We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romag | ROM | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 35.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35.50 | 35.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 04/4/2011 21:55 by davidosh Mr Kennair, who owns around 12% of Romag, is understood to have told the board he made the £4m payment in the second half of 2010 to cover bad debts but acted in the "interests of the company".Now the claim is that he told the Board ?? Is that so that the £4m can be paid back or allow him to keep the role as CEO.? All very strange and certainly it looks as if nothing will come back to shareholders. I understand ShareSoc will be investigating issues surrounding the demise of Romag and if any shareholders want assistance in backing a claim against the company it is worth contacting them. All private investors should consider joining ShareSoc as it is free and acts as a common voice for individual investors. www.sharesoc.org |
Posted at 04/4/2011 20:03 by 9degrees as investors we have got to know what has gone wrong . Is this fraud or what ? Sounds like it to me . The chair pumps in money without anyone knowing not even the FD??? This is appalling |
Posted at 09/2/2011 20:56 by honiton quite but:-what would the accounts have been like if the money had not been gifted? has the gift created a false market in the shares? why did the FD not notice? why was the Board not told about it at the time/and why were investors not told? has the loan meant that John K had undue influence over commercial practices (I don't think this for one moment but it's a question that has to be asked) what is the status of the gift? is it a loan or a pure gift? does it have to be repaid. thinking aloud: John K could say its a gift but, if he was to pass away suddenly, what would his executors and beneficiaries of any estate believe? is there any case law?? was any documentation incorrect? would think its difficult to pay money to a company and not declare/state who it is coming from? is there any false accounting? where is the money coming from to pay for the investigation and what will be the drain on management time? how will the new funders feel about it? sorry, to sound so negative but if I was a customer/supplier/in |
Posted at 31/1/2011 18:52 by mudbath For those frustrated "solar"investors,try PUR;not without its own problems,yet imo a most interesting investment. |
Posted at 31/1/2011 17:06 by masurenguy Masurenguy - 6 Sep'10 - 955: There are a number of issues that urgently need to be addressed here and until they are the share price is likely to continue to drift down. 1. Following the sad death of Lyn Miles in June they need to appoint a new CEO. The company needs strong leadership to tackle its current challenges ! 2. They need to announce the extent of the inventory write downs. 3. They need to look at their financial arrangements because it appears that they are getting close to the ceiling on their debt facilities. 4. They need to issue a further trading statement covering points 2 & 3 above plus a range indication of the likely year end loss. This cannot wait until the December results since markets hates uncertainty and the share price will be punished further until some tangible information is provided. We are now close to the all time share price low of 31.5p in March last year when directors bought 225K shares @31.75p. I took profits and sold out at 62p last December but would not consider buying back in until the above issues have been resolved.floppyhat - 6 Sep'10 - 958: Nah. Priced-in, baby. It's all priced in. Romag are only going to make a technical loss for the year. They were barely a hundred grand up for the first six months, anyway, so any bottlenecks were bound to take them into the red. Customers with credit trouble will pay up eventually, the component suppliers will fulfill their obligations eventually, and the inventory write-down is a giant clue that the infant market for photovoltaic glass is getting more affordable by the day. mudbath - 9 Sep'10 - 962: Masurenguy suggests that ROM have little or no headroom in their banking facilities. If such a problem were to evidence itself,then we might see a particularly sharp sell off. frogkid - 9 Sep'10 - 966: I'm with Masurenguy. Have held these on and off for a few years and done OK but I was caught out by that profit warning. Some say they come in threes. I would not add any until debt, finance etc is cleared up. Hate to say it but these problems were raised 4 months ago. They clearly have serious cashflow issues "As previously announced, following exceptional costs of approximately GBP6 million in relation to the confirmed write down of stock announced on 4 October 2010 and the impairment of intangible assets notified on 7 December 2010, Romag will report a loss for the period ended 30 September 2010.....Subsequent to the exceptional costs incurred during 2010 the Company has entered into negotiations with its current lender to provide amended banking facilities. The Company has now received a conditional offer of new debt facilities from LBG which it is in the process of negotiating the final terms of and the bank remains supportive of the Company. At this stage the terms have yet to be finalised but it is expected that they will include a commitment fee and an increase in the overall cost of the Company's borrowings going forward on an annualised basis. The Company has today appointed Altium Capital Limited as its Nominated Adviser and Broker to assist in the negotiations with LBG and with our ongoing relationship with equity investors. Why suddenly switch Nomad from Arbuthnot to Altium at this late stage in their negotiations with the bank, especially when they acknowledge that part of the reason is to "assist" with refinancing negotiations. This implies that Arbuthnot either couldn't help them get the deal that they needed or didn't believe that a viable deal was possible. The RNS on Friday would not have been required if the negotiations with LBG were a done deal. As we all all know, bank lending is still very restricted particularly to small companies who are carrying existing debt. The year end results are also late - they're supposed to be published within 3 months of the year end (Dec 31st) as has been the case over the past 4 years. This delay suggests that there could be also be "audit" and "going concern" issues that may have delayed the final accounts being signed off in the absence of the conclusion of the regnegotiation of bank finance facilities. The second RNS stating that "various matters should have been disclosed at an earlier date" does not inspire confidence either. Could John Kennair have been moving cash around to keep the bank happy and creditors at bay ? Furthermore they have not replaced Lyn Miles either, some 7 months after her sad demise, at a critical time where the company really needed some strong and effective leadership. This does look very ominous to me but I really hope for the sake of remaining shareholders that they can somehow find a satisfactory resolution to these financial issues ! |
Posted at 12/1/2011 11:26 by floppyhat Hi all. I see the regular pre-results wetting of knickers has begun. For supposedly sophisticated investors, we do make pretty patterns, don't we.I saw this article on the Solar Power Portal, and thought it interesting. Anybody with 23 million quid burning a hole in their pockets, itching to chuck it at solar power, is most welcome. There has to be a chance Romag could see some of it. "Social housing body, the Peabody Trust, has allocated £23 million to spend on installing solar panels on its London-based housing. The move, which is one of the most generous schemes to be carried out by a social housing provider, is aimed at making Peabody a carbon neutral business by 2020. While the company has gathered the funds to fit the photovoltaic panels to existing housing blocks, it is currently looking for a contractor to carry out the work. The company has given interested parties until January 21 to obtain further details. The installation programme is expected to run for approximately 18 months, however Peabody is aiming to complete the substantial part of the job completed by April next year." |
Posted at 28/10/2010 12:03 by floppyhat Thanks for that 9degrees. I'm surprised the jeopardy Romag were in, if the FIT was to be meddled with, didn't cause a bigger price dip. Investors have panicked for less, after all. Perhaps they were all oblivious. Anyway, here's a glimpse into Britains future, which will be a nice problem to have in my view, because we'll all be millionaires when it arrives. |
Posted at 09/9/2010 12:05 by masurenguy mudbath - 9 Sep'10 - 962: Nothing like rubbing it in is there for some.I'm not "rubbing it in" to anyone. I originally posted this comment last Monday and have absolutely no axe to grind since I sold my entire holding last December and have just been looking out for a potential re-entry point as I clearly stated at that time. Masurenguy - 6 Sep'10 - 955: There are a number of issues that urgently need to be addressed here and until they are the share price is likely to continue to drift down. 1. Following the sad death of Lyn Miles in June they need to appoint a new CEO. The company needs strong leadership to tackle its current challenges ! 2. They need to announce the extent of the inventory write downs. 3. They need to look at their financial arrangements because it appears that they are getting close to the ceiling on their debt facilities. 4. They need to issue a further trading statement covering points 2 & 3 above plus a range indication of the likely year end loss. This cannot wait until the December results since markets hates uncertainty and the share price will be punished further until some tangible information is provided. We are now close to the all time share price low of 31.5p in March last year when directors bought 225K shares @31.75p. I took profits and sold out at 62p last December but would not consider buying back in until the above issues have been resolved. Since then the share price has dropped by a further 22% in 4 days, from 34p to 28p. That does not make me either right or smart but it is illustrative of the concerns that I raised then. My comment to floppy hat was purely down to his dogmatic response that it was "Priced-in, baby. It's all priced in.". I don't know where the bottom is, neither does he or anyone else. His view was probably more motivated by concerns emanating from his prior post just over two weeks ago rather than any current objective assessment since he is now down by 33% ! floppyhat - 22 Aug'10 - 950: I'm all-in again at 42p, and can't wait for the next steep incline. Bring it on, baby! My comment on their debt facilities was only one of 4 issues that I raised. I don't know how close they are to their covenants but the public domain information suggests that they don't have much headroom to play with especially if cashflow is suffering from delayed orders and/or payments. In the current climate any small company that might be close to their debt limits makes investors naturally nervous ! |
Posted at 19/8/2010 16:17 by pugugly Masurenguy:> Too right - Has similarities to the dot.com or tech boom. Great for customers and some companies but on the whole very bad in the long term for investors . Look at coys such as Marconi & Volex to name but 2. As you say the skill will bein determining which will be the winners. |
Posted at 26/4/2010 12:05 by louisr2 From C-Questor:"Monday, 26 April 2010 Where are the worthwhile green projects, ask investors Tom Bawden BRITAIN is struggling to produce commercially viable green companies, according to some of our top venture capital investors. A dependence on government funding and a lack of management talent in "clean tech" businesses render many of them unworthy of investment, they warn. Edmund Truell, the private equity veteran who raised £200m for a green fund last year at his new firm Curzon Park Capital, said he is struggling to spend the money. Jon Moulton, founder of Alchemy Partners and Better Capital, has also warned of a lack of credible green ventures. The concern is supported by new figures showing that Britain is attracting only 2.5% of the money being invested in green technology globally. The lack of investment comes in spite of a determination by Britain's political parties to turn the nation into a hub for green jobs and business. "There is a dearth of viable green companies to invest in because the sector has been featherbedded by government money, which has given it a sense of entitlement," said Truell, a former chief executive of Duke Street Capital. "Hundreds of companies have received soggy, government-backed initial investment - first-round seed funding of £1m to £2m. But a good 90% of them are not credible companies because they lack management teams with commercial expertise," he said. "Too many clean-tech companies are focused on the technology without considering whether it is something that can actually make money. It is a complaint of many venture capitalists and [fund investors] that there is an insufficient focus on commerciality," said Truell. "First and foremost a new product has to be economically viable. If it happens to be green as well, that's a bonus." Green investment funds have amassed $12 billion (£7.8 billion) to invest worldwide and are in the process of raising a further $26.7 billion, according to new figures from Preqin, the research firm. New industry figures show that venture capitalists backed a record 180 green companies in the first quarter of 2010, investing a total of £1.2 billion. Only $48m of that money was invested in British companies, however, spread across 16 firms, according to data from Cleantech Group, a green investment research firm. Moulton, who specialises in investments worth between £5m and £25m, is also struggling to find green companies worth investing in. "There are not a great number of good green opportunities out there. Some companies are given too much government funding and there is a tendency for penny packet stuff," he said. The claims have been backed by Tom Murley, chairman of the British Venture Capital Association's Energy, Environment and Technology Group, who runs HG Capital's 300m renewable-energy fund. "In an industry that has been supported by government handouts, there tend to be lots of big ideas that are not typically that commercial," he said. "In renewables we have a lot of people who see opportunities, have great designs and think it's all going to work out in the end. But as we learnt in the dotcom era, that isn't always the case. "The key problem is lack of management talent. We have some brilliant guys with some great ideas but we just don't have the first-class management teams in this sector. This is largely because it's a new sector and it takes time to attract the talent," he said. A wave of investment in green technology companies is expected over the next decade. European early-stage, buyout and infrastructure funds dedicated to clean tech investments have $5.1 billion of cash to invest, of which about $3.1 billion is earmarked for the UK, according to Preqin, which provides data for the alternative investment industry. Green funds are raising a further $10.9 billion for European investments, with about $3.1 billion destined for the UK, said Preqin. The figures refer only to dedicated green investment funds. Dozens of general fund managers are also planning to plough a portion of their cash into clean-tech investments. The average clean-tech fund has promised investors an 18.5% annual return on their money, just below the 19.2% promised by the general funds, according to Preqin. Since most green venture-capital funds have been raised since 2006, it is too early to tell how successful these kinds of investments will be. The 2010 Preqin Private Equity Review concludes: "Target [returns] suggest that fund managers are expecting to generate high returns but it remains to be seen whether clean-tech funds will achieve these targets." The report defines clean tech as anything designed "to minimise any negative environmental impact and efficiently manage the Earth's natural resources". |
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
