Allied Minds Share Discussion Threads

[kooba] 16/12/2020 13:51

I don't expect CA to sit back and allow this free ride and the lack of performance in AM shares negatively impacts their own performance. Seeing this technology rally and no value enhancements in anything in what's left of the AM portfolio is galling. They were thwarted last time they challenged when trying to effect serious change by the continued support from Woodford and Invesco both having meaningful positions and also cross shareholding's in a number of AM holdings..this is still the case to an extent as Invesco is still a large holder but I would imagine their faith in current CEO delivering a monetised exit disappeared long ago.

[kooba] 16/12/2020 13:43

I think if one goes back on AM previous statements on Federated they were expecting significant revenues by now , this has not materialised and I don't think anything to do with CVD 19 is responsible. AMs holdings are on behalf of shareholders ..it's understandable why the AM ceo would be on the board but at the same time does it mean he holds executives to account in the same way as an external shareholder..I doubt it. It also means it's difficult to engage if a third party was interested in our holdings I guess.For Mr Pignato sitting there earning $650k a year to oversee the last few investments in a company that has spun*ed $100Ms down the drain and get a big kicker if any ever make good looks sweet ...for shareholders not so much. Like the $870k he got last year on about the only successful exit the company has had , he gets a big cut of the ones that work irrespective of all the disasters.

[kooba] 16/12/2020 13:32

Joe Pignato2019 report and accounts $673,000 renumeration$870,000 phantom bonus ( disposal Hawkeye)So Mr Pignato is sitting there earning very good money with a major free carry in the investments..why wouldn't he continue to fund these investments as long as possible to maximise his bonus??The whole situation is wrong the cost are out of whack with the portfolio , the only ex director is not aligned to shareholders and the main funding of these companies is still AM.There needs to be an urgent review taking into account all stakeholders interests not just Mr Pignato's who seems to have landed on his feet getting a free ride at shareholders expense.

[spectoacc] 16/12/2020 13:23

@kooba - valid points. I guess for Pignato it's "when can I maximise it", whereas for us long-suffering ALM shareholders it's "give us back a multiple of the share price please". No question Federated at least has been making progress - the flurry of news on it this year felt like it was being "publicised" ahead of something happening. If we're still in this position this time next year I'd be very surprised - and equally annoyed :)

[kooba] 16/12/2020 13:11

I think the board should be looking at the current valuations attained by tech ipos and the SPAC mechanism for reversing businesses in.On Federated I believe AM are the largest shareholder and the AM CEO Joe Pignato is the Federated Chair so not without influence I guess.But maybe there are conflicts in those roles?Also on Spin Memory AM has 43% and put half the recent fundraise in..so they again should have significant influence I guess , Mr Pignato again serves on the board.The problem is whether Mr Pignato is happy sitting on a big salary and with a chunky shadow incentive effectively being funded by AM shareholders and is taking the long term view due to his personal position over trying to deliver stated policy of maximising returns for shareholders who I'm guessing are not so interested in funding his lifestyle and seem to be missing out on the biggest tech rally ever?

[spectoacc] 16/12/2020 09:46

Agreed, & we seem subject to perennial drift until the next news. If now isn't the time for a float of Spin or Federated, then when? Accepting that ALM don't have much say over it, and CRS even less.

[ragnarr] 16/12/2020 09:41

What i meant to add was what a load of Bo@§2§ks

[bobonumber1] 14/12/2020 19:06

Looks bad. Crs have basically done nothing except slightly reducing head office costs despite making plenty of noise. This will just stagnate till floated. Look at quantumscape the battery maker with a valuation of $26billion 4 years pre revenue. That's what a bit of hype and good pr does. Alm need to instruct a medium size investment bank to float at least 2 of the subs.

[kooba] 14/12/2020 16:55

Well they're trading at 50% discount to assets now but the problem is imho , the management are in no hurry to execute business plan to monetise investments as they are still on decent packages being paid to sit and watch the last few investments of what was once a large portfolio until something happens. Looking through the holdings there doesn't appear a catalyst in the near term , though a number look to have good potential.So it looks like dead money for the time being.Overheads too high for what is essentially fairly passive management.Should be no more than 2-3% as a management fee ..I think it works out far higher so that eats away at value.Best thing would be a bid at 50-55p from venture investor to put this out of its misery. I doubt CA or Invesco would refuse that level in current circumstances.

[frazboy] 14/12/2020 16:08

Not the greatest looking chart - anyone got any theories as to why? Or is it just someone selling into an illiquid market?

[costi_1672] 04/12/2020 11:58

https://twitter.com/FedWireless/status/1334537271547031554?s=19

[buffettjnr] 03/12/2020 14:03

a great idea bobo

[bobonumber1] 03/12/2020 13:59

2021 is the year to float. Let the market value the subs rather than NAV

[spectoacc] 03/12/2020 11:13

At this rate, wondering if we might make ST's Bargain Shares 2021 portfolio - may have tipped it too recently to include it tho. But the sort of discount to NAV play he punts. Surely 2021's the year for another disposal/capital return..

[bobonumber1] 02/12/2020 15:20

https://www.iiotconnection.com/orbital-sidekick-helps-ipipe-consortium-with-pipeline-monitoring-project/

[flyfisher] 23/11/2020 21:15

''Although the resolution to approve the remuneration report was successfully passed with the requisite majority at the 2020 Annual General Meeting, it received more than 20% of votes against the resolution. After extensive engagement with its major shareholders, the Board notes that shareholder concerns were focused on remuneration schemes in place for 2019 and prior that have since been addressed. Accordingly, the Board believes that the substantial amendments the company made to its remuneration programme for 2020 and onwards, as detailed in its 2019 Annual Report and Accounts, have and continue to appropriately address shareholder concerns and no further modifications are necessary at this time.'' Clearly 37% disagree.

[costi_1672] 22/11/2020 17:47

https://twitter.com/FedWireless/status/1329845392716939264?s=19

[buffettjnr] 12/11/2020 21:22

hxxps://www.federatedwireless.com/federated-wireless-iyad-tarazi-named-ceo-of-the-year-in-2020-mobile-breakthrough-awards-program/

[costi_1672] 11/11/2020 23:43

https://twitter.com/FedWireless/status/1326325098354155520?s=19

[backinblack80] 23/10/2020 00:00

Isn't Bernstein going to try and rectify this situation?

[bobonumber1] 22/10/2020 08:19

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/10/08/bridgecomm-partnership-nokia-5g-technology.htmlA little more Nokia bridgecomm info

[spectoacc] 21/10/2020 07:45

Fair points - at some point the Federated/Spin holdings in former-WEIF (assuming it's still there) needs dumping too. SUPP would also no doubt be keen to exit.

[flyfisher] 21/10/2020 07:43

I can understand that Schroders who inherited the woodford holding would not participate, but if the technology is good, why would Charter Comm, American Tower, GIC, SBA and Commscope choose not to participate and be diluted. Looking at the CRS s/p. I think that CRS desperately need to have another go.

[spectoacc] 21/10/2020 06:49

"No one seems to have mentioned that in the last federated fund raise, several holders failed to participate. Not a vote of confidence." Bear in mind some of those holders are ex-WEIF, and SUPP - zero chance of either of them ever participating, they have no (negative) spare money. Agree re costs, wind-up - we need CRS to have another go.

[kooba] 20/10/2020 18:17

I knew the situation quite well there, I understand Woodford and Barnett still trusted the management to turn it round and they believed the BS they were fed , Woodford along with AM put good money after bad in now closed down businesses , keeping the management in place cost fortunes for shareholders.Bernstein's plan was right at the time and probably right now and Woodford and Barnett no longer rule the roost.This business never worked and has blown hundreds of Ms in its relatively brief life , a large majority of the companies they backed and backed again collapsed..really has been a fantastic how not to do it lesson.Here we are with what's survived of a huge portfolio and what's left of the management are still not aligned with their shareholders and seem far from proactive in winding this down efficiently so everyone can move on.