Amd Commo Exagr Discussion Threads

[loverat] 17/4/2010 17:31

What a lucky escape for LGB holders.


Anomalous - 5 Dec'05 - 00:39 - 35116 of 35122

For your information, the guy I suggested for the Action Group's director is not me. He's director of several AIM listed companies, he's independently wealthy, he attends board meetings already (so he doesn't need expenses!), he's a serial entreprenuer with many businesses under his control and has converted many an empty shell company into a thriving business.

He's one of the major shareholders of Plus Markets Group (OFEX) and
he is willing to try and get the shareholders money back.
If that wasn't enough, he's even backed Action Groups and I trust this gentleman implicitly .

Holdontight - 5 Dec'05 - 02:02 - 35133 of 59023
Anom......who is he/she?

Anomalous - 5 Dec'05 - 02:11 - 35134 of 59023
It wouldn't be politic for me to mention his name on the BB. ADVFN does have rules about this after all. Suffice to say that he posts on ADVFN (infrequently ) under the Logon ID Cougar6.

He likes to be known as a West Country Entreprenuer and lives next door to Pete Townsend. He's incredibly smart and a very astute business man. He once negotiated a deal and when the sellers counter-offered with a higher price, he dropped his price and WON! He is a bona fide genius and if the worst happened (which is starting to look less likely now), then none of the shareholders would come out of it with nothing.

[loverat] 17/4/2010 17:21

Well, what readers may ask next are the reasons behind events here and elsewhere.

Could it have been that a few directors who wanted to wine and dine their partners and got carried away?

Mind you, looking at the boat race, I somehow doubt that. However, someone married them and Mrs Ng and Mrs Littlewood seemed to have played a role in the London Asia.

Ladies - your husbands look ugly. Now, please explain what prompted you to marry them.

[loverat] 17/4/2010 16:48

I suspect that the management will come to regret what has happened here.

I started this thread a year ago and expressed by concerns as far back as December 2008. Do you really think I am going to give up now?

Not on your nelly. People describe me as a terrior because I dig up all sorts of stuff.

Folks had their chance and they have blown it.

[loverat] 17/4/2010 16:42

Looks like everything is falling apart.

Fact is folks, you get nothing by simply whinging on here about life. By all means, have a whinge (god knows I have) but follow up by COMPLAINING about things that are not right.

I certainly have. And I will continue to do so.



Remember the thread motto:

JUSTICE IS NOT JUST REQUIRED,
IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE.

[man overbored] 15/4/2010 20:21

Some folk just cannot bring themselves to comply with the law, yet expect it to aid them:






Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 23/05/2001

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7221 - Software publishing

Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2008 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2010 OVERDUE

[loverat] 15/4/2010 16:19

Errr, now let me take a wild guess.

ROTFLMAO.

[loverat] 15/4/2010 16:18

Breaking news folks!

His 'contacts' have found out that Pearson was arrested for misleading posts - made by RNS.

Picked a Pickle - 14 Apr'10 - 23:53 - 2611 of 2625

I understand from my contacts that Stuart Pearson was arrested by the Serious Fraud Office yesterday for the misleading posts he made by RNS.




Question is I wonder who will be hauled up for misleading posts not made by RNS.

[loverat] 14/4/2010 00:26

Interesting that we have had one or two readers from Croatia. Most notably from Pula which I remember is a lovely part of the Istrian Coast.

Croatia - from a historical perspective has changed hands between the Austrio Hungarian Empire, The Third Reich and Yugoslavia and has always had a strong mafia presence.

[loverat] 14/4/2010 00:19

Nope - checked again. There are no RNS's in 2005 to confirm that the 'Croatian Mafia' took a position in the company.

Mind you - there is a possible link to a British National based in Croatia which might bear fruit. And I would imagine that LAC by now has referred all this to the 'appropriate authorities'

I am confident that alot more will come to light in due course.

[loverat] 14/4/2010 00:11

6.3 Loan of $5 Million Written Off

Our investigations have uncovered that on 7th September 2005, LAC plc sent $5 million to Nourican Adriatic d.o.o., in Zagreb, Croatia. The transfer document was signed by Mr Simon Littlewood. A signed contract confirms that the loan was to have been secured by a pledge over 25,000 shares in Industrogradnja d.d., but no signed guarantee or pledge has been traced.

The purpose of the loan was to help Nourican Adriatic d.o.o. provide evidence to the Croatian Stock Exchange (Zagrebaka Burza) that cash needed for a bid to be made by two Croatian companies for Industrogradnja was available. LAC was to receive a fee of US$ 1 million for this loan.

The bid for Industrogradnja was launched on 11th November 2005 at a share price of 650 Kuna at a discount to its market price of 810 Kuna. As a result, only 2,640 shares were tendered for at a total cost of $273,244. It appears that the $5 million loan provided by LAC was not used for the bid and should have been returned to LAC in January 2006, together with the $1 million fee.
We can find no evidence that this sum reached LAC, nor is there documentary evidence to show that steps were taken through the courts in any country to recover this money.

The transaction was managed by Mr Simon Littlewood, who has since commented that the "Croatian Mafia" has the outstanding $6 million belonging to LAC shareholders.




I actually made some enquiries a while back about his but drew a blank. In the absence of any RNS it would help if Mr Littlewood had been more specific as to which section of the 'Croatian Mafia' held £6 Million of shareholders funds.

[loverat] 13/4/2010 23:34

Now, I know what you are all thinking. Cougar6 a director of LAC and COMG was touted as a possible LAG representative to help recover Langbar Shareholders money.

Therefore would he have recovered your money considering his track record in London Asia Capital?

Well, at present concerning London Asia Capital, it seems that Littlewood was running the show and I suppose in his defence Cougar6 was a non executive director who engaged in the odd 'ramp' on the bulletin board. However, this had been going on for years and there must be some accountability. It is inconceivable in my mind that someone apparently blind to what was going on under his nose could have been effective as a LAG representative.

What is galling is that whilst Littlewood was apparently enagaging in the above activity and misleading other directors such as Cougar6, Cougar6 accused another poster who correctly highlighted problems as 'blind'

cougar6 - 19 Jul'07 - 15:49 - 7972 of 8797
sorry to see your blind slapdash

Simply unbelievable.

[loverat] 13/4/2010 23:19

Perhaps I can ask him for his comments regarding this lot.....

From the London Asia Capital directors:


6. CAUSES FOR CONCERN

6.1 Bank Accounts

In September 2008, almost all LAC's funds were in the bank accounts of its foreign subsidiaries and associated companies, under the control of Mr Simon Littlewood and his wife, Josée Lai.
Mr Simon Littlewood resigned as a director of LAC on 25th July 2007 and so it was not proper for him to continue to control - to the exclusion of all other main board directors - the Company's cash and investments.
Mr Simon Littlewood failed to tell LAC directors of the locations of many LAC subsidiaries and associated company bank accounts and subsequently volunteered the minimum of information.

For example, the LAC directors believed that there were no bank accounts in Singapore, although LAC's wholly-owned Singapore subsidiary, London Asia Capital (Singapore) PTE Ltd, had bank accounts with DBS Bank, Fortis and UOB.
Your Board persuaded HSBC in Hong Kong and DBS Bank in Singapore to suspend local bank accounts and were able to send £500,000 back to the UK, thereby putting LAC in funds so that the Company could afford to run day-to-day activities and commence the forensic investigation necessary for the preparation of the accounts for 2007 and beyond.

6.2 Undocumented Transactions

With control of the bank accounts, it became apparent that large sums of money had entered, left and moved around LAC in a way that was not supported by proper contracts, invoices or proper business practice.
Sums due to one company had improperly been paid to others; in particular, funds due to wholly-owned subsidiaries of LAC were paid into companies in which LAC was only an 80% or even 40% shareholder. Many of the investments, particularly those in China, were held in a way that made it impossible to prove title. Some shares, which were the property of LAC or its subsidiaries, were held by private companies in China, with no adequate contract or other safeguard for the shareholders of LAC.


6.3 Loan of $5 Million Written Off

Our investigations have uncovered that on 7th September 2005, LAC plc sent $5 million to Nourican Adriatic d.o.o., in Zagreb, Croatia. The transfer document was signed by Mr Simon Littlewood. A signed contract confirms that the loan was to have been secured by a pledge over 25,000 shares in Industrogradnja d.d., but no signed guarantee or pledge has been traced.

The purpose of the loan was to help Nourican Adriatic d.o.o. provide evidence to the Croatian Stock Exchange (Zagrebaka Burza) that cash needed for a bid to be made by two Croatian companies for Industrogradnja was available. LAC was to receive a fee of US$ 1 million for this loan.
The bid for Industrogradnja was launched on 11th November 2005 at a share price of 650 Kuna at a discount to its market price of 810 Kuna. As a result, only 2,640 shares were tendered for at a total cost of $273,244. It appears that the $5 million loan provided by LAC was not used for the bid and should have been returned to LAC in January 2006, together with the $1 million fee.
We can find no evidence that this sum reached LAC, nor is there documentary evidence to show that steps were taken through the courts in any country to recover this money.
The transaction was managed by Mr Simon Littlewood, who has since commented that the "Croatian Mafia" has the outstanding $6 million belonging to LAC shareholders.

6.4 Share Swap Companies

In May and June 2007, LAC announced to the London Stock Exchange that it had issued in total 98 million fully-paid new shares (valued at approximately £10 million) to shareholders in four newly-formed companies, three in Hong Kong and one in Singapore, in return for a 40% interest in those companies ("Share Swap companies").

In each of the four Share Swap companies third-party investors held the remaining 60% interest. In aggregate, these third-party investors paid little more than £20,000 (twenty thousand pounds) for their investment, which effectively gave them collectively a 30% shareholding in LAC.
In breach of the Companies Act, no valuation of the Share Swap companies was obtained prior to their acquisition by LAC in May and June 2007.
Details of these share issues and of the acquisitions were described in the audited accounts for the year to 31st December 2006, and in company regulatory announcements to the London Stock Exchange. Applications were made for the shares to be dealt on AIM and a further review of the acquisitions was made in the 2007 interim results. These interim results showed that these valueless companies were purported to have increased the LAC Net Asset Value by £10.9 million, equivalent to almost 25% of LAC net asset value.

It was stated in the 2007 interim results that these Share Swap companies had a "combined capital value of over £27 million." The audited accounts of those companies demonstrate little or no value.
At all relevant times these transactions were managed by Mr Simon Littlewood.

We succeeded in having the 98 million shares in LAC, referred to above, gifted back to LAC plc and cancelled at a Board Meeting held on 22nd May 2009, resulting in the number of shares in issue dropping from 327 million to 229 million, to the benefit of shareholders and increasing pro forma Net Asset Value from 7.5p to 10.7p per share.
LAC is pursuing claims for up to £16 million against the four 60% shareholders in each of these Share Swap companies for the consideration they failed to pay on their shares. While it is unlikely that these claims will be met in full, we are confident that there will be a significant net financial benefit to shareholders in LAC.

6.5 Aborted Acquisitions Not Announced

In May and June 2007 announcements were made to the London Stock Exchange of acquisitions by the above Share Swap companies totalling £12 million. These appeared in the Chief Executive's Report in the 2006 Report & Accounts as signed by Mr Simon Littlewood and as a post balance sheet event note, in which shareholders were informed on various other matters, including:
 China Exchange Limited had acquired an 80% stake in SYGC
 China Exchange Limited had acquired a 40% stake in Xi'an Private Equity Exchange
 London Asia Limited had acquired a 51% stake in Jin Lian Ann Insurance Broker of Beijing
 London Asia Limited had acquired a 51% stake in Zhong Nan Auction House
The 2007 Interim Report also referred to these acquisitions. We are unable to find evidence that these acquisitions took place and they are not recorded in the audited accounts of those companies.
The first indication was an email sent in May 2008 by Mr Simon Littlewood to Moore Stephens, auditors to LAC, shown below:

No statement concerning these events was made to shareholders until the announcement made in my letter to shareholders on 7th May 2009, which meant that LAC was in breach of its obligations to the AIM market and gave a misleading impression of its financial status.

6.6 Diversion of Funds

In December 2007, London Asia Capital (Singapore) PTE Limited ("LAC(S)") was due £1.6 million from China Growth Opportunities plc in respect of performance fees. At the written instructions of Josée Lai, wife of Mr Simon Littlewood, these funds were not paid to LAC(S) but instead to London Asia Fund Management Ltd, a Brunei company in which LAC held 40% of the equity, while Mr Simon Littlewood and associates held the remaining 60% shareholding.
On receipt of these funds by the Brunei company, £401,440 was immediately transferred to each of Mr Simon Littlewood and a third party. In so far as the Directors are aware, LAC and its subsidiaries have no contractual relationship with that third party.

6.7 Improper Share Support Activity

Between December 2007 and April 2008, shares in LAC were purchased on the AIM market by the Company totalling 1.85 million shares. RNS announcements were issued stating they were to be held in Treasury. The majority of these transactions were arranged by Mr Simon Littlewood.
Your Directors have been advised that these purchases were illegal because LAC did not have sufficient distributable reserves and was therefore in breach of the Companies Act.
While Mr Simon Littlewood was a Director of Huang He Securities Ltd, one of the Share Swap companies mentioned earlier, instructions were given for the purchase of 2.5 million shares of LAC in 2007 and 2008. The cash to buy these shares came from London Asia Investments (Hong Kong) Ltd ("LAI(HK)") and thus the transaction was circular. The effect was to artificially support LAC's share price which was in breach of the Companies Act.


6.8 Substantial sums of circa £50 million which passed through the accounts of

LAI(HK)
Since March 2006 Mr. Simon Littlewood has served and continues to serve on the Board of CGO, previously called London Asia Chinese Private Equity Fund plc, which invested heavily in China and Asia, raising and investing circa £50 million.

We have discovered that the cash for these investments made by CGO passed through the bank accounts of LAI(HK). LAI(HK)'s records do not provide full transparency for these arrangements and neither can all such sums be validated.
Commissions received by LAI(HK) from CGO for both managing and investing the fund were paid away and could not all be reconciled from the information available.
Pursuant to the cooperation agreement referred to in paragraph 5 above, LAC asked CGO (including Mr Brett Miller) for details of the substantial commission payments, but in breach of that agreement CGO withdrew and refused to provide further information, frustrating our efforts and further delaying the preparation of the Accounts of LAC.

6.9 Shares Held in Trust in China

LAC has significant shareholdings in unquoted Chinese companies. It is now clear that, with the exception of Zhongying and Biaoqi Tienfeng, the shares are not held directly by LAC or its subsidiaries but instead are held in trust by a Chinese private company under an informal arrangement with no proper documentation or trust documents. LAC and its subsidiaries may therefore have paid substantial sums in shares for investments where proof of ownership is uncertain.

6.10 China Financial Services

China Financial Services ("CFS") was one of LAC's early investments, and paid substantial dividends. CFS provided real-time information on securities and analysis software to support investors to buy in the stock market. We understand that CFS was prepared for a public listing in 2006. As at 30 June 2007 the fair value of this investment of £4.76 million was included in LAC's interim results.

Your Directors have now discovered that in the summer of 2006, the China Stock Exchange announced that it would no longer provide free market data and as a result the business of CFS rapidly collapsed.

In calendar year 2006, CFS's revenue was £2.78m and pre-tax profits £1.97m. Based on the information available, the revenue in 2007 was £227,873 and the losses amounted to £1.34m. In the first half of 2008, CFS had no revenue and lost £841,103. It is believed the business has since ceased operating.
In 2007, LAC announcements were made to the London Stock Exchange concerning CFS but none indicated its rapid trading decline. The last statement included in the Offer Document referred to below mentions "the confidence we have in CFS`s expansion strategy". Failure to keep shareholders and the market informed is in breach of the AIM rules.

6.11 Sale of Shares in Investee Companies by LAC

On 5th October 2007 London Asia Corporate Finance Limited (an FSA-regulated corporate finance company headed by Mr. Simon Littlewood) authorised the issue of an Offer Document, which stated that six LAC portfolio investments valued at £7.7 million were being offered to LAC shareholders at a discounted value for a direct investment therein.

The Offer Document stated the portfolio investments being sold represented "less than 10% of the LAC balance sheet as at 30th June 2007" and went on to state "should the Offer be taken up in full there will be a realised profit on disposal of over £1.5 million."

Your Board could not reconcile these holdings to the books of LAC and have subsequently discovered that some of the shares offered belonged to Third Parties. The Offer Document makes no such reference to Third Parties and indicates that all the shares on offer were owned by LAC and related companies.
On 30th October 2007 LAC announced, "There was a strong level of interest shown in the Offer, with offers made for a total of £3 million worth of shares, out of £7.7 million on offer. The total sold represents 7% of LAC's reported net asset value as at 30th June 2007. Based on the original cost of £1.4 million, the profit on sale against original cost amounted to approximately £1.5 million." Of the purported £3 million sales proceeds, less than £700,000 has been traced.

Failure to keep the markets and shareholders informed is in breach of the AIM rules.

[loverat] 13/4/2010 23:13

After all, it was Mr Holmes who provided this timely update for shareholders.



But then again, I reckon he is quite busy too. A director of many companies also such as AIM listed Hollywood Media (HOL) and Merchant House Group (MHG) which seems to be undergoing significant expansion and a company which I am a shareholder of.

I also understand that he has interests in SW London too.

Now, if the pair are too busy, perhaps I should contact Simon Littlewood?

What a good idea. I understand that he is or was registered by the FSA and is famous for given out financial advice to his shareholders (as he did to one London Asia Capital shareholder advising him to put his money into a building society account instead of investing in LAC) That was certainly good advice in the circumstances.

He has been described as a 'financial genius' on these boards. I wonder if he may spare me some of his precise time.

[loverat] 13/4/2010 22:58

Mind you - I guess running all those other businesses and living next door to Pete Townsend must have taken its toll. I bet he's a noisy neighbour.

Perhaps it might be best to contact James Holmes?

[loverat] 13/4/2010 22:54

I wonder whether 'Cougar6' still posts here. You remember - the individual who was put forward as a prospective LAG candidate to sit on the board of Langbar International and COMG and former London Asia Capital director. Apparently he was ready and willing to get LGB shareholders money back.


Anomalous - 5 Dec'05 - 00:39 - 35116 of 35122

For your information, the guy I suggested for the Action Group's director is not me. He's director of several AIM listed companies, he's independently wealthy, he attends board meetings already (so he doesn't need expenses!), he's a serial entreprenuer with many businesses under his control and has converted many an empty shell company into a thriving business.

He's one of the major shareholders of Plus Markets Group (OFEX) and
he is willing to try and get the shareholders money back.
If that wasn't enough, he's even backed Action Groups and I trust this gentleman implicitly .


Holdontight - 5 Dec'05 - 02:02 - 35133 of 59023
Anom......who is he/she?


Anomalous - 5 Dec'05 - 02:11 - 35134 of 59023
It wouldn't be politic for me to mention his name on the BB. ADVFN does have rules about this after all. Suffice to say that he posts on ADVFN (infrequently ) under the Logon ID Cougar6.

He likes to be known as a West Country Entreprenuer and lives next door to Pete Townsend. He's incredibly smart and a very astute business man. He once negotiated a deal and when the sellers counter-offered with a higher price, he dropped his price and WON! He is a bona fide genius and if the worst happened (which is starting to look less likely now), then none of the shareholders would come out of it with nothing.



By the way - Cougar6. Have you any plans to get the money back for shareholders who invested here?

[loverat] 13/4/2010 22:45

As folks here know, I was quite impressed with the Management International Website. Lifts offered from Gatwick to their London Offices.

I wonder whether English 2000 could co-ordinate with MI or even 'Cougar Carriers'



and stretch to picking me up from Chichester and take me on a tour of the area and the business. Now considering that 'first rate businessmen' and 'serial entrepreneurs' are said to run these businesses perhaps I might get lucky.

[loverat] 13/4/2010 22:25

Have any of you guys visited Bournemouth? I remember when I was young we had many happy family holidays there. Sandy beaches which I think is not the norm on the South Coast and a nice climate.

As I said before this is the school, known as the Bournemouth Educational Centre according to Companies House and trading as English 2000. Assests which were previously owned by the holders of COMG but which were sold to Allnutt and Holmes. Unfortunately the new strategy into commodities failed.



I might be visiting some family in Chichester over the next couple of weeks and may make a slight detour to pop in for a chat with the present owners. I wonder if they might show me around the place and afterwards treat me to fish and chips and a stick of rock.

If I hear anything regarding COMG I will let shareholders know.

[loverat] 06/4/2010 19:52

'But presenters should be careful about overselling and giving an impression of arrogance, he says. Too much passion can lead to a loss of focus. "While I want to see that the entrepreneur lives and breathes his business, he shouldn't get swept away with emotion and forget to give me the information that I need to assess the opportunity," says George Allnutt, an angel investor'


And the above section of the article is interesting - from a director of COMG and London Asia Capital. Seems to me from reading the London Asia updates that Allnutt forgot the advice he was eager to give to entrepreneurs just one or two years previously.

Simon Littlewood appears to have forgotten to give Allnutt the information he required and found this out to his cost later. Also, perhaps Allnutt spent too much time getting carried away with the emotion of these bulletin boards and investing shareholders money in DRM.

[loverat] 06/4/2010 19:36

I think this article is quite impressive and makes alot of sense. Talking about the best ways to promote a new venture or business........

I think the comments apply to many walks of life. The message is
'Less is more' I suppose that means I should shut up!


Fine tuning that will give you the perfect pitch

By Fergal Byrne

Published: August 3 2005 03:00 | Last updated: August 3 2005 03:00

Raising money for a new or growing business is typically a long and arduous process. Key investment decisions can be made in minutes, though, when entrepreneurs pitch their proposition to investors.

Pitching is a highly charged make-or-break opportunity to create a good impression and capture an investor's interest - as participants and viewers of Dragons' Den, the television series, can attest.

The pitch is the business plan distilled to its essence: a 10- to 20-minute presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. In some cases, particularly when facing venture capitalists, the Q&A can take place during the pitch.

"The business plan is the all-encompassing thesis on why the business is a good opportunity, the pitch is the entrepreneur's defence of the opportunity," says Danny Rimer, a partner at Index Ventures, a pan-European venture capital fund.

Pitching has long been integral to the venture capital process and it is ­increasingly important when looking for funding from business angels - individuals or small groups of investors that provide financing at lower levels than most venture capitalists - as the ­process becomes more ­formal, according to Colin Mason, professor of entrepreneurship at Strathclyde University.

Although angel investors will be at an earlier stage of the screening process than venture capital investors, as they usually will not have seen the business plan prior to the pitch, in both cases the goal of the pitch is to secure another meeting (not to get an immediate funding commitment).

The odds of pitching success are not high: one study of Canadian business angels, for example, suggests almost three-quarters of opportunities were rejected at this stage before the business plan was given serious consideration.

However, presentation skills can be learnt and there are common principles of communication that underlie all kinds of pitches, according to Jerry Weissman, a leading presentation coach.

At the end of the day, however, there is no short cut to a successful pitch. "Many entrepreneurs don't realise that the pitch itself is the tip of an iceberg," says Doug Richard, an "investment dragon" in Dragons' Den and an experienced entrepreneur and business angel. "It is the result of a lot of work. There is no way to do a good pitch without having done the work that precedes it."

Here is some advice to help entrepreneurs increase their chances of success.

Passion wins hearts and minds. A key goal of a pitch is to get investors excited about the opportunity and excited about the team's ability to deliver on the opportunity. Investors look for entrepreneurs who are passionate about what they are doing and who have a strong commitment to achieve their goals.

"Passion is critical," says Mr Rimer. "Passion is what allows the entrepreneur to stay the course when confronted with major obstacles. Passion spreads like wildfire."

But presenters should be careful about overselling and giving an impression of arrogance, he says. Too much passion can lead to a loss of focus. "While I want to see that the entrepreneur lives and breathes his business, he shouldn't get swept away with emotion and forget to give me the information that I need to assess the opportunity," says George Allnutt, an angel investor.

Less is more. As entrepreneurs have a very short time to capture investors' attention, the pitch needs to be concise to whet investors' appetites. Developing a succinct description of the opportunity forces entre­preneurs to focus on the really salient information that the investor needs to know. "Knowing how to present an opportunity effectively to potential investors requires an understanding of what different types of investors look for in an opportunity and an ability to anticipate and address the concerns of investors," says Prof Mason.

Guy Kawasaki, from Garage Venture, encapsulates his approach in his "10/20/30 rule". He recommends entrepreneurs present no more than 10 slides, speak for no more than 20 minutes and write in 30-point font size (which restricts the amount of information you can put on a slide). "The brevity forces an entrepreneur to purify his or her pitch. If you need more than 10 slides, 20 minutes and a smaller than 30-point font size, you don't know what you're doing yet," he argues.

"No proposition is so complex that it can't be captured in 5 minutes," adds Mr Richard. "The worst scenario is when someone tries to explain every single aspect and ends up explaining nothing worthwhile," says Alastair Cavanagh, Manager of Oxford Early Investments, a business angel network.

Become the product. Entrepreneurs need to apply the same discipline to sell themselves as they do to sell their product, according to Prof Mason. His research on an investment presented (badly) to a group of business angels showed how a bad sales pitch reflects poorly on the skills of the presenter. "Angel investors tend to conclude that if the entrepreneur can't sell to investors, they can't sell to clients," he says.

Hugh Parnell, a director of the Great Eastern Investment Forum angel network, echoes this idea.

"While selling to an angel is different to selling to a customer, there are similar attributes - it's all about telling your story. And if no one on the team is any good at telling their story, it does raise all kinds of questions about the team's competences and chances of success," he says.

Not having a strong sales pitch may not be such a problem when raising venture capital.

"Every team needs a star, but if they don't have the right person to sell we have the contacts and the networks to find someone that can. But they must recognise and be candid about the fact," explains Hermann Hauser, a co-founder of Amadeus Capital Partners Limited, a venture capital company specialising in technology investments in the UK and Europe.

Solve a problem - segment the market. Products need to solve a specific problem. Too often investors see ideas that are "solutions looking for a problem" or solutions trying to address too many problems. "Entrepreneurs often fail to explain what it will do for customers. So it can sometimes come across as 'innovation for innovation's sake' instead of a product that will meet a real market need and that people will buy," says Mr ­Cavanagh.

Similarly, the entrepreneur is advised to focus, to break the market opportunity down, even if, or particularly if, there are several possible applications of the product. "Entrepreneurs need to segment the market and choose a segment where they really have something to offer, where they can really differentiate their offering and win - if they can't differentiate their product they are unlikely to succeed," says Mr Hauser.

Master the domain - be candid. Answering investors' questions during the Q&A is a vital part of the screening process. Entrepreneurs need to respond intelligently, to show they can read people, listen and interact. This is where "investors get to see the whites of the entrepreneur's eyes", says Mr Hauser.

It is vital not to become defensive or aggressive during the presentation but respond in a calm, conversationalmanner.

Entrepreneurs are ex­pected to be expert in their domain. "When someone makes assertions that run contrary to expectations, which most great pitches do if they are delivering something new to the world, entrepreneurs not only need confidence in their voice but also the numbers to back it," says Mr Richard.

Although no one is expected to be able answer every question, presenters need to be upfront about what they do not know. By developing a list of difficult questions that might be asked, the team can prepare slides to cover them.

In this way they can "expand" or "compress" the presentation according to the needs of the audience. Bluffing is fatal, as investment decisions are dependent upon the investors' view of the entrepreneur's trustworthiness and character.