Daniel Stewart Securities Share Discussion Threads

[kooba] 01/11/2013 14:25

Interesting on rockridge...but gets us back to who sold the big lump the other week as far as I can tell can only be rockridge or Adam Wilson both seem very close to the company...and Wilson for that consultancy fee and running a subsidiary... Must be considered a person exercising managerial authority so should be reported as director dealings...either way who sold?So why no rns??

[lr4850] 01/11/2013 13:05

Hi Nod

What conclusion is this information bringing you to? I wonder what DAN make of this as they must read this board?

[nod] 01/11/2013 11:32

Blandford left Sportingbet in January 2007 a few months after the dot.bomb and US arrests. He was still able to walk away with 26 million.

[lr4850] 31/10/2013 21:01

Great research Nod in uncovering more shenanigans of the DAN board. There is a lot that is suspect in their activities and I think the market and institutions are aware of this and most institutional holders have sold their holdings and long gone.

[lr4850] 31/10/2013 08:26

Thanks Nod

There is a post on this board (fairly recent) that identifies specific breaches and the poster has contacted the AIM regulator with such. Whether it is overwhelming or not they would have to decide, but at least they would have to ask some questions of DAN.

I will watch with interest the end game here, but have no doubt that it will not be for the benefit of the shareholders.

[nod] 31/10/2013 07:13

lr4850 - having spent a year submitting a complaint to an Ombudsman and prior to that four years taking a university to the High Court, and achieving a win on both, I know how important it is to know precisely what regulations or laws the defendant has breached. The precise breaches are not yet clear to me in the case of DAN. I feel sure they have but it's a case of clearly identifying the breaches and then being positive you have evidence.The regulators do not do investigate for you. You have to prove breaches beyond doubt. Regulators side with the organisations they regulate and will only find against them if they have no other choice I.e. Overwhelming evidence against the defendant.In summary, there is no point presenting half-baked views without clearly specifying breaches and giving unequivocal evidence.

[lr4850] 31/10/2013 03:24

Nod

Your research is very thorough. Have you asked the questions of DAN or considered sending a word to the AIM regulator to add weight to others who have done such.

[smithie6] 30/10/2013 14:22

"Note 24. Related party transactions.

Adam Richard Wilson a major shareholder of Daniel Stewart Securities plc has been paid £570,000 (2012:£521,828)
by Daniel Stewart & Co plc in respect of his consultancy agreement with Daniel Stewart Securities plc"

For a co. with tiny cap. value. Its too much imo.

"Adam Richard Wilson holds options over 7,000,000 (2012: 7,000,000) ordinary shares of Daniel Stewart Securities
plc. The exercise price of these shares is 2p"

"Rockridge Investments SA a major shareholder of Daniel Stewart Securities plc, the parent company has advanced
£225,500 (2012 : £225,000) to the company in the form of a convertible loan. "


....quite common some of the problems at DAN imo.....that in small finance cos. the dirs. are quite happy to benefit themselves and friends (and large investors at DAN ! ) as much as possible

[nod] 29/10/2013 21:43

I'm sure some of Daniel Stewart's staff and DAN's customers will read this board - I wonder what they think about the disgruntled shareholders?The company reports show that customers have been leaving in droves. DAN's core business of brokerage, nominated advisor and financial services appears to be replaced by speculative trading in shares and options. We don't get specific information about the trading. I presume DAN cannot sell with big trading losses because it doesn't have cash coming in to refill the coffers.There are a number of regulations that DAN would have to comply with, not just as a listed company but as a company nomad, private financial advisor and fund manager. DAN barely complies with company reporting, for reasons unknown, and I doubt it complies well with other regulations for similar reasons.DAN's Board is completely dependent on Shea who is both Chairman and CEO. There is no independent member on the Board. That is a lesson for us all.

[ashleighp] 28/10/2013 17:19

LR4850

The shareholders have the power to remove Shea if enough get together. An EGM can be forced and resolutions put to the company to make changes. The problem is that there are a number of large holders who would probably not get involved, which is often the case. For PIs this type of action requires a lot of effort and organisation.

Has Shea ctually done anything wrong, technically, the company reports on time (within a few hours of regulatory deadlines) and has an AGM. They might not meet corporate best practice, but that is not mandatory.

Unfortunately Shea has got the time and means to continue to run the company for his personal enrichment until such time as it goes bust (if the worst does happen).

[lr4850] 28/10/2013 17:05

Good post AshleighP. Sorry to hear about you getting out at a loss. I too am heavily down, but fortunately have more than made up my losses with QPP and more there to come - I believe.

Hope you make your money back and let's all hope the right people catch up with O'Shea and his mate(s)

[ashleighp] 28/10/2013 16:58

I bit the bullet and sold at a substantial loss. All the time Shea is taking over £400k a year out of a small unprofitable company then I thought it is only a matter of time before the "suspended pending clarifiation of the financial position" RNS comes out and my 98% loss became 100%. these guys are bandits, but I cannot blame them for my loss - i've had plenty of opportunities to take my head out of the sand and sell up.

If I had continued to hold then i'd have gone to the AGM and asked two questions:

1) How long has this company got left?
2) How long has this company got left if you stop paying yourself 5% of turnover in salary

Part of my decision to sell was that paying the train fare and taking the day off work to go to the AGM was just additional expense and hassle that would be unlikely to result in any actual benefit other than having a (valid) dig at Shea.

Those employees who got the retention payments last year must be enormously grateful they were employees at that time and not shareholders.

Shea can argue that he too is a shareholder, but he's not going be to too out of pocket given that he pays himself 20-25% of the market cap. each year.

[lr4850] 28/10/2013 15:29

Agree 100 per cent kooba. All I can hope now is that the authorities notified are asking some awkward questions of DAN. I have been contemplating notifying the press, but don't know who would be interested in doing an expose of DAN's activities.

[lr4850] 28/10/2013 14:06

Still no announcement as to who has disposed/taken them below threshold following the recent big purchase by O'Shea. Suppose DAN can (and have done) whatever they want as regards AIM regulations.

[lr4850] 27/10/2013 07:48

but also more honest and less fraudulent :-). DAN Directors using shareholders funds to personally fund buying a pub that makes excellent gravy in both senses of the word. UNBELIEVABLE that they got and are getting away with it. SFO should be pointed in their direction.

[pomp circumstance] 25/10/2013 08:22

this lot make US mortgage sellers look like competent runners of financial services companies

[kooba] 20/10/2013 20:49

Haven't had the inclination.but will have a look..what I do like is this ft pieceRangers in danger of getting red card over governancehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5320d384-3754-11e3-9603-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2iIFjtYxgWho the hell would have just taken over as Nomad to this mess?

[lr4850] 20/10/2013 19:01

:-)


Have you seen the latest deals posted on the web-site kooba?

[kooba] 20/10/2013 18:41

Think doggy is how Shea approaches investor relations !