City Of London Share Discussion Threads

[scrapheap] 06/11/2003 16:50

the rise came through today on no trading.

results should be out soon - nov 20th last year - hoping for some bullish comments = perhaps given the budding tec recovery, i wonder if they'll pull out of mothballs either of the two projects that were shelved in the dark days earlier this year..

the indie article about the investor bailing out, completely ignored that the ceo sold to a group of investors for 60p+ - they wouldn't have done that without some faith in prospects!

I topped up at 37p on monday and am sitting and hoping...

[scrapheap] 05/11/2003 20:30

Some nice big buys today & the shares are unchanged?? weird... and annoying

[scrapheap] 03/11/2003 13:02

This is why we are down today - from the Independent:

No Pain, No Gain: 'It's time to say good riddance to a couple of portfolio losers'
Derek Pain
01 November 2003


It is an unhappy farewell for two no pain, no gain constituents. I've decided to swallow my pride (and losses) and dump the shares of City of London Group and Springwood. Accepting defeat is rarely an enjoyable experience. Still, I think it is better to lick my wounds rather than soldier on in the hope these two bombed-out shares will stage a recovery.

City of London was bought at 117.5p, Springwood at 131.5p. The damage to my wallet is substantial, with the shares sold at 46p and 13.5p respectively. The only redeeming feature is that the losses have largely been included in my recent updates.

So the portfolio's profit is little changed. I am looking around for suitable candidates to replace the loathsome twosome. And I do not intend to dilly-dally. The portfolio now consists of 13 constituents. As a superstitious old soul, I do not enjoy presiding over such an unlucky number and intend to break the spell as soon as possible.

But I could easily avoid the embarrassment of unlucky 13 by dispensing with my other horror share, Profile Media. I do remain hopeful that its management will salvage something for shareholders. In addition the portfolio has suffered such a sickening loss that the time to sell has passed.

Recently, the price strengthened, with the shares featuring on occasions in the daily list of major movers. Although in percentage terms they did well, it was only a penny or so and at the 4.5p touched, at best, the loss remains embarrassingly large. The flurry of interest stemmed from Profile's admission that it was in talks to sell some operations.

I should have sold City of London much earlier. In the madcap internet boom the shares topped 900p. Foolishly, I held, even during their ragged retreat. The group, I felt, had a more sophisticated internet approach than most. It had three ventures, each seemingly with a realistic future. And it cleverly ring-fenced its exposure. Even so, at the end of the day two of its internet investments were mothballed and the third sold at a disappointing price.

Overall, City of London is being obliged to absorb painful losses. It is easy to criticise the management, headed by a one-time Fleet Street hack, John Greenhalgh. Yet it behaved far more responsibly than many hi-tech players. As far as the portfolio is concerned, the real villain of the piece is, of course, yours truly, who so lamentably failed to sell when the shares were in the stratosphere.

Today, CoL is left with a small, loss-making public relations business that seems to have suffered as group management wrestled with the internet involvement. The company is little more than a cash shell. In a letter to shareholders Mr Greenhalgh concedes that under Stock Exchange listing rules City of London is no longer a trading operation but will henceforth be regarded as an investment company.

It is a rather more impressive shell than many former internet stars. Its investment portfolio is worth about £6.5m before borrowings of some £3m. Still, unless Mr Greenhalgh can produce a scintillating deal, the group appears to face a mundane future. During its 15 years or so as a quoted company, it has displayed the occasional inclination to flex its muscles. But until it heard the siren call of the internet it was generally content to jog along as a public relations group, ploughing profits into its investment portfolio.

I am not interested in shells or near-shells. They are hit or miss. I sold Paramount when it unloaded its pubs and became a shell. It was in the wilderness for a few years before this year alighting on the restaurant chain, Groupe Chez Gerard. It could be years before City of London ventures forth again.

Springwood is a sadder case. The shares were flying high as the veteran night-club entrepreneur Adam Page slowly developed the group. Then he had a rush of blood and went, at the wrong time, on a shopping spree. Now Mr Page has departed and the group's banks have a dominant say in its future.

I cannot see Springwood regaining its past glory and would not be surprised if it became the subject of a knock down sale. I hope not. Its Zanzibar concept is one of the best, some would say the best, in what has become a beleaguered industry. Although there is an argument for sitting tight and waiting to see what happens I have, reluctantly, decided to walk away.

[elton] 20/10/2003 15:50

Anyone know why price is rising sharply? 21/10 has gone done again 5%!!

[scrapheap] 20/10/2003 11:43

I've been re-reading the disposal announcement, I think the cash payment is on TOP of the 2m pound plus loan that rchive still owes to colg - ie the NAV is higher than I thought - am i missing something?

[scrapheap] 20/10/2003 10:37

signs of life here - nice move on friday and just started edging up again... any ideas why? are any of their investments performing particularly well?

[simonevans] 22/9/2003 14:58

The deal was not too bad, given that they were a forced seller. There is potential for more cash in the future. However, I do think that this company is now well overvalued. IMO NAV must be not much more than 40p and borrowings are way too high for an investment company. I would have thought 30p was about the maximum share price that would be warranted. Still like the company, but not at this level!!

[scrapheap] 22/9/2003 14:53

What a let down. All this waiting for the deal and it's a total damp squib. The upfront cash is far less than the 2.5m net asset value shown for the company but it's retention of potential royalty rights means it's certainly not a definite negative. To my mind, longer term this might be good news but near term it's hardly a catalyst to the shares moving higher!

Ho hum... maybe he was right to sell out a big chunk at 63p!

[scrapheap] 12/8/2003 08:38

Following the AGM statement on the 31st, I expect to hear news on the completion/breakdown of the exclusive sale discussions for archive-it pretty soon. With only one buyer left in the frame - the longer this takes, the lower the likely price obtained imho so here's to some news in the next few days!

[scrapheap] 29/7/2003 09:58

Shooting stars...

Every day, we see a small tec company announce a contract and wallop, mmakers and daytraders pile in and the stock usually goes up 50-100%. In these markets, it's a matter of 'fishing' by taking a stake and waiting for your company to hopefully announce a deal.... CIN is bigger than the normal tec tiddlers but the same logic applies imho, as/when we have news on the disposal, I expect an irrational exuberant response - just a matter of sitting and waiting...

[scrapheap] 23/7/2003 10:58

Wow a whole £2k can know over 5% off the shares - ridiculous market making.

[capt bligh] 18/7/2003 23:14

So am I, this could be the start of a decent climb. A few high profile contracts for archive-it, will multiply its value.

[scrapheap] 18/7/2003 09:31

Aye Aye - here we go again.... I'm getting more hopeful on this one!

[scrapheap] 07/7/2003 12:56

Hello - little mark up on no volume (as yet). Either a buy to be reported or maybe there's hope of an RNS re the sale coming.

Hope so!

[scrapheap] 26/6/2003 15:19

By the way, a decent sized buy (for CIN anyway) is good to see. More of those please!

[scrapheap] 26/6/2003 13:55

It's a big deal for them but not quite that big based on their NAV breakdown from last results - mind you 30p is a possibility if the worse happens

[simonevans] 24/6/2003 20:38

You have a point, although still high risk until the sale is agreed. If the sale doesn't go through then they are not in very good shape and we will see 20p!

[scrapheap] 24/6/2003 15:30

I'm going to predict that they will get a decent price for the archiving business and that when news is released confirming the sale to one of the US firms that the shares will rally above 65p.

Why else would a bunch of investors be willing to buy 30% of the CEO's holding at such a premium when normally such a sale by the CEO would be such a negative signal. Having said that it might be that there will be a delay before this news comes out as otherwise I'm sure the ceo would have held off selling for a few more weeks!

[simonevans] 09/6/2003 21:00

I doubt whether they will get a good price...they obviously can't float the business or raise more funds. The share price still has a way to fall if you ask me given that there is no discount to nav.

[scrapheap] 09/6/2003 08:57

Well it was on anticipation of results I guess & they ain't pretty! I can only say maybe they draw a line under a "shocker" of a year and hope there is better to come but not much there to get the shares moving higher - unless some USA firm pays a decent whack for the start up!

[sivadnoj] 05/6/2003 23:41

A long way to go for me too. Can't help thinking if there was any good news re Rchive it they would have announced it separately - they are supposed to be PR savvy.

Good luck