Colliers Intl Share Discussion Threads

[ukmassy] 29/9/2015 12:43

He's still ramping DQE!

[ukmassy] 29/9/2015 12:32

Colin is ramping DQE today. Warning. Warning. Warning! Stupid qock.

[ukmassy] 28/9/2015 14:56

Still ADSS LOL! Rucking Stick!

[ukmassy] 28/9/2015 14:55

What's he ramping this arvo? Will go and check now.

[ukmassy] 28/9/2015 12:43

LOL! Colin follows that master Trader Topinfo! LOL!

colin12345678
28 Sep'15 - 12:39 - 536511 of 536511 0 0

Topinfo ‏@TopTradersADVFN 9m9 minutes ago

ADSS-This is looking like its going to have a significant bounce, nice volumes today, could see 1p+ again very soon here.Good order pipeline

[ukmassy] 28/9/2015 12:27

Now it's ADSS! You go Col!

[ukmassy] 28/9/2015 12:15

Today's Colin Ramp is HNL!

[loverat] 07/11/2012 05:59

Some coverage coming soon here I think.

[loverat] 03/6/2012 15:50

Tony Horrell, First Service and Sir John Ritblat

Incompetance, Greed and Buffoonery - in that order.





These clowns presided over one of the quickest and most cynical examples of deliberate shareholder destruction for years - even on this market. The share price was 16p in January 2011. Some debt but in the following months the company expanded like never before. A strategy taken forward by Horrell. Shareholders wondered at the time if this strategy was foolhardy.

Now we know the answer. First Service - the Carpetbagger shareholder were making plans all along. Expand, drive the shareprice down into the ground and then make their move. Some folks would not have minded if they actually paid 1p for the equity. Nope, this huge company was even too mean spirited to do that. Instead a pre pack administration stitch up. Just as with DTZ a few months before.

I have news. This ain't over and the storm clouds are gathering.

Remember - what goes around, comes around.

[loverat] 29/5/2012 05:16

I posted this elsewhere about corporate greed in AIM boardrooms and greed and unnaccountablity elsewhere. I wonder if the directors think they have got away scot free from this. If so, they can think again. Publicity is the key to dealing with inept and greedy directors.

This article posted on another AIM board and my comments:




Sir Richard Needham quits Lonrho board after bust-up with chairman.

Loverat
29 May'12 - 05:12 - 239 of 239 edit

I found that article quite revealing and amusing. The man seems to be either somene who thrives on publicity (often bad) or is his own worst enenemy.

Some directors never learn do they? I heard and read a few things yesterday which sort of made me think of my investments on AIM and the directors who act like a law unto themselves and who are downright greedy. Most AIM investors seem to grudgingly accept corporate greed as part of life. My feeling was that there seems to be signs that public mood is rapidly changing and that 'payback time' is near for some. Certainly been a few shareholder revolts lately and interesting fellow directors are now joinng in. Good on them - lets see more directors protect their shareholders against this type of thing. After all, their duty is to shareholders - not to themselves.

These are quotes I observed elsewhere yesterday which made me think. This from Law Society Gazette which sums up the greed which seems to have taken hold in our society generally. This describing the greed of insurers, claims managment companies and solicitors in dealing with injury claims:



'Sadly, such practices are symptomatic of our times, whereby financial gain and profiteering by all players within the current PI system - insurers, claims management companies and solicitors among them - have been put far above the rights and needs of injured persons.'


Tony Blair at the Leveson Enquiry describing (if my memory serves) briefing against other ministers:

'I did not take part in the practice myself because I strongly believe what goes around comes around'

Too right it does!

[loverat] 09/5/2012 05:55

An interesting site about shareholder issues. A few posts about the campaign against pre-packs etc.



I read there is alot of shareholder activism in the boardrooms. Well, not before time in my opinion. The fools who have destroyed shareholder value here - like Sir John Ritblat and Horrell will perhaps soon be reminded of their behaviour.

[loverat] 06/4/2012 18:46

envirovision

I may be in touch soon about this website. I am back discussing ideas with one or two friends. Some time back I contributed to a website which had various sections - complaints about banks, solicitors, shareholder complaints but the website became too crowded with stuff. Furthermore the website owner was sued by one of the solicitors featured on the site which made things difficult and effectively it was closed down.

Anyway, there are a number of topics we would like to cover - my subject is a shareholder site and forum. However, we are considering covering three or four different topics and thinking whether to do separate sites for each or one which covers all the topics. The advantage of one site is that it should pull in more punters as the issues are all big and topical but may deter some if the each subject areas do not have sufficient separation and losing some of the message.

Anyway, buzzing with ideas at present and at the stage of starting building decent sites. I have learned alot over this last few years and as part of the shareholders site I want to try and get some case studies together.

I have three or four companies in mind to feature. London Asia Capital, Merchant House Group, Irish Life and Permanant and Colliers. I wonder, when we get the wheels in motion if you would be prepared to write a case study on COL. Probably around 300 to 500 words and something covering the arrival of Horrell, FS investment, the terminal decline in the share price from 20p in Jan 11 to 1p in Jan 2012 and the final stitch up. Ultimately it would be good to get a range of different people to contribute case studies in whichever style they wish. Sometimes humour works well in these type of things. This is one short 'case study' on a site about solicitors to give you some ideas of what I mean:



And another one a bit more serious and very scathing:



The above cases were in the public domain so were written very briefly and I suppose with COL more detail will need to be included to tell the story.

Have a think and let me know if you can help.

Also we are thinking about what other features to have. I know you mentioned a sort of database of directors. That is probably something we might not be able to incorporate straight away but will consider and let me know if you have any other ideas.

[loverat] 02/4/2012 06:18

And one more thing regarding MHG.


If it does emerge that you have lost money there, in my view a legal action against directors there would not be successful. Same goes for the traditional class action route. In view of their business interests and public positions they hold it is unlikely that they would not have covered their backsides to ensure any legal or regulatory action is unsuccessful.

What I am proposing here and elsewhere is an alternative or a third way. And I suspect when folks see the advantages and the noise generated, the regulators and ordinary folks like yourself will have to take note.

[bubble pricker] 01/4/2012 20:18

Hi Loverat, no thanks, I won't join your campaign group. I accept that it's ultimately my own fault if I lose money in MHG. However, there is a difference between directors are simply have the wrong strategy and directors who lie in your face at a meeting that everything is fine and in order. The former is incompetence but the latter is fraud and I will pursue it in the case of MHG individually with the directors in question.

[scburbs] 31/3/2012 11:02

Barclays will have been paid off based on the $22m price paid, so not in full, but The Telegraph article suggesting they got nothing is presumably just poor journalism.

[loverat] 31/3/2012 07:34

Extract from the above article - creating value for shareholders (First Service shareholders that is)

Shares in Colliers International UK were suspended at 0.80p giving it a market capitalisation of £1.2m.

Jay S. Hennick, founder and CEO of FirstService, said. "Adding these operations further strengthens our Colliers International global real estate services platform and is another step forward in our strategy to expand into new markets.

"Our guiding principle remains clear - create value for shareholders by becoming one of the world leaders in real estate services. This acquisition is another example of our disciplined approach to executing our strategy as we continue to deploy our capital prudently in this industry," he concluded.

[loverat] 31/3/2012 07:08

This article seems to contradict the other articles and suggest Barclays were paid off - so will check this out further.



I suppose the above articles have to be wrong. After all a pre pack on this basis would mean they get Colliers UK for free and gain 18 million pounds by walking away from their responsibilities. And of course it was the justificaton they used to say there was no money for shareholders. If the above articles were right then in theory any shareholder could issue a pre pack if they simply wanted to carpet bag everyone elses shares.

[loverat] 31/3/2012 06:54

And what about Barclays?

If that report is right is it fair not to pay back their debts. Barclays supported them when support was needed and Colliers just walk off as if nothing has happened.

Is it any wonder the banks do not wish to lend money to small businesses when they simply walk away from their responsibilities. I think we are too hard on the banks sometimes.

Colliers and First Service should hang their heads in shame.

[loverat] 31/3/2012 06:46

John Riblat - the fool who presided over the mess.



Interesting that Barclays got stuffed too. As I said before, this cynical and despicable action has ensured money has been transferred from the ordinary shareholder to the pockets of the millionaire carpet baggers.

The other thing I find quite surprising is the reference to the debt levels when comparing to the previous financial statements. As far as I recall the debt level was not flagged up as some sort of particular concern. In fact they carried on expanding. Why did they not talk to their bank before?

No, this pre pack must have been planned for some time. The share price decimation, the silence from the company, no trading statement. I bet they sat there and watched DTZ and thought - yeah why not do the same. Let's continue being paid our huge salaries, rip off investors and the banks off and for doing little or nothing.

It is morally wrong that these millionaires can walk away from their responsibilities like this. What sort of example does it set for ordinary people?

Quite a scandal this is and there is going to be a heck of alot of noise very soon.

[loverat] 30/3/2012 20:13

envirovision

I'll be in touch soon.

[envirovision] 29/3/2012 22:01

loverat, I could be interested in creating a site with you where by users can type in a board member name or a CEOs or even fund manager and it throws up a history and overview of the miss management, misdemeanors the person has been involved in and any linked parties you can email me at [e-mail]

[loverat] 29/3/2012 11:02

envirovision

I think we have two scenarios here. Either the management were a complete bunch of amateurish fools as scburb's has suggested or this was a calculated move. It can be argued either way I guess. It is a relevant question to ask - particularly when at least two members of the management have long and distinguished careers in this business.

While this is being debated here I am going to go back and fit the puzzle together and form my own view.

As for debating and discussing AIM companies on websites (call it naming and shaming if you like) I have been involved in several websites along these lines before. For example, one or two focused on the legal profession and the odd one was closed down (by the Law Society) because some firms were not happy. But this does not stop me continuing to debate solicitors where debate takes place. In fact I take part in debates on the Law Society Gazette forum nowadays and have quite a following. I have been threatened with legal action on more than one occasion and no claim has yet arrived. I have also helped one or two ADVFN posters and others deal with woeful libel threats made by solicitors in the last few months and the promised litigation has failed to materialise.

If the solicitors cannot shut me and others up or come up with an actionable claim then I doubt if a set of crummy directors (and their solicitors) will do any better.

But what might this achieve?

Well, you probably won't get your money back. I cannot go into detail here as to what it may achieve but from the experiences mentioned above it will be significant and certainly provide a level of satisfaction to folks screwed over. It will also raise awareness and discourage apathy. We have already seen a few cases where shareholders have done something which has had some success. We just need to build on that.