Vanco Share Discussion Threads

[masurenguy] 15/5/2008 07:55

REDHILL - 15 May'08 - 06:45 - 964 of 965: So why is he on here giving his so called expert opinion?
______________________________________________________________________

"Masurenguy - 14 May'08 - 958: I'm neither long or short on this particular stock but hold positions in other sector stocks that might be potential bidders."

Sorry Redhill - didn't I seek your permission to post here as a non-stockholder !

[masurenguy] 15/5/2008 07:53

farkyus - 14 May'08 - 20:54 - 963 of 964: You don`t give the impression that you don`t stand to lose money here.
____________________________________________________________________________

Well I don't stand to lose any money here !

"Masurenguy - 13 Mar'08 - 824: This is begining to resemble a 'Nero fiddling while Rome burns' scenario ! There is little doubt in my mind that they have an excellent business model and that it has already demonstrated both its growth and profit potential. However if a company is seriously undercapitalized, especially in the credit crunch climate that we are experiencing at the moment, then its prospects (and even potentially its survival) are much more vulnerable. This company really needs to address this issue if they are going to have any meaningful chance of arresting this relentless share price decline. I would really like to take a position here (any I'm sure there are others with a similar view) but will remain on the sidelines until I can see some real credibility being restored to the financial structure of the company."

[redhill] 15/5/2008 06:45

So why is he on here giving his so called expert opinion?

[farkyus] 14/5/2008 20:54

You don`t give the impression that you don`t stand to lose money here.

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 17:38

Since I don't stand to LOSE money here I'm not throwing any toys out of the pram - you are the one making all of the LOOSE and unwarranted allegations !

[windjammer] 14/5/2008 17:24

M guy

ok stop throwing your toys out the pram, anybody would think you stood to loose your money

[02bursar] 14/5/2008 16:59

Masurenguy. Thanks [appreciated]. I agree, there are many 'ifs and buts'.

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 16:14

02Bursar - well I really hope that you get more than that but it will really boil down to who is going to bid and the opportunity cost of the cash to significantly reduce the current debt to a viable level to support the existing business model. The other significant factor will be whether there is any loss of business during the process which may put greater pressure on a quick resolution to avoid revenue degradation.

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 16:10

What is your problem Windjammer ?

If you really want to know about my interest in this company then go back through the thread rather than make stupid assumptions/comments about shorting or schadenfreude. I'm neither long or short on this particular stock but hold positions in other sector stocks that might be potential bidders.

When it comes to any bid price for Vanco, the prime mover in this case will be the bank since they will be the priinciple beneficiary !

[02bursar] 14/5/2008 16:07

25-30p is < half its closing share price which puts no value on the discounted price of the order book less future obligations. But you could be right. We'll know soon enough.

[windjammer] 14/5/2008 15:59

so if you are not a shareholder or shorter you must be here to say i told you so !

you are assuming that the pi`s can`t make the required percentage between them to have there say

can`t see the principal shareholders accepting 25p anyway

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 15:33

If you're implying that I'm short on Vanco then you are completely wrong !

The Pi's here won't decide the outcome of any bid - the principal shareholders and the bank will so you will get whatever they are prepared to accept !

[windjammer] 14/5/2008 15:28

Masurenguy

so are you saying they will go into administration, because i won`t accept 25p and i can`t see any other shareholders accepting it either. may as well take our chances

would i be right in saying that if the co goes into admin and does not come back to market that the shorters will also loose out. nice one

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 15:05

I'm sure that there will be more than one bidder but the final valuation will be discounted by the debt. Shareholders will receive some of the consideration but I would be very surprised if this was much above the range of 25p/30p per share.

[windjammer] 14/5/2008 14:07

Masurenguy

i agree the company will be sold, but you need to point out there will be more than one company in the bidding, so sharholder return may not be as bad as you make out.

[masurenguy] 14/5/2008 11:54

This company will be sold. It is potentially a cash cow for a larger organization that doesn't need to fund it with excessive debt. Lloyds will get their money back but since the acquiror will have to take on and pay down the debt I don't think that there will be much consolation for shareholders.

[wooly62] 14/5/2008 11:13

By reputation the FD is very high quality, so if "he got his sums wrong" it was because he was fed information which he then discovered wasn't entirely accurate. Is that unreasonable when he hadn't been in his post long? I suspect that as soon as he found out he'd been misinformed, he alerted the bank and the market. If my synopsis is correct, I don't think Lloyds have done anything wrong and they will be extremely worried about their exposure as their security will be worthless in a demise scenario, so I'm sure they'll try to help keep the company afloat pending a sale or rights issue - provided they don't think they're throwing good money after bad. Of course, a sale could be at a price which yields shareholders no return, so we have to hope that buyers are sufficiently satisfied with the fundamentals of the business and the financials to pay a premium.

[theband] 13/5/2008 19:45

It added Andrew Coppel, former chief executive of Jockey Club Racecourses
and Queens Moat Houses Plc., has joined as its chief restructuring officer.
Oh great, a gambler and bon viveure, they'd have probably got Oliver Reed if he still had a pulse.

[02bursar] 13/5/2008 14:42

I was responding to your unsubstantiated comment that the new FD was "way out of his depth".

I am well aware that the FD did not resign but the CEO did. I was reflecting on a possible scenario that brought that about.

Whilst Vanco remains independent, and I a sharehholder, I will continue to post to this board as and when I please - just as you have done. Thank you for the advice all the same.

[bstl] 13/5/2008 14:33

Redhill - suggest you call the cooms director at Vanco.
Bursar - what are you going on about. The FD did not resign and the banks did not call in the Administrators. Sadly, it's time to move on....

[02bursar] 13/5/2008 13:32

It may be academic but this is still fundamental stewardship and governance we [investors] could be talking about. What use was the audit committee in these circumstances if the CEO was railroading his agenda [growth] through at any cost or highly obstructive in getting the financing issue resolved?

As for the credibility of the new FD, I don't think he was out his depth at all as his actions in the past few months up to the last financial statement lived up to his CV, suggesting he was a league above Hargreaves and getting things sorted out, having the bottle to fight his corner. I suspect that he actually brought this to a head and told the audit committee eaxctly what he thought of the CEO's strategy and his grave misgivings about previous accounting policy. Now imagine the scenario - new FD says this can't go on - you've got your fingers in your ears so I'm going to quit. Result: credibility of the management team gets blown out of the water due to his resignation - banks call in the administrator.

Instead, he's been given the opportunity with considerable help, to consider all options - unencumbered - and he's told them - it should take weeks not months.

[redhill] 13/5/2008 13:02

BSTL
"
Lloyds effectively spooked the market, no one had any confidence and everything is spiralling out of control."

Your assumption or do you know this for a fact?

[bstl] 13/5/2008 12:31

probably a mix of all the above - it seems the new FD just got him sums wrong in the first place and was way out of his depth!!
Unfortunately, it doesn't make a lot of difference anymore.

[02bursar] 13/5/2008 11:20

BSTL Post #941

"They changed their FD and auditors at the same time. No one in finance could direct the auditors and the auditors had a steep learning curve."

Sorry but I don't buy that. Hargreaves was still on the payroll months after Johnstone took up post on 1st Sept and Johnstone would have made the most of that time. The company has a finance team who do the accounting according to the financial policies adopted, reporting up to the FD whoever that happened to be. They wouldn't have swapped the entire finance team on Johnstone's appointment. PWC would have had access to accounting working papers on which Deloittes carried out their last audit and for the last interims. Both sets of auditors would have exchanged information and both would have some knowledge about the industry sector at senior audit manager/partner level.

What I'd dearly like to know is how the new FD could determine that the newly negotiated bank finance arrangements provided working headroom for a few years out and just a month later advise the market that that was no longer the case. True the first part of the year is historically the worst for Vanco's cashflow but this suggests that some key assumptions in the cashflow projections on which those bank negotiations were based, were wrong - either that new or renewable contracts expected to be signed with upfront fees receiveable, didn't materialise or assumptions about the values and timings of the opening accrued income release in the balance sheet for contract payments receivable, were inaccurate or both. Given that the accounts haven't been signed with write downs of carrying value in prospect, the latter is prime suspect.