Security Res. Share Discussion Threads

[fido] 03/12/2014 10:11

I have now voted AGAINST the delisting of the shares on AIM.
It is not for me to tell others how to vote but the RNS read like the small PI`s have already done well from 2 payouts so should not oppose the delisting in the interests of reducing admin costs.
My opinion is that the admin cost excuse is a red herring. A company such as SRG can be run with minimal charges.
There is no doubt that the directors want to monitise the three group companies, but by delisting the geater benefit will be felt by the directors and largest shareholders with their 69%. In my opinion the small pi`s are being sidelined as the directors line up a nice little pension pot given all their advanced years by using the PI`s fear of delisting against them.

6% of voting shares may not seem a lot but I remember a similar situation a few years ago where directors being the major shareholders sought to delist and take the company into private ownership. The percentage needed was also around the 6% but the company failed by a narrow margin to win the day and that company went on to prosper.

NEVER consider this to be a done deal as its not and I would urge all who are able to vote to do so.
The greater reward will be had by those that hold as the parts are sold off and not by those that scatter on delisting fears.
If holding out for the disposals is the best course of action for the directors and largest shareholders then it is the best course for me as well. If the businesses are to be sold then I want to receive the same FULL benefit as the directors and will not be making it easy for the directors by accepting the delisting and therefore I have voted AGAINST.
The directors could have monitised the business while retaining the listing but their course would suggest that they want least interference in maximising the gains to be had for a chosen few rather than the small PI`s and I will not be making it easy for them by showing apathy in not bothering to vote.

[envirovision] 02/12/2014 11:06

Well just had sip deal confirm they wont be force me to sell my holding

[yump] 30/11/2014 23:57

J777J
Sorry for your Blur losses, but its your own fault.

[davidosh] 30/11/2014 15:46

I think some shareholders are unhappy but do not post here as I picked this up from another company thread...


GingerPlant
28 Nov'14 - 10:35 - 154 of 155


Thanks Glen.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with what you say but the bottom line is that not all value shares have such ownership profiles.

The latest dodgy deal came at value share SRG. I was fortunate enough to have bought just before the recent results at 40p. The results were excellent, all looked rosy and the shares promptly went to 60p at which I sold half my holding. Then 21 days later they announce their intention to de-list (for the usual reasons). Now this may be a wise decision and shareholders hanging on may well eventually receive payments in excess of the share price etc., but why was this not mentioned with the results three weeks beforehand? It was surely in the offing and this would have been the logical and seemingly more honest and open time to have stated their intentions? Even if it wasn’t a done deal, it could have been flagged up as a possibility. So this is the kind of concern I’m talking about.

There is so much uncertainty over why this has been done this way and in just three weeks after the results....why the hurry to get off the market by Christmas ?? Money is not tight and as the Agm was only three months ago why was there no consultation then ?

NOTE.....Spot the difference in start time !!

Notice is given to all shareholders that the Annual General Meeting of Security
Research Group for 2014 will be held at the offices of the Company, 133 Ebury
Street, London SW1W 9QU on 22 August 2014 at 12 noon.

When they are happy to talk it is 'noon' when they want to run off market it is '9.30am' start.

I am sorry but these are things I do not like and if they are concerned about smaller minority holders they would not have done it this way.

[pj 1] 29/11/2014 14:12

Ooooops
Note to self- Do not post with a glass of red wine! lol :-0

Luckily one of the first threads I discovered was the ZULU thread, where much research and opinion (negative and positive) was shared and discussed, and over the 4 years there are a number of posters who I think I have sussed! But its hard to do and hard to get right. Most here are extremely trust worthy that I know and I thank you.
I had been lucky until last year ref. Silverdell, then QPP, Aminex that spring to mind (all misled the market, how many prosecutions?) ! Now we don't really know if Director is buying or selling with these recent ridiculous share 'loans', even more mines in the minefield). Another delisting SRG....Difficult year.....
Anyway enough rambling, back on thread?

[eeza] 29/11/2014 11:14

The BOD have already proved by their actions that their own interests are paramount.
They could have announced the decision to delist at the time of results - but didn't.
They could have kept the listing at a cost of ~£30k whilst they sold the businesses - but didn't.
They could have had a later start for the meeting - but didn't.
They could have treat small s/holders fairly - but haven't.

Once de-listed you will be entirely at their whim.


I keep the following above my screen at all times.

"Greed will always be the Master of commonsense."

[interceptor2] 29/11/2014 10:11

One theme that I would like to pick up from your post PJ1, is try not mislead others, and to try not knowingly tell an untruth. Since I first started posted here, I have always tried to be honest and humble, even if at times I might look a little foolish, because of many mistakes.

So even though Davidosh and others will not be happy with my position as a holder here, I would hope that it is appreciated that I have been open and honest.

There will always be different interests and emotions between when you are holding a stock and when you can take an impartial view when you have no financial position. Which is why I believe it is best sometimes to sell a holding you are unsure of and re-access from the neutral view from the outside.

[interceptor2] 29/11/2014 09:28

PJ1, I have always enjoyed your posts and input, your post here was inspired imv, I will value your future input in the highest regard.

[yump] 29/11/2014 09:06

I prefer "Always look on the bright side of life..." as it doesn't matter what happens, if you start singing it, you start smiling.

[gingerplant] 29/11/2014 08:56

"If you can make one heap of all your winnings - And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss..."

- then you must be a complete idiot :-)

[battlebus2] 28/11/2014 23:04

Hey PJ you put me to shame.

Good on you that was a spirited heart felt insight to your life and is certainly why we need the support of sharesoc.
Funny how you picture someone when in reality it's far from the truth.
Huge respect.

[yump] 28/11/2014 17:24

I'm not sure what to do yet, but I'm also not sure whether I want to spend time on campaigning about shares when I care about other things much more strongly and can have a greater effect on them. That's my choice and to be honest, stock market investing is in shark infested waters and always will be.

However, whatever I do, I will probably send a strongly worded letter which at the very least will fill up a PA's bin.

[davidosh] 28/11/2014 17:09

Just for the record....I am not saying the directors/large holders/advisers are being devious or in any way scheming to get the company off the market. It is simply the poor timing, lack of detail, changes to direction of travel and nievety or lack of care for smaller shareholders that annoys me.

I certainly do not want to appear as a lone voice especially when battling away on issues that surely involve you all in a wider sense.

At the very least you can get to know the management and directors better by letting them know that comments on here have not exactly covered them in glory !

[envirovision] 28/11/2014 16:33

No I don't think the vote is a done deal, if enough people complain and show up and vent their dispirit eyeball to eyeball matters may be very different.

[davidosh] 28/11/2014 16:20

Mmmm...So you both think it is fine for the company to announce as it did contrasting statements three weeks apart and that other small shareholders can be shafted so long as you get a return on your investment and there is no need to attend a meeting so it does not matter when, where or how early in the day it is ?

I suppose you also think it will be totally unrelated when directors and advisers do exactly the same at other companies and maybe even find further extremes to push shareholders out !

Just explain to me why the Agm has previously been 11am and now an Egm to ask serious questions is at 9.30am?

Is there really a good reason why you should not at least be asking and commenting that 'I appreciate you may be looking to save shareholders money by delisting but can you explain why you did not tell us this at the same time as the results?' That way the gyrations in the share price would have been avoided and the AIM market once again seen as the wild west of investing!

I have to fish in these pools so I for one prefer decent folk sharing the benches and fewer shark hiding in the depths !

[battlebus2] 28/11/2014 13:33

Not in anyway selfish, I'm in the same boat having bought more and having spoken to the chairman I'm happy though can't be certain we will see a decent return.
Otherwise I would have contacted sharesoc. I realise not everyone is in the same situation but I've held for a while before the results so didn't buy the spike.

[interceptor2] 28/11/2014 13:11

After thinking about the situation here, I have had a change of mind. I intended calling the Chairman but have decided against this now.

I appreciate Davidosh looking at this situation and the offer for ShareSoc to become involved if requested by at least two shareholders. But because I have decided to hold my shares, I now need to act in my own self interest. I believe that the there is a good return here, 80p to 120p per share and I expect the bulk of any proceeds to be returned within a year.

I know that the company have acted poorly towards small shareholders, and if the situation was different, then I would support calls to delay in the process. But due to this looking like a done deal and of my conviction that I stand to make a good return here, I must act in my own interests.

I am sorry if this appears a rather selfish attitude.

[interceptor2] 28/11/2014 08:33

Thank you Davidosh for expressing so eloquently what I think most investors here felt about the situation. The Chairman does deserve to receive some difficult questions about this, as already mentioned the whole sequence of events has been very misleading.

I agree it has created a false market after the 5th November, and as a shareholder that brought into this company during this time, I will ring the Chairman later to ask for an explanation.

yump, I did mention the possibility yesterday about interested parties picking up stock from forced/annoyed sellers, when you look at the general consensus of the break up value expressed here, the temptation is there.

[yump] 28/11/2014 08:24

Suppose you were party to the discussions and you know roughly what value is being aimed at.

Then you see lots of pi sales.
Would you be tempted to buy ?

As far as I am concerned there are no conspiracy theories (in the stock market), as most of them are proved real.

[battlebus2] 28/11/2014 08:19

And up we go.. how strange! Could be someone taking stock from the mm?