London Finance & Investm... Share Discussion Threads

[markt] 08/11/2011 15:02

If the money had been put into the FTSE all share index back in the 90s....it would have performed much better than LFI....despite the personal participation of 'experts' employed at LFI and their salaries.

1400 in 1993 and 2900 now.
Doubled.
LFI. Same as it was in 1993/94.

Hopefully the past performance of LFI over 20 years will not be repeated in the next 20 years.....but 20 years is enough time to demonstrate/see performance imo.....imo it shows that something is very wrong and that major changes are needed at LFI. (investment model, process and/or management)

[topvest] 01/11/2011 18:26

Markt - It appears to me that Mr Marshall normally gets paid a lower fee than other directors- have a look at the FIF annual report just published. He undoubtedly brings in a good salary with the number of directorships he has, but it's difficult to say he is greedy when he could undoubtedly ask for much more. We all know the record isn't great over the last 5 years, but we have had a thumping recession. I'm hopeful that eventually some value will play out.

[markt] 31/10/2011 15:27

TOPVEST
I hear what you say but I disagree.

1993 NAV = 37p. 1994 NAV = 34p.

2011 NAV = 29p at last interim results, and 26p in February 2011.


Growth over 18 years is NEGATIVE !!!

====

While shareholders lose money, Mr Marshall senior and Mr Marshall junior make money from LFI. Every year. Year after year.

The return to Mr D.C.Marshall is approx. 23%/ year compared with the value of his investment in LFI shares....approx 107K income from being on boards where LFI/WSE invest. Over 10 years he has more than got back the full cost of his LFI shares.

====

If growth is negative over 18 years then I would prefer that the directors depart rather than the shareholders ! (you suggested that I sell. Shareholders own LFI not the directors).....but shareholders seem intent to stick their heads in the sand and do nothing....

====
With say 4-6% compound growth...the share NAV should now be over double I think, over 74p. And it is no where near.

There were 25M shares, now 31M shares. Some new shares at 25p in 2005, minor dilution.

The full history for NAV for WSE and LFI can be seen on this msg boards higher up.
====

The return to Mr D.C.Marshall is approx. 23%/ year. Value of his beneficial LFI/WSE shares compared with his income as a director of the cos. where WSE/LFI invests and on WSE/LFI boards.

23%/ year
and been a director since approx 1974 !!

===

Perhaps the directors are more interested in LFI/WSE just continuing (so they get paid)....rather than the shares going up in price.
LFI has existed since 1924 I believe.

===

I also question (as does Topvest I think) whether certain decisions are not made about investments (eg. sell all LFI shares in company X) because Mr Marshall would then not receive his directors pay at company X, paid to "an overseas company"

[topvest] 28/10/2011 15:40

You seem to have an axe to grind. Invest elsewhere, if you don't like management. I do not think £107k is excessive for all these companies at all.
£10k for LFI is modest. Performance at LFI has definitely been held back by FIF having excessive leverage. MWB similarly, although MWB has done well to survive the recession given the level of debt. I have mentioned before that I think they should have sold all their investment at £1 or so when they get the chance rather than just a £1m worth. I do think they should take a conscious decision to crystallise strategic investments when they have done well. Will keep holding myself on the hope that FIF will come good as it pays down its debt and WSE has some much better investments.

[markt] 28/10/2011 13:49

if MWB goes bust....then the reduction in LFI NAV looks to be around 3p/share

[markt] 28/10/2011 13:32

Topvest
...I recall that you posted that the dividend payment to shareholders would increase since WSE/LFI income was increasing....I replied that I doubted that shareholders would see any of it and that the directors would increase their costs/benefits accordingly....

at the moment imo no increase in dividend to LFI/WSE shareholders.

[markt] 28/10/2011 13:30

107K for Marshall senior comes from his payments received as a non-exec director at companies like
- FIF
- NBI (only 7k)
- MWB

(Creston pays to City Group and not to "overseas company". Why ?!
One would expect that all companies would pay to the same entity)


All paid to "an overseas company" ref. accounts......infers that could be a tax haven and could be tax free...

15k this year from WSE
15k this year from LFI
...that makes 30k.....and looks like all the work is subcontracted to City Group....paid 90k/year by WSE for example...while WSE/LFI have done little or no deals/action in the last few years...
Also he is a director at City Group....I dont know if he is paid...I would assume so...

and Mr Marshall junior, well the 1 we know about, at least 2 more children of Mr Marshall senior exist and they could be employed by City Group or other subsidiary, we dont know.
Mr Marshall junior is a director of City Group and his income there is 75k/year.
So the income to the Marshalls from LFI/WSE adds up.

[topvest] 27/10/2011 20:57

isn't Marshall only paid £10k per annum - page 35 of the accounts. Where do you get the £107k from?

[markt] 03/10/2011 11:57

"The outlook for stock markets remains very uncertain. We will continue to adopt
a cautious stance,"

Lies, and more lies imho

They have borrowed about 2M pounds.....1/3rd to 1/4 of the cap. value of the company to invest in the general portfolio...

"borrowed about 2M pounds"

That is NOT a cautious stance where the outlook for markets remains very uncertain....

------

As usual the LFI accounts must be read with a pinch of salt.....

----

"true and fair reporting to shareholders"
is required by law
Imho these accounts do not comply with the law.

[markt] 03/10/2011 11:14

topvest
dividend not announced...

Well, I think LFI/City Group produce the NBI results or are involved...since provide secretarial services.....well at NBI they had to produce a rectification of the results....and the same is common at other companies where City Group are involved. Poor show/image imo.

[markt] 03/10/2011 11:11

In my view these directors are....'dubious'



1)The day before announcing results they make an announcement that results will differ by more than 20% from previous period....to comply with JSE reqts.....

(the DAY BEFORE !!)

BUT

the directors, imho, knew weeks/months before
(the LFI results were effectively known to 90% at the end of June which is the LFI year end)

"In terms of the Listing Requirements of the JSE Limited, companies are required
to publish a Trading Statement as soon as they become reasonably certain that
the financial results for the period to be reported on next will differ by more
than 20% from those of the previous corresponding period.

The board of directors of London Finance & Investment Group P.L.C. advises that
its earnings per share for the year ended 30th June 2011 are expected to
increase by between 200 - 220% and headline earnings per share for the year
ended 30 June 2011 are expected to increase by between 220 - 240%. "

[topvest] 29/9/2011 15:22

This is a little odd:

Dividend

The Company will be recommending final dividend for the year ended 30th June
2011 and further details will be announced shortly.

You would have thought they could have made a decision by now?

[markt] 21/8/2011 21:42

je je !!

copy of post from FIF board...that will probably get censored and removed by the creator of the thread.


there was me thinking that ADVFN was a website with message boards to discuss shares !

(I made very relevant points ...which informed FIF shareholders that some other companies in their trading updates to the market disclose basic information like profit......
while FIF intentionally keeps shareholders in the dark.....

and you keep message board users in the dark !!

And I have infored FIF shareholders about some info about 2 people that sit on the FIF board which most board readers would not know unless I posted the info.

Each to their own. You censor your thread and keep it to info that you personally like.
but I think you are wrong.

[markt] 13/6/2011 18:41

farmingrgp
bit of info that may interest you.
perhaps you already know.

there is, imo, a difference in company development strategy between WSE/LFI and P.Gyllenhammer.
Worth being aware of perhaps.


The WSE/LFI strategy in 2000-2010 has been to expand companies where they invest by acquisitions, often funded by debt and share issues.. (ref. MWB, FIF, CRE....; so far have not performed well...in future who knows....). NBI have expanded by 1 acquisition (and looking for others), but at a cheap price, and via shares not debt, so its debt ratio is low/insignificant. I think the MD perhaps got his fingers burnt by over expanding in the past at other co. ; so will avoid a repeat I think.

From what I have seen, P.Gyllenhammer's strategy is often the reverse, to tighten down spending and get rid of anything excess, such as land or unprofitable parts...so that the core value is then highly visible (and hopefully underpriced) so that the share price goes up..(and/or a cash back)..giving him a return and/or reduction of risk for his cash invested.

...one could argue perhaps that the creation of high debt levels gives certain benefits to certain people......since with a high debt situation close to banking limits....means high risk to continue to operate....in which case a company would not want to change its directors nor its secretary (ie. WSE/LFI !, for MWB, FIF, CRE....)...and the high debt will keep away any takeover offers..and keep away any complaints from shareholders (who will just pray quietly for stability and for some years of 'nothing' to see the debt get reduced !)...and the creation of a high debt situation creates a process that will take years to develop itself....g'teeing income and stability of work to certain directors....

[markt] 13/6/2011 15:18

No interest in winding up LFI by paying out the shares of the investee companies as is....on pro rota basis ?

by re-organisation of capital in similar way to Aggreko...ie. paying back of capital...minimising tax effects....

if you hold shares in FIF, MWB, WSE directly then you receive dividends direct from these companies.....whereas if you own the shares via LFI....the running costs of LFI consumes those dividends (completely !, any LFI dividends are paid by eating up/selling LFI assetts)

By avoiding the 3% running cost of LFI you would receive at least 3%/year extra.

Also tax benefits, if you make a share sale, in sale MWB shares, and make a gain of 5k pounds then you have no capital gains tax to pay....where if LFI made the sale it would have a big gain and would have to pay tax..consuming part of the LFI NAV.

The performance of LFI over the last 10-20 years has been down.
With an annual 3% running cost it is difficult for LFI to grow.
3%/year is 30% over 10 years. Over another 10 years it is a further 30%.
2 times 30% is 60%.

[markt] 13/6/2011 15:11

4% of LFI shares as benefits to key employees and directors ....

approx. 50% of LFI assetts are in blue chip stocks...
the stock market goes up.....and it goes down...

if it goes up then one assumes that the employees get 4% of the shares of LFI

Is that fair ?
Should there not be performance criteria that require 'outperformance' ?
and should not the performance criteria be public ? (they are not)

(and noting that the son of David C. Marshall is one of the 2 main beneficiaries......he is a director at the main subsidiary City Group which runs LFI and WSE on a daily basis.....
(although perhaps not so daily since many investments go back years without having been touched....MWB, FIF....)

[markt] 13/6/2011 12:09

....lots of squabbles and mention of lawyers etc over at MWB and MBE

(LFI have had board representation at MWB for years...D.Marshall)

check out MWB and MBE boards for details

eg.
someone claims they own 35% of MBE !!..from the company that MBE bought in the past...their lawyer has sent a letter to MBE

[markt] 12/6/2011 17:40

ah ...interesting

Fullers Investments Ltd held, in the year to 31 Aug 2002, 67.925k in loan stock of MWB.
MWB, where LFI is invested.

The loan stock I think pays 10%....high %...

Mr Robotham was a director of MWB and of Fullers Investments. And Mr D.C.Marshall is a director of MWB....and I think that Mr D.C.Marshall has been a director of Fullers Investments Ltd at some time (ref. past prospectus docs. which list cos. where acting as a director).

Fullers Investments had a subsidiary.....Fullers no longer exists but its subsidiary does....London Finance and Corporation Ltd.

London Finance and Corporation Ltd is registered at the LFI offices.

The owner of London Finance and Corporation Ltd is also a director of a co. that WSE has a 29% stake in..where Mr Robotham and 2 Marshalls are directors.

===

The size of Fullers Inv. Ltd is quite big relative to LFI.
Funds of 2.8M in 2002. approx. 1/3 of the size of LFI PLC.

===

I wonder if London Finance and Corporation Ltd or Fullers Investments Ltd invest or invested in companies where LFI/WSE had insider knowledge ?

eg. MWB, FIF, CRE, NBI, SWL

...if I had a registered office address at the same address as LFI/WSE I would be very keen to chat with anyone who sat on the boards of these companies...even if they did not reveal any insider information....their evaluation or opinion of public information and of the accounts would be very useful info imo to input to any buy/sell investing decision.

===

I note that there are, or have been, other financial companies which operate from the same address as LFI/WSE....that are related to the directors of LFI/WSE.

Monteagle Internat. Finance
Registered Offices Investments Ltd
Conafex International Finance


Monteagle also has companies registered in tax havens such as Virgin Islands, Jersey and Luxembourg.....if gonna make any gains in shares then it is probably being registered there....(Mr D.C.Marshall is non-UK resident)....

===

I would assume that London Finance and Corporation Ltd could not rent office space to LFI PLC or Monteagle Marshall without that being disclosed in the accounts......( London Finance and Corporation Ltd owns some property)

but noting that LFI and WSE do NOT detail every related party transaction as a separate transaction....and the value of that transaction...only total value.

I note that LFI PLC owns some property and rents it to a related party...to Monteagle. So, if London Finance and Corp. rented to a related or linked party it would not be a surprise even if the regulations did not require it to be reported.

Ah, a penny has dropped...regards an error in the accounts of a subsidiary...perhaps a property transaction could be the reason for that 'error'...so that no requirement to disclose related party transaction.....perhaps...
..spider's web...

[markt] 10/6/2011 19:48

LFI NAV ..in case of interest

1990 33p
1991 21p
1992 20p
1993 37p
1994 34p


NAV now in 2011
at last interims NAV declared as 29p. but mentioned that NAV in February 2011 was 26p.

Almost 20 years later and NO GROWTH in NAV !!

Mr D.C.Marshall has a return of approx. 23%/year on his investment in WSE/LFI shares !!...money paid for him being a director in the cos. where WSE/LFI invest (the money is NOT paid to WSE or LFI !!). He has been a director since 1971.