We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| London Finance & Investment Group Plc | LFI | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 50.00 | 08:00:01 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| NONEQUITY INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 14/12/2011 15:10 by markt at MWB where LFI is invested and where David Marshall (LFI boss) is on the board('if' I recall correctly it was David Marshall that backed MWB into an LFI shell back in the late 90s). "Accusations fly as investors round on MWB board Shareholders in hotel and property company MWB Group heard accusations of market manipulation, poor accounting and a failure to grasp fundamental details of the business at its annual general meeting. " accusations at MWB of - market manipulation, - poor accounting and - a failure to grasp fundamental details of the business |
Posted at 12/11/2011 16:19 by markt TOPVESTmy recent posts are only about dividends, compounding..... no one else has bothered to do any such analysis....since everyone is too lazy ! imo ..I am actually helping you and other LFI shareholders....I am calculating performance and calculating compounding and inflation effects since 1990. All for free ! .....I don't understand why you complain that I print analysis results for you... you agree or not that it is valid to consider past performance of an investment vehicle ? (the FSA recommends it and requires comparison to be included in yearly accounts...so you disagree with the FSA) you agree or not that it is valid to compare performance with Black Rock Smllr Cos fund over last 20 years .....or you think investors should wear blinkers and ignore past performance data ? you agree it is a valid point to make that the 20 year performance of LFI has been a disaster ? |
Posted at 12/11/2011 15:25 by markt Inflation over the years.29p averaged NAV over period 1990-1994 ...with 5% inflation that would now be worth 81p. ie. 29p in the money of 1990 would be 81p in the money of 2011. If expect a total return (incl dividends) of say 7.5% (stk mkt = some risk so you expect a higher return than in the bank) then 29p from 1990 would now be worth 132p. Total divi paid = 17p If assume that put each in the bank and receive 2.5% interest then = 21p Value of divi if increase with inflation = Initial NAV + gain/loss in NAV since 1990 (1990-1994 average) + dividends (compounded at 2.5%) = 29p +6 + 21p = 56p Compare with value needed just for 7.5% yearly increase in value = 132p. 56p total return versus 132p if had seen 7.5% yearly increase. ie. bad total return !!....less than inflation of 5% which would give 81p. And most people would not accept or expect 5% total return on shares....you are taking a risk...you expect a total return between 5% and 15% depending on how good an investor you may be and how much assett backing you want for shares you buy. The NAV is 35p....and would be 28p now if exclude the property gain, ie. that stock market investing under Marshall control has been a disaster over past 20 years.From 29p in 1990-1994 to 28p now 20 years later !!!! |
Posted at 12/11/2011 13:50 by markt TopvestI am also worried for LFI and WSE....that the Marshall family may do another rights issue similar to the past which will reduce the NAV/share...and be bad for shareholders such as you and me. eg. large reduction in NAV caused by the share issues at WSE....which were forced share issues...and would have DOUBLED the number of shares if all warrants had been worth exercising...and not just 50%. (note that many shareholders do not want to double their investment in 1 specific share....as a bale out process...investors want the NAV to go up ...not be forced to invest more and see the NAV go down...warrant units with 5 warrants/unit = forced investment imo) ...but which may serve their purposes by increasing the incoming by having more capital....and they perhaps milk the income via directors pay by sitting on boards where LFI invests...or income from LFI or its subsidiaries...as has happened over last 10 years....or perhaps there are possible benefits (various private investing cos. registered at same City Road address) by insider info at those companies (if say that buy/sell using info that is public in permitted times then it is legal)...or share tips from other dirs. that sit on those boards... |
Posted at 16/5/2011 10:44 by markt Cautious Investor "Should shareholders trust the word of the directors ? Frank Lucas is described as independant director....and as associate of Aron Loeb , broker, and receives a commission for any trades that he introduces... but !! old LFI RNS notices state that Frank Lucas is in fact the founder of Aron Loeb !! and hence one assumes to be the major shareholder in Aron Loeb" The 2 pieces of information are contradictory. 1 says 'associate' and 1 says 'founder' (and hence major or sole shareholder). The LFI RNS "contradicts" the LFI company accounts. Both are issued by LFI directors. Hence it appears that one of the 2 is not true. The rules require that directors must give a "true" report to shareholders. Cautious Investor ...come on, tell us what is the reality regards F.Lucas. He is just an associate of Aron Loeb or he is the founder (as the RNS states) (if you want I will post the RNS, issued in the past by the LFI directors) ==== Cautious Investor ....also, you appear to be intentionally misleading the market....imho ...there is a director of LFI that has made "large" share sales in LFI in recent weeks.... if you want the share price to go up....then perhaps you should tell that LFI director to buy shares and not to sell them !! (that director has sold many times over the number of shares in LFI that I could sell, ie. his influence is much more important than mine) ..in any case, my posts are pointing out any mistruths or similar from the directors.....the honesty of the directors etc is important and perfectly correct that the public discuss it on message boards.... sadly the LFI board, to which you have connections, refuses to answer questions and refuses to provide clarification so that the truth is known... ....but perhaps there are many related party situations ....and the board prefers to keep things quiet.... such as....are family members of Mr Marshall using the luxury apartment owned by LFI (an apartment that LFI borrowed money at 5% for and then rented it out for years obtaining only a 2% return !!.....and LFI has costs, 2.5%-3% of cap. value to run the company, so it could be argued that an 8% return is needed, to break even..) and what is the justification for WSE paying 47k rental to City Group when City Group only pays 43k for all of the offices....and WSE has no staff !!, it subcontracts all its work to City Group....one assumes that WSE only needs an office for 6 board meetings and for the auditor to have somewhere to do his paperwork....47k does not make sense. LFI/WSE refuse to clarify this point or to publish any breakdown of expenses. They have something(s) to hide ? Who knows. Cautious Investor - stop hiding the truth and start giving us some answers. |
Posted at 09/8/2010 08:26 by topvest markt - yes, got lots of WSE already. FIF is a good company and will survive in my opinion. They can't just sell a 15% shareholding; they are a strategic long term investor. |
Posted at 23/2/2009 11:42 by markt Sharegolders funds2007 21M 2008 12M 2009 interim report. 5.9M Directors should re-sign ...an amateur investor could have protected better the assetts of the shareholders what have the directors been doing ?...nothing ?..they actually turn up for work ? |
Posted at 12/9/2005 09:17 by robin_of_loxley Hi CWA1 - held this from a long while back - only have a few. To be honest, Im not really sure who has large shareholdings, and I have always got the feeling that this is run almost like a private portfolio for the benefit of a minority of large investors - I have no idea how many directors there are, and what they take out, and whether they are good value for shareholders,or whether they are the large shareholders and that is how they release value. I have held over time because of the large discount to NAV - in case it ever closed, but as you say, it is probably the ownership structure and way it is run that we have the discount to NAV in the first place. Maybe they need to pay a higher dividend. I havent looked at the portfolio to see to what extent their portfolio generates income that can be paid out, but perhaps much of the income they receive goes on 'overheads', but havent looked at the accounts to find out.As you can see I have had a pretty laissez faire attitude to this one as I havent got that many shares in it Having a quick look at the accounts now I see that all of the operating income is absorbed by administrative expenses - rather neatly, leaving the only profit attributable to members being that consolidated from the share of the result of the associated undertaking. I also see that 4 shareholders own 62.3% of the shares. If you look at the beneficial and non beneficial holdings of the directors, it adds up to approx 16 million shares which is approx 61% of the shares. The vast majority of admin expenses are salaries - not to directors, but whether any of these staff are in any way related to directors I have no idea. Also look at the related party transaction note 4 on page 13, and income from management services, and some directors also being directors of companies in which LFI invest. I havent checked what emols they get from these companies... Thus the discount to NAV is presumably because the directors could muster enough votes to vote through any resolution they fancied, which puts minorities at more risk, thus the discount. I suppose if approx 0.5m of income generated and 2.3 m of growth, then approx 18% of the increase in value is being eaten up by administrative expenses. With year end Net assets per share at 44.05, if you take todays share price of 36p approx, and divide (44-36)/44 you get a discount of around 18% ..... a coincidence? you decide.... The question is more, why would a private investor buy shares in LFI - probably because every now and then some tipster points it out on the basis that there is a large NAV discount, caveats it with a comment controlling interests are narrowly held, and people buy and find the gap doesnt close. On the plus side, if there was ever break up or takeover, then more value may(!) be realised, and the discount to NAV will probably remain reasonably static proportionately, so if the underlying investments increase in value, then so should the share price. When I get round to it I will probably flog these and buy more FIF which have does rather better for me, and was why I noticed LFI in the first place. No advice intended! RoL >>>>---------------- |
Posted at 22/6/2002 13:32 by rainmaker Callumross-Many thanks for your original message.Thought provoking stuff!New to this Company and have yet to check things out fully before buying it's Shares,however I fully appreciate the main thrust of your piece.An initial thought would be to take the Company's Share Holdings out of Fixed Assets into Current Assets then subtract all Claims,from the resulting figure, giving what I would call the Company's Net Working Capital.Roughly what sort of discount are LFI on this figure? It would seem that LFI's abysmal rating can be largely explained by Investors current overwhelming pessimism towards Shares in general.Whilst I would not even attempt to try and predict the future direction of the "Market" I know that individual Shares that are bought on the basis of their patent and demonstrable undervaluation,deriv I feel a further point worth making, is that LFI's Share Selection approach would seem to be broadly "Value" based with most/all? their holdings trading at less than their Net Assets Value and, given these relatively low ratings,therefore relatively immune from further drops in the FTSE 100.Although constituents like Merrydown are small companies in every respect and Investors cannot deal in larger quantities at the offer price I would buy if there was a substantial discrepancy or "Margin Of Safety" between the current price and the (indicative) value. Regards |
Posted at 28/5/2002 18:32 by 8 ball So you were the buyer yesterday.Well got fed up waiting for any info on Doctors direct, from Western. So went direct and got a reply. Many thanks for your interest in doctors DIRECT plc. Doctors Direct plc now is the sole beneficiary of shares issued by sos doctors DIRECT and will float on OFEX the first week in July. Western Selection PLC has committed to invest £500,000, with £650,000 being sought from private investors. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us again. Yours sincerely, Andrew Rae McCance. |
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
