We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Addworth | ADW | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.375 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.375 | 0.375 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 05/9/2008 09:08 by safman "excellent" post that, i remember investing in wigmore as a "novice" investor... clearly one picks up the idea of "AIM", and which stocks to try and avoid.. and there are certainly things to from BBs, things to pick and things to avod..AIM has become tricky over the last few months, especially with the mkt conditions and spate of delistings.. with regards to wigmore..it went to 3p.. fell to around 1.75p, with no news, ad then a bombshell, from a current market price of around 1.625p to a placing announcement, at 0.1p ..1600% lower from current mkt price.. it was a disaster, i did manage to offload around 50% of my holdings at a loss, @1.8p.. but the rest fell flat.. saffy! |
Posted at 05/9/2008 08:45 by nick faldo Go on then... for old times sake:tiredoldbroker - 10 Jun'04 - 13:36 - 492 of 1082 Dear Mr Watson Mitchell, Since you clearly don't understand why you should apologise for your role in the Wigmore debacle, I will try to explain it to you. Your website, and your personal publicity over the years, say that you have 40 years experience as a stockbroker, financial journalist and tipster. That "Few tipsters can match [your] knowledge about the world of AIM, OFEX and fully-listed small caps. And few have [your] extensive range of top City contacts established during almost 40 years of successful analysis and trading". You clearly like it to be thought that you are in constant touch with important City figures and the most capable analysts and pundits, and that you have unparallelled access to company directors, which private investors on their own can't achieve. So you have all this experience, and the most astute contacts. When you use those claims as your "unique selling point", you have to perform up to the expectations which you have chosen to raise. I don't think you have done that. Now, I don't expect this to mean that you never pick any losers. Nobody has a 100% track record. But it should mean that you have learned a few things over the years, know the questions to ask, and can pick over the dry bones of a Report & Accounts - and that, as a result, you should be able to identify anything shaky and quiz the company management about it. It's also clear that, from time to time, you've read the WGT Bulletin Boards, so you know that I, and others from time to time, have been critical of WGT. This wasn't a company which no-one had ever voiced criticisms of, and I can give you a list of things which I think should have raised serious doubts in your mind about the wisdom of recommending WGT: 1. WGT was associated with Artisan and Stephen Dean, and I think I'm right in saying that private investors have usually done badly over the last few years if they invested in any Stephen Dean satellite - you may dismiss this as "guilt by association", but in my days in the City, the pedigree of a company was something you thought carefully about. Why didn't it bother you ? 2. Speymill was bought from Artisan - and anyone who has been knocking around the City for a few years should have learned that, when businesses are shunted about between associated parties, it usually ends up costing the private investor a packet. It didn't work for long when Jim Slater tried doing it, and none of his imitators since have really done any better. This should have rung alarm bells. But you seemed to be totally unconcerned about it. Why, given your years of experience ? Weren't you aware that this can be a warning sign to investors ? 3. The WGT management had already put the FNPM business into liquidation once and transferred the assets to another WGT subsidiary - this "phoenix" procedure is generally frowned on, usually not done by reputable companies, and again, should have raised serious doubts in your mind. Why didn't it ? 4. Speymill apparently made less money under WGT's ownership than it had done prior to being acquired - but as a SQC Research note of December 2002 suggested, Speymill plus FNPM should have been 2+2=5 with the benefits of cross-selling services and eliminating overheads. You don't ever seem to have been worried that in fact, 2+2 made rather less than 0, or that overheads don't seem to have been chopped, or that any benefits arose from common ownership. You just blithely went on recommending the shares. Why ? 5. The WGT management kept on issuing vast amounts of shares, and got their friends at Artisan off a potential hook by reducing the conversion price of a loan note Artisan held. This was all against the interests of WGT shareholders, and caused massive dilution of the equity. This again, in City terms, is usually seem as a warning sign. You didn't seem at all concerned. Why not ? 6. Even on your (i.e. SQC's) forecasts of £600,000 pre tax, WGT was looking fully-priced in p/e terms below 3p, given the nature of the business and the low p/e's which the market usually assigns to such businesses, which have no long-term contracts and the possibility of turnover simply drying up. Yet you continued to recommend the stock, claiming to see substantial upside. Why ? What made you think that WGT could command a premium rating ? 7. Two Finance Directors in succession and the boss of Speymill left in a relatively short space of time. Even if the last FD really did leave on health grounds (and I'm assuming 'health' meant more than that every time he had to look at the management accounts he threw up and was getting an ulcer), haven't upheavals like this always been a very bad sign, and shouldn't someone who boasts of his years of experience have read this for what it was ? Shouldn't you be more alert to this sort of thing than the private investors who, when they pay for your tips, are relying on you to pick up on things like this, and warn them ? Yet you didn't seem worried. Why not ? 8. The briefest analysis of the last figures showed that, under WGT's ownership, Speymill had shown no growth in turnover. Shouldn't this have worried you, given that you were recommending WGT as a growth situation ? 9. Other people have posted on here that, at the time of the last results, they looked at the figures, did their sums and got out because they could see that banking arrangements looked exposed. I suspect that WGT has been on a financial tightrope, without proper long-term banking facilities, for quite some time - and maybe this was why they needed the Artisan loan note converted. But shouldn't your analysis of the figures have raised a question in your mind ? Shouldn't you have followed this up, and grilled the Chairman, given that you'd been recommending the stock ? 10. Finally, you made it clear that you were talking to Peter Hewitt of WGT, and I'll assume that, as an experienced City person, you were asking some testing questions, not just having a damn good lunch and writing down what he told you. So how come you didn't seem to pick up on just how shaky the finances were ? Did you ask ? Did they lie to you ? Or didn't they know what the situation was at their own company ? As you posted earlier on this thread, "That it had hassles with its finances is not my fault". I'll accept that. But you claim all this experience, all these contacts. You said you were talking to the Chairman. You were associated with a "research note" from SQC. You kept recommending the stock. Yet you appear to have failed to pick up on some major warning signs, and to have completely missed the fragile financial state of the company, in all your conversations and analysis. THAT is what your fault is. That is why you should apologise, in the fullest terms, to anyone who paid for your advice and followed it. Oh, and one last question. Did you, or SQC Research, or any website, or other business in which you personally have a financial interest, ever take a fee from Wigmore Group or any of its directors for writing a and recommending WGT ? |
Posted at 01/7/2008 21:48 by topvest Yes, still coming up with some interesting situations although it will be hard work in this market. Looks like "plus+investors plc" has been canned for the time being though. |
Posted at 30/5/2008 21:57 by topvest It was floated at 5p when it was only worth 2p max. That was the problem. I bought shares in the IPO..sold a few weeks later for a profit and have got back in at closer to a penny. They have a reasonable strategy and are very well placed to benefit from the PLUS upswing which is looking more and more likely as it replaces the bottom end of AIM.They are targeting 8 floats for 2008 and it looks like plus+investors plc will be first. Risk Transfer looks like it will float when conditions improve. I'm quite impressed actually with the way they are developing their business - has potential. |
Posted at 30/5/2008 15:37 by tiredoldbroker What a disaster this has been for the private investor since it joined AIM over three years ago. The chart since Feb 2005 says it all. |
Posted at 05/9/2007 08:41 by tom howard It'd be a shame not to imv!tiredoldbroker - 10 Jun'04 - 13:36 - 492 of 1082 Dear Mr Watson Mitchell, Since you clearly don't understand why you should apologise for your role in the Wigmore debacle, I will try to explain it to you. Your website, and your personal publicity over the years, say that you have 40 years experience as a stockbroker, financial journalist and tipster. That "Few tipsters can match [your] knowledge about the world of AIM, OFEX and fully-listed small caps. And few have [your] extensive range of top City contacts established during almost 40 years of successful analysis and trading". You clearly like it to be thought that you are in constant touch with important City figures and the most capable analysts and pundits, and that you have unparallelled access to company directors, which private investors on their own can't achieve. So you have all this experience, and the most astute contacts. When you use those claims as your "unique selling point", you have to perform up to the expectations which you have chosen to raise. I don't think you have done that. Now, I don't expect this to mean that you never pick any losers. Nobody has a 100% track record. But it should mean that you have learned a few things over the years, know the questions to ask, and can pick over the dry bones of a Report & Accounts - and that, as a result, you should be able to identify anything shaky and quiz the company management about it. It's also clear that, from time to time, you've read the WGT Bulletin Boards, so you know that I, and others from time to time, have been critical of WGT. This wasn't a company which no-one had ever voiced criticisms of, and I can give you a list of things which I think should have raised serious doubts in your mind about the wisdom of recommending WGT: 1. WGT was associated with Artisan and Stephen Dean, and I think I'm right in saying that private investors have usually done badly over the last few years if they invested in any Stephen Dean satellite - you may dismiss this as "guilt by association", but in my days in the City, the pedigree of a company was something you thought carefully about. Why didn't it bother you ? 2. Speymill was bought from Artisan - and anyone who has been knocking around the City for a few years should have learned that, when businesses are shunted about between associated parties, it usually ends up costing the private investor a packet. It didn't work for long when Jim Slater tried doing it, and none of his imitators since have really done any better. This should have rung alarm bells. But you seemed to be totally unconcerned about it. Why, given your years of experience ? Weren't you aware that this can be a warning sign to investors ? 3. The WGT management had already put the FNPM business into liquidation once and transferred the assets to another WGT subsidiary - this "phoenix" procedure is generally frowned on, usually not done by reputable companies, and again, should have raised serious doubts in your mind. Why didn't it ? 4. Speymill apparently made less money under WGT's ownership than it had done prior to being acquired - but as a SQC Research note of December 2002 suggested, Speymill plus FNPM should have been 2+2=5 with the benefits of cross-selling services and eliminating overheads. You don't ever seem to have been worried that in fact, 2+2 made rather less than 0, or that overheads don't seem to have been chopped, or that any benefits arose from common ownership. You just blithely went on recommending the shares. Why ? 5. The WGT management kept on issuing vast amounts of shares, and got their friends at Artisan off a potential hook by reducing the conversion price of a loan note Artisan held. This was all against the interests of WGT shareholders, and caused massive dilution of the equity. This again, in City terms, is usually seem as a warning sign. You didn't seem at all concerned. Why not ? 6. Even on your (i.e. SQC's) forecasts of £600,000 pre tax, WGT was looking fully-priced in p/e terms below 3p, given the nature of the business and the low p/e's which the market usually assigns to such businesses, which have no long-term contracts and the possibility of turnover simply drying up. Yet you continued to recommend the stock, claiming to see substantial upside. Why ? What made you think that WGT could command a premium rating ? 7. Two Finance Directors in succession and the boss of Speymill left in a relatively short space of time. Even if the last FD really did leave on health grounds (and I'm assuming 'health' meant more than that every time he had to look at the management accounts he threw up and was getting an ulcer), haven't upheavals like this always been a very bad sign, and shouldn't someone who boasts of his years of experience have read this for what it was ? Shouldn't you be more alert to this sort of thing than the private investors who, when they pay for your tips, are relying on you to pick up on things like this, and warn them ? Yet you didn't seem worried. Why not ? 8. The briefest analysis of the last figures showed that, under WGT's ownership, Speymill had shown no growth in turnover. Shouldn't this have worried you, given that you were recommending WGT as a growth situation ? 9. Other people have posted on here that, at the time of the last results, they looked at the figures, did their sums and got out because they could see that banking arrangements looked exposed. I suspect that WGT has been on a financial tightrope, without proper long-term banking facilities, for quite some time - and maybe this was why they needed the Artisan loan note converted. But shouldn't your analysis of the figures have raised a question in your mind ? Shouldn't you have followed this up, and grilled the Chairman, given that you'd been recommending the stock ? 10. Finally, you made it clear that you were talking to Peter Hewitt of WGT, and I'll assume that, as an experienced City person, you were asking some testing questions, not just having a damn good lunch and writing down what he told you. So how come you didn't seem to pick up on just how shaky the finances were ? Did you ask ? Did they lie to you ? Or didn't they know what the situation was at their own company ? As you posted earlier on this thread, "That it had hassles with its finances is not my fault". I'll accept that. But you claim all this experience, all these contacts. You said you were talking to the Chairman. You were associated with a "research note" from SQC. You kept recommending the stock. Yet you appear to have failed to pick up on some major warning signs, and to have completely missed the fragile financial state of the company, in all your conversations and analysis. THAT is what your fault is. That is why you should apologise, in the fullest terms, to anyone who paid for your advice and followed it. Oh, and one last question. Did you, or SQC Research, or any website, or other business in which you personally have a financial interest, ever take a fee from Wigmore Group or any of its directors for writing a and recommending WGT ? |
Posted at 18/7/2007 09:58 by malkie Karl - I only know of MWM through ADW so I am not familiar with his previous incarnation.ADW is an active capital investor. Are you not a holder Karl, if not what draws you to this BB?? |
Posted at 18/7/2007 09:51 by malkie Karl - either or both.FWIW i know nothing of MWM so I am listening with interest. I have been looking at the ADW for a while and have a small stake. My main holding is in SVE as a resource investor and I was encouraged by theirs/Bruce Rowan's & Nigel Wray's investment. I take it that those who hold disparaging views of MWM are not ADW holders, or am I also mistaken there? TIA ARGY2 - agree your point regarding PLUS valuations, but I note they have also had some significant successes - notably EBTM & Myhome |
Posted at 18/7/2007 08:44 by karl tunparma A little background on MWM if I may:tiredoldbroker - 10 Jun'04 - 13:36 - 492 of 1082 Dear Mr Watson Mitchell, Since you clearly don't understand why you should apologise for your role in the Wigmore debacle, I will try to explain it to you. Your website, and your personal publicity over the years, say that you have 40 years experience as a stockbroker, financial journalist and tipster. That "Few tipsters can match [your] knowledge about the world of AIM, OFEX and fully-listed small caps. And few have [your] extensive range of top City contacts established during almost 40 years of successful analysis and trading". You clearly like it to be thought that you are in constant touch with important City figures and the most capable analysts and pundits, and that you have unparallelled access to company directors, which private investors on their own can't achieve. So you have all this experience, and the most astute contacts. When you use those claims as your "unique selling point", you have to perform up to the expectations which you have chosen to raise. I don't think you have done that. Now, I don't expect this to mean that you never pick any losers. Nobody has a 100% track record. But it should mean that you have learned a few things over the years, know the questions to ask, and can pick over the dry bones of a Report & Accounts - and that, as a result, you should be able to identify anything shaky and quiz the company management about it. It's also clear that, from time to time, you've read the WGT Bulletin Boards, so you know that I, and others from time to time, have been critical of WGT. This wasn't a company which no-one had ever voiced criticisms of, and I can give you a list of things which I think should have raised serious doubts in your mind about the wisdom of recommending WGT: 1. WGT was associated with Artisan and Stephen Dean, and I think I'm right in saying that private investors have usually done badly over the last few years if they invested in any Stephen Dean satellite - you may dismiss this as "guilt by association", but in my days in the City, the pedigree of a company was something you thought carefully about. Why didn't it bother you ? 2. Speymill was bought from Artisan - and anyone who has been knocking around the City for a few years should have learned that, when businesses are shunted about between associated parties, it usually ends up costing the private investor a packet. It didn't work for long when Jim Slater tried doing it, and none of his imitators since have really done any better. This should have rung alarm bells. But you seemed to be totally unconcerned about it. Why, given your years of experience ? Weren't you aware that this can be a warning sign to investors ? 3. The WGT management had already put the FNPM business into liquidation once and transferred the assets to another WGT subsidiary - this "phoenix" procedure is generally frowned on, usually not done by reputable companies, and again, should have raised serious doubts in your mind. Why didn't it ? 4. Speymill apparently made less money under WGT's ownership than it had done prior to being acquired - but as a SQC Research note of December 2002 suggested, Speymill plus FNPM should have been 2+2=5 with the benefits of cross-selling services and eliminating overheads. You don't ever seem to have been worried that in fact, 2+2 made rather less than 0, or that overheads don't seem to have been chopped, or that any benefits arose from common ownership. You just blithely went on recommending the shares. Why ? 5. The WGT management kept on issuing vast amounts of shares, and got their friends at Artisan off a potential hook by reducing the conversion price of a loan note Artisan held. This was all against the interests of WGT shareholders, and caused massive dilution of the equity. This again, in City terms, is usually seem as a warning sign. You didn't seem at all concerned. Why not ? 6. Even on your (i.e. SQC's) forecasts of £600,000 pre tax, WGT was looking fully-priced in p/e terms below 3p, given the nature of the business and the low p/e's which the market usually assigns to such businesses, which have no long-term contracts and the possibility of turnover simply drying up. Yet you continued to recommend the stock, claiming to see substantial upside. Why ? What made you think that WGT could command a premium rating ? 7. Two Finance Directors in succession and the boss of Speymill left in a relatively short space of time. Even if the last FD really did leave on health grounds (and I'm assuming 'health' meant more than that every time he had to look at the management accounts he threw up and was getting an ulcer), haven't upheavals like this always been a very bad sign, and shouldn't someone who boasts of his years of experience have read this for what it was ? Shouldn't you be more alert to this sort of thing than the private investors who, when they pay for your tips, are relying on you to pick up on things like this, and warn them ? Yet you didn't seem worried. Why not ? 8. The briefest analysis of the last figures showed that, under WGT's ownership, Speymill had shown no growth in turnover. Shouldn't this have worried you, given that you were recommending WGT as a growth situation ? 9. Other people have posted on here that, at the time of the last results, they looked at the figures, did their sums and got out because they could see that banking arrangements looked exposed. I suspect that WGT has been on a financial tightrope, without proper long-term banking facilities, for quite some time - and maybe this was why they needed the Artisan loan note converted. But shouldn't your analysis of the figures have raised a question in your mind ? Shouldn't you have followed this up, and grilled the Chairman, given that you'd been recommending the stock ? 10. Finally, you made it clear that you were talking to Peter Hewitt of WGT, and I'll assume that, as an experienced City person, you were asking some testing questions, not just having a damn good lunch and writing down what he told you. So how come you didn't seem to pick up on just how shaky the finances were ? Did you ask ? Did they lie to you ? Or didn't they know what the situation was at their own company ? As you posted earlier on this thread, "That it had hassles with its finances is not my fault". I'll accept that. But you claim all this experience, all these contacts. You said you were talking to the Chairman. You were associated with a "research note" from SQC. You kept recommending the stock. Yet you appear to have failed to pick up on some major warning signs, and to have completely missed the fragile financial state of the company, in all your conversations and analysis. THAT is what your fault is. That is why you should apologise, in the fullest terms, to anyone who paid for your advice and followed it. Oh, and one last question. Did you, or SQC Research, or any website, or other business in which you personally have a financial interest, ever take a fee from Wigmore Group or any of its directors for writing a and recommending WGT ? |
Posted at 24/3/2007 09:10 by topvest Interesting company, but admin expenses at £538k are way too high for a company of this size. They might also do better by holding onto their investments a bit longer. I'll keep watching though as they are involved with some interesting businesses and investors. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
