||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Equity Investment Instruments
Real-Time news about Security Res. (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
|eezymunny: The website seems to be here now...
One wonders if they've sold Moore & Buckle, leaving PSG as the sole operating subsidiary?
Moore & Buckle have filed accounts for y/e 31/3/16. Pretty rubbish year, just profitable.
PSG has a new name - PSG Connect - and has also filed. PBT was 631k vs 683k last time.
The parent company ought to have net current assets in the region of £7-7.5m vs a market cap that would be c. £9.7m if it was still listed and had a share price of 50p. We'll see when SRG files accounts which is presumably quite soon.
Seems to me, still, that we should do OK if all above board. Like most, however, I'm frustrated that we've had no returns.|
|davidosh: I think some shareholders are unhappy but do not post here as I picked this up from another company thread...
28 Nov'14 - 10:35 - 154 of 155
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.|
|davidosh: 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 !|
|davidosh: Just a few points from me...
1. I am far from impressed that a chairman sings about the performance of the company in results statements just three weeks ago then announces a delisting which he fully knows will materially affect the share price in a very negative way as most private investors do not like to hold delisted company shares.
Why did they not announce the delisting at exactly the same time in the results announcement as they had clearly been to see their major holders and discussed the possibility ?
2. Shareholders need to fully understand what the rationale is behind the need to delist as the listing costs with no PR and no broker coverage are certainly no more than £30k a year and the extra visibility of reporting half yearly and having to announce things is far better for individual investors as the big boys with 60% are no doubt constantly in touch with the company.
That begs the question that if the chairman is keen to explain himself to shareholders and meet us to show we are in good hands why has he chosen three working days before Christmas to have a meeting and to start at 9.30am ???
That tells me he wants nobody there and this is being done as much under least protest as possible and they know many will be forced sellers but simply do not care !
3. Do they really think that the cost of listing is going to erode a significant part of the returns to shareholders or do they prefer to do it without a significant number of shareholders knowing what is going on and off market ?
If you want ShareSoc (www.sharesoc.org) to take a close look at this then it will need one or two of you to request it. You need to act fast but at the very least this meeting should be adjourned to mid January and a time and place accessible to the vast majority so at 11am or 2pm in London.|
|eeza: Re post 133 - Yump
"Stunning really that 15p of the share price is based on head office costs."
Does not necessarily follow.
They have approx £3.6m cash which would equate to approx 19p per share.|
|yump: What do you reckon the 3 businesses are worth ? As they now have a market cap of about £6mln by my reckoning and a turnover of £9mln+, based on 25p share price, which is what it is now effectively, after the 15p is taken off.
Stunning really that 15p of the share price is based on head office costs.|
|yump: So the businesses are now worth 25p of the share price ?
No way. Could be a gift horse, except its not easy to get shares at times.|
|yump: It would certainly be a no-brainer at 30-40p. No way would the group of shareholders have been in favour if they were only expecting to get that sort of value.
In fact I wonder what would have happened to the share price if they had announced the sale of the businesses and a special divi, while still being listed. The head office would still disappear, so there would still be a cash payout based on savings.|
|yump: Cash distribution of 15p just based on reduction of overheads/head office, before the sale of the businesses, could explain why the share price rose recently.
If I've read that right.
That leaves all 3 businesses making up 45p, which was the price before the rise, which to me looked like not a lot was priced in for any growth.
Is that coincidence ?|
My background is as a computer contractor within the investment banking arena.
I gave it up a couple of yrs ago when the industry was in very weak demand and going through a bit of a drought period. A serious slow down (almost a halt) in the market for contractors over the past 2-4 years has almost killed off the contractor industry. The subsequent reduction in rates also hit hard as did the introduction of IR35 which also robbed them (almost as a deterent) of the incentives of contracting (ie. tax implications for contractors, 90% of whom operate through a limited company and would invariably get caught under IR35)
Note the first line of article :
"Pay rates for UK IT contractors are set to climb by more than five per cent during 2005, according to top recruiter Spring Technology Staffing Services".
Putting this into perspective, contractor rates fell almost 40% from my experiece about 2-3 years ago ! so we can imagine that a 5% rise is peanuts. Nonetheless, it's an upturn - and one which looks likely to continue.
Most contractors I knew were going permenant.
That said, the market has shown signs of life recently.
IR35 is still being disputed and has become a bit of an embarrassment for the IR.
I posted an article a while back which also hinted at the recruitment markets starting to recover in the industry - but the SRG share price didn't seem to respond favourably at all.
I'm now starting to wonder if Spring is indeed geting a portion of this recovery in the industry and if so why is it not being reflected in the share price ?
Perhaps any pick up in the market which may be commencing now will not appear on the bottom line for companies like Spring until the following year ?
Perhaps there's a play off between permanent staff recruitment and contractor staff - bear in mind that permanent staff provide a higher turnover for recruitment companies.
Perhaps Spring isn't getting a decent slice of the action amongst other competition ?
who know's ? it is infuriating to see the share price simply continue to slide further lower - and certainly not healthy for my P&L !|
Security Res. share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange