Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Cppgroup Plc LSE:CPP London Ordinary Share GB00BMDX5Z93 ORD GBP1.00
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  12.00 4.49% 279.00 1,014 16:35:14
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
260.00 298.00 276.00 276.00 276.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Support Services 138.36 1.13 -0.12 24
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:29:15 AT 1,000 276.00 GBX

Cppgroup (CPP) Latest News

More Cppgroup News
Cppgroup Takeover Rumours

Cppgroup (CPP) Discussions and Chat

Cppgroup Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
01/7/202017:52CPP - Yeah you know me- restoring Credibility179
19/11/201500:57CPPGroup Plc3,345

Add a New Thread

Cppgroup (CPP) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Cppgroup trades in real-time

Cppgroup (CPP) Top Chat Posts

Cppgroup Daily Update: Cppgroup Plc is listed in the Support Services sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker CPP. The last closing price for Cppgroup was 267p.
Cppgroup Plc has a 4 week average price of 267p and a 12 week average price of 267p.
The 1 year high share price is 650p while the 1 year low share price is currently 180p.
There are currently 8,741,351 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 115 shares. The market capitalisation of Cppgroup Plc is £24,388,369.29.
hmt: All good QS!, let’s hope steady progress in their new markets come to fruition!, all positive for the future share price!
woozle1: This is a quote from an FT article when Lapthorne joined the company: Nonetheless, he was incensed by the pay of CPP’s ex-boss Mr Callaghan who was paid £175,000 in salary and £575,000 as a bonus for just five months work — about 1 per cent of CPP’s market value. Lapthorne has a short memory. This year the CEO was £257k salary, £255 bonus, around £70k in benefits and appears to have been gifted options on 10,000,000 shares with no hurdles (other than keeping his job). Meanwhile Lapthorne paid himslef £160k and his croney Hamlin £140k, excluding the £90k paid to his HR firm for leaderhsip consultancy. This during the year they fired loads of people (£3.5m cash charge) and the share price halved. It appears that Lapthorne and his cronies from C&W were looking for a trough to park their snouts. w1
acquisitor: I used to be a shareholder, but sold when the last board was displaced. Perhaps one of the new directors explain why the share price has fallen in during their tenure?
greedy rooster: These look set to run again - a push above 9p over the next couple of sessions look set to open up the low teens in quick fashion as history repeats itself. Shame the Directors haven't given the share price the vote of confidence it needs by buying a few.........
greedy rooster: Good to see progress - despite the share price falls. Director buying could light this up and then sit back for 20p - imho
greedy rooster: 2016 will see the continued recovery from CPP paving the way for a return to new business following regulatory approval re VVOP. Recent appointments illustrate the ambition of the newly assembled management team which has clear focus and accountability. The next trading statement should show continued improvement in profitability as a result of more cost control and new business outside of the UK. With the potential to deliver 3p of earnings and self help to underwrite 2016 forecasts, at 5x earnings this looks like a classic recovery stock with renewed passion and motivation to transform the business and get the share price back to higher levels. IMO this looks like a stock for 2016 as well as for 2015!
warwick69: good post from iii This is what's happening - Violent share price movement was a 'bear squeeze' - shorts closing at any price. This was a temporary effect. The strategy to finance CPP using commissions due to the banks is clever - the banks have minimal debt exposure to CPP and as long as the company exists, their finance comes out of revenue they earn from CPP (at virtually zero cost). The amount due under redress to customers is the great unknown - but it will be paid. The banks are already drowning in administering PPI claims so keeping CPP going to administer repayments for Credit Card insurance product is useful to them. Look at the amount of commission they have allocated to keep CPP going - £23m. The amount they will generate over the period is more like £100m - so there is plenty more cash available at 'no cost' to the banks. Hard to know the ultimate cost to CPP for redress it has to pay - but the company has been cut back in overhead to reflect lower sales activity. The existing book will throw off a huge amount of profit available to pay redress. All in all - the company should have 'underlying earnings' with its lower overhead of around £20 -25 million. So if the banks want to keep CPP alive and if CPP's redress requirement is much more than £25 million - the banks will have to change their commission arrangements to leave more cash with CPP. With £100m of commissions - they can do this. The alternative is that CPP goes bust, the banks pay the full amount of redress AND THE BANKS HAVE TO ADMINISTER THE REDRESS PROGRAMME THEMSELVES. Against all of this, the current market cap is a small number. CPP is either worth nothing or around £80m. Since the banks are unlikely to let it go bust, probability is more like £80m (3 or 4x normalised earnings).
bubble pricker: mclellan, I did not change my tack. I said that MMs would not act in concert because that would be illegal and I therefore highly doubt MMs would participate in such concerted activity. My point about SETS is in addition to this argument. even if the MMs somehow acted in concert to manipulate the order book, they would have no ability to influence the orders from other market participants, so it would be almost impossible for a group of MMs to meaningfully influence the share price. Of course, in theory, a concerted group (of MMs or otherwise) could, if they had deep enough pockets so as to overwhelm the order book, somehow manipulate the share price. But once again, such activity would be illegal and criminal and I cannot imagine any financial institution risking their licence for such a thing. You know, you may not believe this, but financial institutions have internal compliance rules and policies and people get fired if they breach them. And even if a concerted group engaged in such activity, for what purpose and fr what aim? You seem to claim that MMs (or other such dark forces) drove down the share price. But the only way to drive down the share price in an open order book market (SETS) is to hit bids, because the order book is open and supposed manipulators have no means to remove the bids of other market participants. So in driving down the share price by hitting bids, the supposed manipulators would build up a large short position. In order to unwind this short position, the supposed manipulators have to buy back, but this buying back would then equally drive the share price back up. So how do you suggest the manipulators will make money out of this process? You may say, the idea is that the selling initiated by the supposed manipulators will bring out more sellers and then the supposed manipulators buy back their short position just as the other sellers come out of the woodwork. Sure, this is possible, but there is no certainty that the supposed manipulators' selling will drive out other sellers. On the contrary, it might generate more buyers coming in as the share price is falling. Nobody can predict how the market will react to such a short selling manipulation. So such a manipulation strategy is highly risky, as the supposed manipulators might end up with a short position and a share price higher than at the outset. So why would anyone engage in tactics that are (1) illegal (2) very risky, and this is especially true for MMs, because they can make money much more easily and legally from the spread without any risk. As for your friend's complaint, so he filed a complaint, so what? It will come to nothing. What did he complain about? The share price first went up and then it went down. It's called a free market of supply and demand.
bubble pricker: Reks, your phrases reveal that you are a naive punter who does not understand markets. You keep saying "this deserves" this "should be". This line of argument is known as the "the market is wrong" argument. However, the market cannot be right or wrong, the market just "is". The share price is the sum total of supply and demand and that's how the market finds the price, 16.50-17.00 as I write. Your second line of argument, connected to the first, is trying to look a group to blame for the market being "wrong", e.g. shorters, market makers, BB posters etc. This argument is even more ludicrous than the first one. The share price is the share price, it is is what it is based on the sum of orders in the order book. The order book is on SETS, it is open to anyone. If you think the share price "should" be 35p, then put a buy order for 10,000,000 shares at 35p and sure enough the share price will go to 35p (at least temporarily until your order is worked through).
simon gordon: Alphaville - 29/3/11: CPP's identity crisis – Part II The downgrades are starting to rain down on CPP, the credit card and identity theft insurer that's attracted some unwanted regulatory heat. Joint broker JPMorgan has cut its forecasts and is worried the FSA probe revealed late on Monday could land CPP with a large fine, while the company's other adviser, UBS, has put its rating under review. Elsewhere, Citigroup has removed its buy rating on CPP and Canaccord Genuity is simply advising clients to sell. The backstory here is that CPP, which boasts 1m ID protection policies in the UK, is under investigation by the FSA for what it describes as "failings in sales calls with customers". In other words, the UK financial watchdog is alleging miss-selling: CPP's customers think the insurance product they purchased covers theft from their bank accounts whereas it just covers the administration costs of dealing with theft. Cue the downgrades. JPMorgan: We were already towards the bottom end of the Bloomberg consensus range but are reducing our FY2011E estimates by c. 3% to PBTA of £51.1m and EPS of 20.5p reflecting the impact of the anticipated accounting changes and reduced ID policy sales in the short-term. We anticipate Bloomberg consensus will reduce by c. 5-8. In addition, the announcement is clearly a blow to investor sentiment, with increased uncertainty surrounding the group while the FSA carries out its investigation. While there is no anticipated cash impact in the near-term, there remains a risk that the FSA investigation could result in either a refund of the policy premium to the customer or a fine, should the FSA find failings in the way products were sold. However, it is worth noting that the group has been selling UK card protection policies since 1981, over which time it has been governed by the FSA or equivalent body. UBS: Key question for us is how the Business Partners react We believe the company is in the midst of informing business partners (BPs) of the decision to stop selling IDP. Historically CPP has been relatively indifferent to which product it sells. However, the overriding bigger picture question is how the BP's will react to it given the products are often sold in their name, and they are unlikely to want negative publicity. We suspect BP's may take some time to reflect on it and as yet there is no clarity on initial reactions from them. Rating and price target under review Whilst we believe the business model could be shifted to selling non-insurance related products without too many issues, the key uncertainty is BP reactions and this is harder to gauge. We set our rating and price target under review. Our price target has been based on 12x 2011E EV/ EBIT. Now, you might think the 50 per cent fall in the CPP share price is somewhat overdone. After all the downgrades aren't huge. Indeed, you might buy the company spin that identity insurance is only a tiny part of the group's revenue and in any case it will have a "non-insurance" identity protection product ready for launch in six weeks. However, the UK isn't the only market where CPP, which has 10m policyholders in 15 countries across the world, is feeling regulatory heat. From CPP's half-year results in August (emphasis ours): In Hong Kong, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data is investigating the transfer of personal data to third parties for marketing purposes. This has resulted from apparent issues with the way Octopus has transferred personal data to its partners, including CPP. As a result there is a temporary suspension of all third party marketing in Hong Kong which impacts our telemarketing channel. Sales by our partner banks are unaffected so there will continue to be some sales of our Card Protection product, mainly by Citi, however this issue has a significant impact on new income in Hong Kong. There is currently no indication as to when this temporary suspension will be lifted. And there still isn't. All of which should serve as reminder of the legal (and potentially political risks) associated with marketing financial services using nascent products, reckons Canaccord. We believe the concerns could go much deeper than the particular product, given that it appears to be the channel and not the product per se that has attracted the FSA's attention. This risk (as the Hong Kong example shows) is not confined to the UK. Quite. Perhaps that 50 per cent fall is not an overreaction.
Cppgroup share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200811 17:48:46