up to a p/e of 10, which would have got the 0.6p share price.
I'm assuming it would take a brave forecast to put much more in, given the comments about the economy, but looks like it reached bottom at 0.2p.|
|oregano: the mkt cap is wrong on ADVFN is it not. 473m shares in issue according to yesterdays announcement. 0.65p share price = £3m mkt cap. about right given the EBITDA and issue with the BS.|
|fenseal3: looby loo, the MC should not be 370k, thats the point, they have cash of 600k that should make the share price 0.4p right away, apart from that this is a growing business and they are at breakeven, any other company at this level would have a MC of 5m...look at other companies in the same sector look at their remunerations some if you look are at the same level as INVU, even when they are losing money and raise cash at the drop of a hat, all i am saying here is this is a company that is getting to a level where they will be in profit soon and their cash reserve is building up, their finance director bought in @ 0.45p, 2.2m shares,i know a while back but he being (finance director) would know more than most where this could be heading....all i do is look for stocks that are worth more than their MC and don't need to raise money and have cash in the bank and have a good future, if they where losing money, had no cash, and needed a fund raising only to pay wages like dozens of companies do then i would agree with you(remuneration) as being face value....but this is not the case, c'mon MC 370k,|
Invu share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange