Vphase Share Discussion Threads

[melton john] 27/3/2013 11:57

What do you think?

[412069] 27/3/2013 11:45

Top up time lads if you fancy it.

[briangeeee] 26/3/2013 09:09

Typo56, that's a very good point about the nominal value of the shares. I've seen it come up as an issue previously, but often forget to check for it. It's an odd situation in which they find themselves.
Perhaps they'll get a loan that ranks below the invoice discounting loan, and converts to equity on default. So if they can't repay, the lender effectively takes control of the company.

[melton john] 26/3/2013 08:49

"ridiculous admin expenses of £2m per annum?"

Check out last years Annual report and see directors pay compared with previous year. Maybe he deserved a payrise again this year.

Won't be long before this years report, worth poring over for details like that.

Re capital re org, Thats possibly on the cards too.

Odds on an MBO anybody, Aim is famous for spending shareholders money until it's all gone. Pre-pack administration and private company for a song.

Google pre-pack if you think I'm making stuff up.

[typo56] 26/3/2013 08:30

They wouldn't be able to issue further shares below the nominal value of 0.25p without court approval for a capital reorganisation. That's perfectly possible, but time consuming.

[typo56] 26/3/2013 08:27

As I suspected a couple of years ago, the bulk of their agreements lack any minimum sales volume guarantees. Doesn't that make the numbers a bit meaningless? They are of course handy bits of paper to wave around when it comes to fund raising!

Unless sales have picked up dramatically and they've managed to liquidate that stock it's going to be crunch time soon. At year end current payables were £567k, up almost 80% on the previous year, yet current receivables were down over 10%. Why's this?

How can this business survive with a gross margin of just 26% and ridiculous admin expenses of £2m per annum?

I feel sorry for the efficiently run private companies competing with Vphase. Vphase units are effectively being subsidised by shareholder funds.

[melton john] 25/3/2013 22:53

You make me laugh. Can't go lower? Just watch. Company still priced at nearly £8M. How long before it pays you back with a divi? Don't spend it yet.

[412069] 25/3/2013 20:14

Ho and I'm in at the lowest of the lows not quite placing level but as near as you could be.

[412069] 25/3/2013 20:05

Typo your short I'm long need I say more! Massive upside potential or half a penny to bust. I don't mind the wait, it's a gamble both ways. I have a few quid here which I think could come good. The money that they are throwing at social and private housing energy saving would making you cry i know im making quite a few bob as well because of it. It's all about a gut feeling but a bit of what you know helps.

[typo56] 25/3/2013 19:38

You're making no effort to answer the questions. I wonder why!

[412069] 25/3/2013 18:51

They are putting a lot of effort in warning how vphase will fail and considering they don't hold any stock I wonder why!

[mega_trader] 25/3/2013 18:04

Typo, at the end of the day this is a speculative investment with lots of unknowns, so you have to make your own mind up.

[typo56] 25/3/2013 16:16

Melton, I don't see signs of committed investors here, just one of two people who bought higher up and are waiting for the next pump & dump to exit. It's one way to play it, possibly the only way.

Looking back at this thread I see that a few days ago 41 posted

"if they can sell 100 of these gadgets per day working say on a five day week turnover would be 5mil"

That assumes VPhase receive £200 for each unit? I'd venture it's a lot less than that, perhaps in the order of £120? The one-off trade price via distribution channels is around £165.

So assuming they really can sell 100 per day at, say, £120 each at 25% margin that would be an annual margin of £750k....with overheads of £2m. Still some way to go! How many did they sell in 2012? Average of about 40 per day?

How come they've got £1.1m tied up in inventories but an annual turnover of just £1.4m? £1.1m is more than they'd have required in inventories for the whole of 2012. I can't imagine many components have a long lead time. Do they manufacture in-house or subcontract? Have they entered into a supply agreement based on optimistic sales assumptions, or are sales really increasing that rapidly?

Another thing I'm wondering about is revenue recognition. I assume from the revenue recognition statement in the 2011 Annual Report that revenue is only recognised when goods have been called off and delivered, rather than on receipt of a call-off order.

[melton john] 25/3/2013 15:54

So the pro's think it's a screaming buy 41,

Panmure-Gordon House broker, bound to be objective.

From the bottom of a Vphase RNS

Panmure Gordon [phone]
Hugh Morgan / Callum Stewart www.panmure.com

Long waiting game Mega

[mega_trader] 25/3/2013 14:00

Well done 41. Bit of a waiting game ahead but could be worthwhile.

[412069] 25/3/2013 13:15

Seems like my post above has worked Mega

[mega_trader] 25/3/2013 12:14

Exactly 41, this is a growth company.

[typo56] 25/3/2013 12:00

Sounds like you're trying to divert attention away from discussing the company. How about a conversation about:

* The competition
* The cash flow - have they sufficient cash to keep going? If not, how and when might they raise it.
* Turnover required to beak even. When do you expect the break even point?
* Inventories and admin expenses look high. How do you explain this?

I didn't find them a compelling investment back at 8p or 4p or.... Persuade me why I should invest now.

[412069] 25/3/2013 11:49

Sounds like it to me mega, if this is so bad a company why spend time warning every one to stay away, ok every now and then but after every post.

[mega_trader] 25/3/2013 11:45

Typo/Melton, your begining to sound REALLY DESPERATE to close your short.

[typo56] 25/3/2013 11:25

;-)

Yes, the main beneficiaries of patents are patent advisors and lawyers. They are pretty hopeless for the small inventor because there is no police force to enforce them for you, it's down to you to defend them and that requires deep pockets.

[briangeeee] 25/3/2013 11:24

The patent's because investors always ask annoying questions about patents.