Reflec Share Discussion Threads

[philmiboots] 21/4/2013 23:01

Amazing how much is posted at all, or remains posted, given ADVFN's User Agreement rule 10......

10. INFORMATION POSTED BY YOU : You may post information on the Service (i.e. on the bulletin boards) or make it available to other users by e-mail only where and as permitted by ADVFN from time to time. Moreover, you may only use the website and Services at ADVFN's sole discretion and ADVFN may at any time decide to terminate your registered user account, or else withdraw your access to some or all of the website and Services, immediately and without notice to you. ADVFN does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over information posted by users and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. You agree to not post (or transmit) (i) any information which in ADVFN's sole opinion is objectionable including, without limit, information which is defamatory, obscene, threatening, untrue or in breach of any applicable laws, rules, regulations or market conventions (including, without limit, financial services regulations), (ii) any information which is in breach of any person's rights (including without limit, copyright and confidentiality), (iii) any information or software which contains a virus, cancelbot, Trojan horse, worm or is otherwise harmful or (iv) any information which (in ADVFN's sole opinion) constitutes advertising or (v) any information outside the area designated for posting or (vi) any information or comment which (in ADVFN's sole opinion) is deemed harmful to ADVFN or ADVFN's commercial interests. ADVFN reserves the right to remove any such information from the Services without warning and to inform and give assistance to the relevant bodies in respect of any transgressions. We accept no responsibility for and give no warranties in connection with any information posted on our site by our users. We recommend that you do not rely on such information. Any information posted on our Web site by users has not been issued or approved for the purposes of section 57 of the Financial Services Act 1986. By placing on the Services or making available to other users any information you hereby grant ADVFN a worldwide non-exclusive licence to use copy, distribute, publish and transmit such information in any manner ADVFN wishes (including, without limit, archiving and making available such information as part of the Services).

[scalie] 21/4/2013 20:33

It now appears all Picturehappy's posts have been removed....perhaps he was right.
Someone is protesting too much !!!

Regards, Scalie

[philmac56] 21/4/2013 08:46

I will reiterate.... never mind which side of the fence.....

It's just going to cost us ££££££££££££££££££

[angusleason] 20/4/2013 16:11

Scalie and BBT

Fortunately I saved all previous posts of picturehappy and have revisited them. The directors may have lost credibility by having picturehappys posts removed.

As in all these issues of 'he said she said' one should examine the motives and outcome.

My balanced view is that picturehappy is telling the truth and for this reason I am nailing my colours to the mast in favour of picturehappy and his band of merry men.

[philmac56] 19/4/2013 11:56

It's just going to cost us ££££££££££££££££££

[bumble bee tuna] 18/4/2013 20:54

Excellent post Scalie. I agree with your reasoning's and suspect that others will too. My background; this is my first post, I have been lurking here since 2008 and I have two shares.

What are the directors trying to hide and why are they reacting with such pugnacity?

After reading the posts and with much consideration, my support is very much with Scalie and the group!

[johndee] 18/4/2013 18:15

Nutcases! The stupid group should move on. Many who are invested in listed companies at present have lost 99% of their money over the last couple of years. That is much worse than what investors have ever lost here.

[philmac56] 18/4/2013 17:55

Scalie....

I've read your post...the inevitable will happen then, allegation v counter allegation...................££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

It's going to cost some money if it progresses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, as shareholders we WILL suffer

[philmac56] 15/4/2013 13:59

2nd of May gets closer day by day... hopefully we will get some good news on that date, if last year is anything to go by.

Good luck to all

[upthepool] 10/4/2013 18:29

So, basically, Nick;

1) You are prepared to post information you are then not prepared to / able to elaborate on.
2) You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or respond to pertinent questions you are asked.
3) You refuse repeated requests to post anything backing up your allegations
4) You squeal like a stuck pig, backtrack faster than something that backtracks very quickly, and can't delete the stuff you've posted on here quick enough when the company stands up to you and for itself (and costs all us shareholders in terms of solicitors fees.

Last post for me on this - tbh I'm bored of it all now. Can't get your side of the argument (as you won't give it) so am unable to form my own opinion. Sick of trying - I'll wait to see how it all pans out.

[philmac56] 03/4/2013 19:11

picturehappy..

name the large newspaper group, was it the "news of The world"...perhaps they taped your phone????

edit

THREE CHEERS FOR NICK & CO, THEY SAVED THE DAY AND COST US MORE ££££££ IN SOLICITOR FEES

[vaughan3] 03/4/2013 18:31

To UTP

As a first time poster on this board I was very pleased to receive such a fast and may I say it well reasoned response. Ihope other posters will take a leaf out of your book,
I largely agree with your comments, in particular those relating to the performance of the current management--- Hurley's sucessor Robinson has certainly made a great difference.
I agree with your comments regarding the frequency of share dilution due to the issue of additional shares however it is accepted good practice to clearly state how the issue price was arrived at , whither it was at a discount or premium etc.
If I can precis my concern , what real information have we the shareholders had to justify the continued use of the 5p valuation over an extended peroid of time for placements which we agree do represent % dilution. The directors have given reasons in each case but little back up factual information. I would suggest to you that had they done so ,and here good practice and obligation may diverge I would be a very contented shareholder today.
We should both remember that any quoted share price is the markets view of a company's value and frequently differs from the real price as can be seen when companys are actually bought and sold. In this case the value used is minimal, perhaps realistic but I would love to be reassured accurate.

[upthepool] 03/4/2013 16:38

Vaughan 3
As a shareholder I have maintained an interest in the affairs of Reflec PLC for some years. There are times when any degree of practical logic has been absent and having read the various offerings posted recently NOW is unquestionably another occasion.
Can, or would, ANY competent party explain to me how the fortunes of Reflec PLC have altered SO dramatically over the past 4 years given the following apparent chain of events.

UTP
I'm not sure I'd class myself as competent, but I'll have a go. I'm not sure the chain of events you list below are the major factor in the fortunes of REF, is it not more to do with a company that is being run better, making profit?

Vaughan 3
The company delisted for financial reasons (cost savings). The quoted share price at the time was circa 5p. Normally such a move has ongoing serious implications for the company's prospects at least over the short and medium time spans.

UTP
Why would a delisting have serious implications for a companies prospects? Prospects wouldn't have (necessarily) changed as a result of the delisting.

Vaughan 3
The apparent scramble to acquire any available shares immediately after (1) above would strongly suggest "abnormality" given that one of the groups purchasing were the company directors

UTP
On delisting, share trading was placed in the hands of a broker. I don't recall a huge number of share transactions in the early days of transfer to this platform, but I should really check. I'd be interested in how you define "abnormality".

Vaughan 3
The next event was the share rationalisation, however distasteful and difficult for some shareholders it was supported and correctly executed. However judging by recent posts this particular event is attracting new attention. The sale by the directors of the resulting fractional shareholdings to the company EBT at a price of 5p did correctly fall within their authority. However for the sake of corporate correctness and to ensure maintenance of the remaining shareholders's equity they should have publicised their selling price justification supported by appropriate independent professional valuations. Perhaps a more equitable action would have been to redeem these shares and make a separate allotment to the EBT which could have been fully documented and independently valued.

UTP
As I understand it the fractions of shares were added together and purchased by the EBT as a block, at the share price applicable at that time. So, therefore, the total number of shares was the same before and after this happened and the share price was the same – so the remaining shareholders equity was maintained. If this is wrong, I'd appreciate an explanation from persons more competent than I.

Vaughan 3
The directors proposed and sanctioned, again within their authority, several private allocations mainly to themselves ,but also to other individuals. Surely to again protect non-participating shareholder's equity the allotment price should have been fully documented including appropriate valuations and publicised.

UTP
I'm not sure these shares were allocated, were they not purchased at the matched indicative share price at the time to provide working capital? Many companies issue new shares and (frustratingly for existing shareholders sometimes) don't do what you suggest. I do think it was wrong to issue new shares without giving ALL existing shareholders the option to participate.

Vaughan 3
The exponential improvement in the company's results for 2011 and 2012 with commensurate levels of dividends and share value increases cannot in all fairness been wholly unexpected by the directors. Surely some recognition in anticipation of these results should have been an essential ingredient to be considered before using the greatly outdated prices utilised in items 3 and 4 above. I have also to say I am somewhat uncomfortable with the use of a Quoted Market share price given the then background which was perhaps considerably different from a balance sheet evaluation.

UTP
Think I understand where you are coming from here. I suppose the justification would be that (I believe) the new shares were purchased by the interested parties at the share price at the time, and not at a discount.

Vaughan 3
With results for 2013 expected shortly and a not unreasonable expectation for 2014 going forward (Ref recent announcement) offering very attractive shareholder values (very welcome of course) I would appreciate informed answers to the above points.

UTP
I'm not sure my responses are informed – but I have tried :-)

Vaughan 3
I cannot not say that if the relative equity %'s shown by the recently published pie chart are anything like correct then the biggest beneficiaries of this performance level will definitely be the directors and the EBT there being only limited proportional prospects for recovery of losses by the main body of shareholders.

UTP
Wouldn't the biggest beneficiaries of a share price be the largest shareholders? A rising share price benefits all shareholders proportionally based on the amount of shares they hold. Also, a rising share price helps towards the recovery of losses for all holders.

[reflecplc] 03/4/2013 15:43

Dear Shareholders

Following recent postings on this site by "Philmiboots" and "picturehappy", the board of Reflec plc has determined it necessary to seek legal advice and to post this response.

The posts of "picturehappy" dated 19 July 2011 (No. 679) and 22 July 2011 (No. 694) were voluntarily withdrawn in July 2011 by those responsible for the posts. They have now been re-posted by "Philmiboots" on 28 March 2013 (No. 1132). Whilst the board is disappointed and concerned by these re-posts and the content of subsequent posts by "picturehappy", it has nothing further to add to its posts dated 20 July 2011 (No.685) and 29 July 2011 (No.709) as the position remains exactly the same.

Appropriate action will be taken by the company against any party responsible for unlawful posts which appear on this site. The board is acutely aware of the costs Reflec plc incurs when obtaining legal assistance with such issues and is deeply frustrated when required to divert company resources away from more productive and profitable initiatives which benefit the company and its shareholders.

Reflec PLC

[vaughan3] 03/4/2013 15:28

As a sgareholder I have maintained an interest in the affairs of Reflec PLC for some years.There are times when any degree of practical logic has been absent and having read the various offerings posted recently NOW is unquestionably another occasion.
Can, or would, ANY competent party explain to me how the fortunes of Reflec PLC have altered SO dramatically over the past 4 years given the following apparent chain of events.
1) The company delisted for financial reasons(cost savings). The quoted share price at the time was circa 5p. Normally such a move has ongoing serious implications for the company's prospects at least over the short and medium time spans.
2) The apparent scramble to acquire any available shares immediately after (1) above would strongly suggest"abnormallity"given that one of the groups purchasing were the company directors.
3) The next event was the share rationalisation, however distasteful and difficult for some shareholders it was supported and correctly executed. However judging by recent posts this particular event is attracting new attention. The sale by the directors of the the resulting fractional shareholdings to the company EBT at a price of 5p did correctly fall within their authority. However for the sake of corporate correctness and to ensure maintenance of the remaining shareholders's equity they should have publicised their selling price justification supported by appropriate independent professional valuations. Perhaps a more equitable action would have been to redeem these shares and make a seperate allotment to the EBT which could have been fully documented and independently valued.
4) The directors proposed and sanctioned, again within their authority, several private allocations mainly to themselves ,but also to other individuals. Surely to again protect non-participating shareholder's equity the allotment price should have been fully documented including approptiate valuations and publicised.
5) The expedential improvement in the company's results for 2011 and 2012 with commensurate levels of dividends and share value increases cannot in all fairness been wholly unexpected by the directors. Surely some recognition in anticipation of these results should have been an essential ingredient to be considered before using the greatly outdated prices utilised in items 3 and 4 above. I have also to say I am somewhat uncomfortable with the use of a Quoted Market shareprice given the then background which was perhaps considerably different from a balance sheet evaluation.

With results for 2013 expected shortly and a not unreasonable expectation for 2014 going forward(Ref recent announcement)offering very attractive shareholder values(very welcome of course) I would appreciate informed answers to the above points.
I cannot not say that if the relative equity %'s shown by the recently published pie chart are anything like correct then the biggest beneficiaries of this performance level will definitely be the directors and the EBT there being only limited proportional prospects for recovery of losses by the main body of shareholders.
Clearly there is bitterness and resentment around but if full clarification and answers were available, offering reassurrance and credibility, there would be a swift resolution of all matters for the benefit of all parties.

[philmac56] 03/4/2013 08:42

Looks like it's going to get messy & expensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[darias] 02/4/2013 08:57

UTP

Good post. There is far too much bitterness in the dealings with this company which is not directed at the real crims in this matter. I refer in particular to City Slickers in the Daily Mirror who led people up the garden path.