Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Ep&f Capital LSE:ECA London Ordinary Share GB00B0218289 ORD 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 88.91p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0 06:40:20
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
- - - - 0.00

Ep&f Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 501 to 524 of 525 messages
Chat Pages: 21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
01/10/2017
08:17
oh well only approx. 90k down on MDZ paper. Could be worse. Could be Calix. Who did EPF buy Calix from.
russman
30/9/2017
17:40
How to explain the tiny valuation of Mediazest shares by EP&F? hxxp://www.epfshareholders.org/whatHappenedtoValueofMediazest.html
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
18/8/2017
07:39
You used to be customary for a plc to wait until the accounts were approved by shareholders before sending to companies house. It is possible that their accounts are not approved due to the date error on the proxy form.
russman
16/8/2017
09:31
Inadequate? Well that's one way of putting it!
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
16/8/2017
08:28
Lance's performance on a number of fronts is inadequate.
russman
15/8/2017
19:47
I was reading the beginning of this thread. Scuba_Man and Stewjames posts from 11 years ago were so on the money. Scuba_Man4 Jan '06 - 17:05 - 52 of 451 0 0 Happy new year to you all. This is an Aim stock cash shell. The very fact it is a aim stock where many dodgy companies are listed and either could be or have been involved in poor or fictitious accounting, insider trading and just general fraud, should tell you enough. The company floated over six years ago, the pre ipo investors put very little money in for a massive amount of shares and options, from memory something in the region of £200K. Then the ipo raised approx £23 Million. Since then and in all these years the company has never ever done any "business" what so ever. However what did happen was that hundreds of thousands of pounds were blown on opening a number of companies in order to try to obtain public banking licences in the USA. Money was blown on several applications. Legal fees, professional fees, web site designs, competition with prizes for market research, offices in Florida, general expenses, directors wages etc etc. Finally, after a couple of years of this, directors then became entangled in a fights for the remaining cash with one attempting to return the remaining money back to the shareholders. (Nice if you own a large chunk of shares). Some time, later this was resolved and I have no idea at what cost but my guess is (would you like to go large with that sir?) The board managed to consolidate the shares in issue. This meant that thousands of small investors where forced to relinquish their holdings and interests. Unsurprisingly, since so many private investors disappeared and the company changed its name, it was forgotten about. However, since, aside from the directors quietly paying themselves a salary for appears to be nothing other than signing off yearly accounts, its gone pretty much quite. With the previous history of the board, the fact that millions were originally raised and money spent, the fact its one of the stocks listed on the dodgy AIM section, you have to ask yourself two questions. Does the company really know where what little of its original ipo money is left and do you trust them. Would any one care to comment or correct any irregularities I may have made or ommited, or add further to this eye watering history? StewJames4 Jan '06 - 18:36 - 53 of 451 0 0 This has come from Eprime Financial, has it? Then this discount to cash is extremely well deserved. That "screw the small shareholders" action they did was one of the most disgusting pieces of corporate activity I've seen. The directors of this company have done nothing but rake in money for themselves without producing ANYTHING, even a failed attempt, for (sheesh!) more than half a decade.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
11/8/2017
22:40
EP&F 2016 Financial Results (may the farce be with you) The 2016 financial results can be viewed here at the Companies House website. Where do you start? First of all the accounts were released to shareholders in August 2017. That's despite the financial year-end being December 2016. Again, given that EP&F are an incredibly basic operation that looks like it could be run from a coffee shop a few hours a week, why on earth does it take so long to issue the annual accounts every year? It is pathetic given the magnitude of the salaries being paid to the directors. The second point is EP&F actually posted a profit, the amount being £43,628. This is astonishing and a very rare event for any company with Lance o'Neill as a director. However this profit was in fact due only to an unrealised foreign exchange rate gain on their 700,000 euro-denominated bond investment with Syntaxis. Brexit caused sterling to depreciate significantly versus the euro. On a constant currency basis the company actually lost £13,836. Since the company has finally posted a profit it's valid to ask why has no dividend been declared? After all as well as posting a profit equivalent to a 1p dividend, the company is also sitting on a relatively large amount of cash. However this misses the obvious point and the raison d'etre of the company which is of course to enrich the directors, not the common shareholders. The Syntaxis bond comprises over 50% of the company's net asset value. It pays a 12.5% coupon. There is no indication of the term of this bond. Obviously parking the majority of the company's assets in an instrument such as this is an admission of failure regarding the company's investment strategy. Cash comprises 30% of the company's net asset value. Investments account for 11%. As previously noted we can find no evidence the company has ever invested in any business unless one, or both, of the directors have a pre-existing financial interest. The remaining 8% of the company's net asset value is the net value of debtors to creditors. The related party transactions section explains that the debtors are Andes Energia and Mediazest, companies which require no introduction. The directors, aided and abetted by the dubious and secretive City and Claremont Capital Assets (CCCAL), have the company's assets well and truly tied up, working for their benefit. It's textbook. As reward for doing this the directors' pay themselves salaries comprising 4.8% of the company's net asset value (£55,000). After all investing the company's cash in their own businesses is only half the story. They have to be paid for doing this as well. The total running costs of the company are £109,000 and comprise 9.5% of the company's net asset value. The company is clearly not viable but does not have to be for the directors' to clean up. The directors' salaries are key here. As long as they keep collecting their salaries, and as long as the losses can be controlled, they are guaranteed winners. As an example ask yourself how much Benjamin Edwards paid Nigel Duxbury for his EP&F shareholding. Then ask yourself how few years salary from EP&F will cover this cost. Another point of interest is that EP&F have documented the value of their Mediazest shareholding at the 2015 and 2016 year ends. At the end of 2016 the book value is noted as only £8,566. However the last documented shareholding of EP&F is 26,448,571 shares and based on the Mediazest share price of 0.11p at the end of 2016, it would appear EP&F had sold down about 70% of their shareholding by that date. This is interesting given the CCCAL controlled Mediazest continually go cap in hand to investors looking for cash to remain solvent. EP&F remains a near perfect example of a company run by the directors, for the directors. The business is managed very diligently in a manner that ensures the directors are the beneficiaries with the smaller, minority shareholders completely squeezed out. The directors are very careful to ensure very little of the company's cash is actually at risk. After all this cash represents their salaries for the years, and the decades, to come. As explained previously the cash that has been "risked" so far has been used to support companies where the directors are already taking salaries or have some other financial interest. As an example if EP&F take part in a share placing with barely solvent Mediazest (as they have done several times) then Lance O'Neill's £50,000 salary as a non-executive Mediazest director largely removes any risk of financial loss to Lance O'Neill himself. Not so the smaller minority shareholders who can only sit back and marvel at the blatant self interest.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
11/8/2017
21:08
Here is some comment on the 2016 results. hxxp://www.epfshareholders.org/epf2016results.html
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
04/8/2017
07:33
agm 25th August Please note error on proxy form Resolution 1 - Accounts are 30th Dec.
russman
27/7/2017
09:31
Not sure but listing rules are not as flexible for uk companies
russman
17/7/2017
10:43
OK it may be legal but companies are often suspended because they have failed to release their accounts within the 6 months time-frame. Why don't these companies just do what EP&F have done? Change the accounting period by a single day and buy themselves 3 more months to release their accounts.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
13/7/2017
08:54
It is perfectly legal. Last year the Annual Report & AGM were overdue; 2 years running would have been a bigger problem for the Company Secretary. Yes numerous investments where shareholder minorities have been "bullied".
russman
09/7/2017
10:15
Does anyone have any doubts about the legality of the above manoeuvre? The fact they have changed the accounting year end date by a single day, just one day before the accounts were due, and are therefore allowed a further 3 months to release accounts doesn't pass the common sense test for me. Where is the justification for being given another 3 months? It makes no sense. Has anyone encountered anything like this before with their investments?
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
03/7/2017
21:23
The accounts are not due now until end of September. hxxp://www.epfshareholders.org/accountsDueDateExtended.html They've extended the due by 3 months on a technicality. This stinks.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
29/5/2017
09:48
I think Bodnar Horvath was simply hired for the Innovasa case to avoid the need to publically disclose the identity of the owner(s) of CCCAL. After all the main point of being offshore is secrecy. The fact Lance O'Neill was the registrant of the CCCAL.NET domain name until a few months ago, and that there is a current lance.oneill@cccal.net email address gives a bit of a clue about the identity of at least one individual who is behind CCCAL.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
29/5/2017
09:11
It's that time of year again when we eagerly await the release of the annual report so we can see how much of company's remaining cash has been siphoned into the directors' pockets. As an aside CCCAL director Nick Bodnar-Horvath is involved with a web of offshore companies as revealed by the Panama Papers. hxxps://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/11011050?e=true We don't know if this guy is still a CCCAL director though. Is there any evidence he is a shareholder of CCCAL?
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
17/2/2017
20:29
That's more info than i got. A bit ironic they are claiming they were misled. Were shareholders in EP&F informed about the connection between Lance O'Neill and CCCAL all those years ago? Who would have bought shares in EP&F had they known about this?
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
17/2/2017
10:20
Okay found it. CCCAL alleged that Innovasa Corp was making "misleading" financial statements to shareholders.
russman
14/2/2017
10:27
Cannot get this link to open. Or find it. Can you please let me have some more info.
russman
07/2/2017
22:37
CCCAL versus Innovasa Corp hxxps://www.law360.com/cases/5075cd50330b802d1f000001 From a few years ago. Cannot find much else on this.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
13/1/2017
11:40
Really? That's interesting. Its well nigh impossible finding out who is behind off-shore companies. Just read Grisham's latest book.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
13/1/2017
10:04
Lance was in the same year at school as Robert Bodnar-Horvath (74). An accountant with hundreds of directorships. Nicholas was also there - class of 72. Nick is mentioned in numerous legal "cases" in Panama & BVI.
russman
13/1/2017
08:59
Is this the same Tony Haywood who is a Director @ Spencer Bay Estates Ltd C52/07 Antigua & Barbuda. Maybe it is his holiday home.
russman
09/1/2017
10:15
Lance was employed at Rivkin Investments. Maybe that is why he moved on to England. Maybe he learnt some tricks off Rene Rivkin. An Australian who had offshore companies in Jersey & Israel. The style and choice of names is very similar.
russman
Chat Pages: 21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

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

P:40 V: D:20180121 06:57:17