Allied Minds Share Discussion Threads

[porsche1945] 12/11/2018 14:52

liquidity in these becomming non existant,could soon get very difficult to move, with article in Times over weekend about redemptions piling up at Woodford could be some serious issues for punters that hang on, spose thats what happens when you cxxp.

[kooba] 09/11/2018 12:52

AUTL $38.89* 7.69 ??

[jonwig] 29/10/2018 18:48

@ dodgy - OK, from your para 1, I've misread the OAV. But your para 2 does rather support JakNife's remark.

[dodgyknees] 29/10/2018 18:38

From the statement
Ownership Adjusted Value represents Allied Minds' interest in the equity value of each portfolio company. This group Ownership Adjusted Value is a sum-of-the-parts ("SOTP") valuation of all the portfolio companies in which the Group interest in.

Whilst the Board considers the methodologies and assumptions adopted in these valuations to be supportable, reasonable and robust, because of the inherent uncertainty of valuation, those estimated values may differ significantly from the values that would have been used had a ready market for the investment existed and the differences could be significant.

The group Ownership Adjusted Value was estimated at $350.1 million as at 27 September 2018, compared to $395.6 million as last reported.

[jonwig] 29/10/2018 18:01

@ dodgy - the 'ownership adjusted value' is the notional value of the portfolio companies to *all* their owners, not just to ALM which sometimes has a minority interest. The key numbers are on the balance sheet:

Equity attributable to owners of the Company ... $ 63,942,000
Non-controlling interests ...................... $(40,573,000)
Total equity ................................... $ 23,369,000

So there are two points here. First, the OAV is the total for all owners and second - as JakNife says - the OAV is a magicked up number, an 'alternative performance measure'. (The company admits this: 'a numeric measure of the Group's financial position that is not a GAAP measure'.)

[jonwig] 29/10/2018 16:51

@ dodgy - thanks, will look at it and get back to you.

[dodgyknees] 29/10/2018 14:02

I am not sure that your figure of 7p per share fully reflects the situation Jonwig.
The figures that you have use include investments at cost less impairment. Deeper in the accounts is an ownership adjusted value which calculates the net worth at "fair value". This is $350m, which is $1.47 per share or £1.14.

[jonwig] 24/10/2018 10:05

@ ltcm - when he first invested, the notional assets and prospects would have been considerably higher, and the owners' gearing pretty negligible. He certainly made a further investment in 2016 when the share price was 300-500. I think he also has some direct interest in the underlying assets.
You can see the early progress of the share price: 367p at 31 December 2014, an increase of 93.2% over the initial public offering price of 190p at 25 June 2014; welcomed to the FTSE 250 in December 2014 [Reults to 31/12/14.]

Also, the 2014 results show net assets of $1.15 per share, so the premium was always there. The market's appraisal of the assets and their performance in the intervening period is a different matter. Turkeys don't hatch overnight.

I guess his position is so large that he's stuck. It's pretty common on these boards for investors to see a return to past glories as worth backing, and anyone suggesting otherwise as being conspiratorial.

EDIT: yes, your "???!!!" was probably ironic but I thought I'd check a bit of history.

[ltcm1] 24/10/2018 09:38

So are you suggesting Neil Woodford didn't study the accounts properly???!!!

[jonwig] 22/10/2018 16:48

@ bobo - do you really think that the words of a few private investors here have brought the share price of ALM from 450p to 63p in two years (or 180p to 63p in one year)? Even with the 'help' of a rather iffy website. (I don't subscribe to it.)

The reason why ALM has destroyed its shareholders' wealth can be seen quite clearly in its financial statements, and I've pointed out how. Really, the net assets attributale to ordinary shareholders here are around 7p/sh.

Now clearly some investee companies could deliver profits in the future, but the gearing effect of the owners' preferred holdings means it has to be a quite massive outperformance to jump the preferred hurdle.

All this is pretty obvious to anyone who actually studies the company's accounts, but if you want to persist in conspiracy theories, do carry on. Meanwile some of us will do the spadework and make money - or at least avoid losing money.

[bobonumber1] 22/10/2018 15:40

You mean shareprophets aka Ltcm1/Chucky/ Porsche/jonwig # loser crew

[ltcm1] 22/10/2018 09:24

ALM are specialists in failure.

[porsche1945] 19/10/2018 23:28

Another " Woodford Winner ". Looking through his portfolio is more like reading a suicide note haha. This pos will be down to pennies then taken private.

[ltcm1] 27/9/2018 15:04

Thanks Jon.

Surely fair value here is 20-25p no???

[jonwig] 27/9/2018 14:49

@ ltcm - they've changed the presentation of the balance sheet a bit since the 2017 annual report, but basically, if a portfolio company (subsidiary) goes bust, it will be written down to zero in the assets entry, and also in the non-controlling interests entry! In other words, the net assets attributable to ALM could actually rise! [Don't get too excited here.]

[jonwig] 27/9/2018 14:41

@ bobo - don't be silly.

Please go to the ALM interim results announcement and look at the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Position, where it reads Total Equity = $23,369,000. The number of shares in issue at 30/06 was 240,314,745 which works out at about 7p/sh.

Now I can explain where the issues lie but the BoD in its narrative does its best to obfuscate. Do you accept that ALM enjoys net assets per share of under 10p, or do you not? If the latter, go to the company, not to me!

[bobonumber1] 27/9/2018 13:23

Ltcm1 & Jonwig are both Woodford perma trolls. Along with a few others you troll all Woodford stocks and Wpct boards baying for blood and spreading fud. I really don't know what your angle is as your not holders or short. Just a bunch of thirsty mugs

[ltcm1] 27/9/2018 12:37

There was an alarming passage about taking on a number of large earners at the top.

I have to be honest and say I can't really understand the accounts myself. Perhaps they are deliberately laid out so as to obfuscate???

Jon are you saying the original developers have such big positions in the subsiduaries that ALM has been effectively hugely diluted???

Is ALM an operation burning a large amount of cash, with almost no assets, yet has a lot of 'hope' value still???

The balance sheet is showing huge liabilities to the subsiduaries against this cash balance, net assets are now very low.

Won't these net assets rapidly run out without profits coming in???

Confused here!!!

[jonwig] 27/9/2018 11:35

@ catscats - the 'directors' valuation' isn't the NAV, it's the gross value of the portfolio assets, in the BoD's opinion.

The NAV is the equity as shown on the group's balance sheet: $23.4m, or £18m - ie. 7p/sh. The main reason for the rather surprising result is the non-contolling interests - the original developers of the subsidiaries own preferred shares.

Added to that, the seemingly adequate cash balance is reserved for funding commitments to portfolio companies.

It's all very weird to me, and ABLS looks a dodo.

[robertball] 27/9/2018 10:45

Reassuring

[robertball] 27/9/2018 10:37

No. It's what it does

[ltcm1] 27/9/2018 09:34

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the period 132,155 169,371


Should we be concerned about the drop here???