||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Real-Time news about Reflec (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|twodegrees: philmac the company having released its recent dividends have not given any indication at to the share price valuation. It should be noted however lots of 4th dec trades at £250.00 so we are £50 a share off the high from last year....|
|jghale: Johndee, thanks for input.i did receive 235 in 2007 from computer share so I reckoned there had been mass dilution!
What I don't understand is that today's share price appears to be 6.5 pence, yet only a year or so ago £300 is quoted!
What's that all about? I gave up on this years ago yet they still keep going!Is there any hope or should I not get ever over excited about it?|
|twodegrees: Given that the company appears to be doing well could the share price graph above be changed. To the experts who follow this namely the last few posters....how much do you reckon is fair value for a share now...is 3300 the new stable price or as results are continuing to improve has that £300 been surpassed...|
After the last sale yesterday via Share Facility reflec.
We are now 814 individuals holding Ref share.
So someone else has left the fold & some one else has accumulated.
Also someone else has now listed shares for sale and undercut me!!!!!!!!!!!LOL|
Can you update the header. In particular the share price chart.|
On the REF share trading page someone's offering up one share for sale at, wait for it..........£325 and another single share (presumably another seller) on offer for sale at £280|
|upthepool: Gotta be pleased with those results.
Profits up 35%
Dividend of £7.36
Indicative share price of £300 per share.
Congratulations to Tim, Paul and the rest of the company. Keep up the good work.|
i was just thinking about it, if you were putting new money into the company now, with a share price of £220, the dividends that are being paid at the moment give a much better return than you'd get from a savings account.|
|upthepool: erm, twice a year the board give a share price indication as well as a report about the company. How much more often do you think they should be doing it?
And the 15 are under offer|
|upthepool: 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.
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?
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.
Why would a delisting have serious implications for a companies prospects? Prospects wouldn't have (necessarily) changed as a result of the delisting.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'm not sure my responses are informed but I have tried :-)
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.
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.|
Reflec share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange