Fusionex Share Discussion Threads

[saj3] 29/5/2017 09:10

If they taking it private they must pay a price for the remaining shares surely

[blah blah] 29/5/2017 08:47

You don't get a pric. You get to hold a percentage of an unquoted company that will be very difficult to realise anything for and have no rights. Potentially the company is relying on buying up loose shares in the market when they fall to a pittance as the vote and then delisting approaches. I'm sure there are institutions out there that would rather have even 10p a share in cash than hold unquoted shares.

I would love to see Fusionex lose the vote and have to stay on AIM, they are a disgrace.

[saj3] 29/5/2017 08:34

Does anyone know what price do we get once they delist

[galeforce1] 29/5/2017 08:19

There's another big article in The Times business section today. Says that Peel Hunt and Buchanan have both resigned in protest at FXI's actions, not that this does much for investors.

It mentions another large Malaysian investor Quek Tuck Loong, with 5%. It could be that this is the 5% held by Jarvis Investment management, and listed as an II by the FT.

That must take the board close to about 68% or 69%.

[larva] 29/5/2017 07:57

Yeah but Fusionex is selling to foreign firms,they prob just as bad as each other

[cumnor] 29/5/2017 07:31

The Sunday Times piece could be seen as calling into question the integrity of Fusionex as a company. The reputation of people like Mr Teh matter more than his products and any hint of controversy, as the Times suggests, could make respected companies like Microsoft, Dell or Amazon rethink their relationship, for the protection of their own brands' and customers.
Would you feel entirely comfortable, as the CEO of a respected bank, insurer, healthcare or financial corporation with millions of clients, allowing software from a company, possibly tainted by controversy, near your own precious clients' sensitive data after the Sunday Times has questioned the motives of the supplier's BOD?
The Software industry is a business based on honesty with security being of the utmost priority. It is a well known fact within the industry generally that there are corrupt vendors out there who embed their stuff with malicious programmes aimed at getting wider access to a customers data and finances. This is why TRUST and INTEGRITY is everything in the Big Data world.
It will be interesting to see if they respond to the damming Sunday Times article-they have the opportunity to-and how they play this. But if they think that the big data security business and large customers who have reputations to uphold, will dissociate claims by Fusionex about the quality of products like Giant 2017 from questions raised by the Times about the BOD's controversial actions, then they are mistaken.
And the influence of larger Institutional Investors with the wider business community, on which Fusionex' reputation depends, cannot be ignored either. imo

[galeforce1] 28/5/2017 23:26

Its possible you're all being a bit pessimistic. There's a decent II presence here, and it's difficult to see why they'd support de-listing.

There are 54,395m shares in issue.
The EBT owns 7,095m, which will be ineligible to vote

So that means the Board has to get 75% of 47,300m

I think they have about 31m shares right now, which is about 65% of the total minus the EBT.

Big holders:
Ivan Teh 21,830m
Chen Keat Ming 7,071m (figure from Sunday Times)
Other board members and Teh family, say another 2.5m.

[blah blah] 28/5/2017 22:27

AIM is risky - with overseas companies and Far East in particular it's not too difficult to conclude you will always get screwed. The only exception I can think of is Hutchison Chi Med but that has proper governance. Anyone think of any other exceptions where you could have made good money?

[chadders] 28/5/2017 22:01

It'll be interesting to see who mops up all the sells on Tuesday. Shame for long term supporters, unfortunately myself included, but investing in AIM shares has always been a risky business.

[greedfear] 28/5/2017 21:42

Sorry for holders but this will delist. II's will not vote they'll just take their loss (it's only other peoples money) and forget about it.

[ihatemms] 28/5/2017 21:16

J777J - I had hoped after Globo you would learnt a lesson- foreign Aim companies almost invariably fleece investors. I hope your losses aren't too big.

[j777j] 28/5/2017 19:34

Seems an odd way to treat shareholders who have suffered a disappointing shareprice performance.



Tech boss plots AIM exit, leaving farmers in lurch

Daniel Dunkley and Simon Duke


May 28 2017, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times



A Malaysian millionaire is trying to seize control of a London-listed technology business — without launching a takeover offer.

Late last week, the founder and chief executive of Fusionex unveiled a plan to take the £70m software developer private.

Instead of buying out investors, Ivan Teh wants to pull the company from London’s junior market, AIM. Shareholders, including the National Farmers Union’s financial wing, would be left with stock in an unquoted company, which could be difficult to sell.

The manoeuvre — unveiled after the stock market closed for the bank holiday weekend — is the latest controversy to hit AIM. Several companies based in Asia have abruptly left the market, leaving investors with illiquid holdings. In 2015, sportswear maker Naibu Global International was booted off AIM after its Chinese directors disappeared.

In February, the Chinese home furnishings company Jiasen International, which floated in 2014 at 82p a share, delisted from AIM. Chinese drugs maker Taihua left the market earlier this month after failing to raise cash.




Fusionex stands in marked contrast to Taihua, as it is profitable and does not appear to require fresh capital. The company develops tools to analyse the huge amount of data generated by businesses. It has offices in America, the UK, Australia and across Asia.

For Teh’s plan to succeed, he will have to secure 75% of the votes at a shareholder meeting next month.

The 41-year-old, who founded the company in 2005, owns a 41% stake worth nearly £30m. Chen Keat Ming, a senior Fusionex employee, holds 13%.

A source familiar with Teh likened shareholder ballots on AIM to general elections, with a large minority typically not casting their votes. “He has made a calculated judgment that he can get to the 75% level without the support of other shareholders,” said the source.

Teh said the company’s share-price performance had been “disappointing” over the past 15 months, because of a “lack of liquidity” and the “current political uncertainty in Europe”. It closed last week at 129p.

Fusionex’s chairman is John Croft, described on its website as an “experienced director of AIM-quoted companies”. Croft did not return calls requesting comment.

When Fusionex floated at 150p in 2012, Teh lauded AIM’s “appeal as an international platform of high repute”.

West Yorkshire Pension Fund owns 2.8% of Fusionex, with NFU Mutual sitting on a 1.5% holding. Other investors include Credit Suisse and Standard Life, according to the company’s website.

Teh could not be contacted for comment.

[davehulb] 28/5/2017 18:36

https://twitter.com/shareprophets/status/868869351239176192

[highasakite] 28/5/2017 18:23

Never trust a tiddlywink in business and you won't go far wrong.

[mrbridgeruk] 28/5/2017 18:19

I've lost quite a bit here, assuming a fall on Tuesday. I do feel like we as investors have been the victim of a fraud. Delisting was nowhere near my risk register on this share, it feels like I've been robbed.Healthy growing profit, some bad PR, but I could live with that seeing the value in the company - hard to make a decision on tactics.Is there any scope for FXI to relist on another market at a later date?Are the shares likely to be diluted if it is removed from the market?

[prosthetic head] 28/5/2017 17:05

Tipped by NT last week, potential doubler.

[galeforce1] 28/5/2017 17:02

Blah blah

Thanks for that.

That list of institutional investors from the FT is quite encouraging. II total there is just over 25%. It might be a bit out of date of course. But it's likely to fairly accurate.

You can be certain that the II's will vote and I'd be amazed if they voted to de-list. The II's alone might be able to stop this. As you say, Teh is likely have done his sums, but if II interest is really 25% calling an EGM to vote on de-listing seems a risky strategy to me.

One of the reasons I invested here in the first place is because there was a reassuringly large II presence.

What the II's will want is a management buy-out at a fair price, and that's what ought to happen. Let's hope the II's can defend our interests here.

I think PI's might be sensible not to sell out at any price when the market re-opens, but to observe developments.

[henchard] 28/5/2017 11:57

A salutary tale:

FXI says shareholders will be able to vote in person or by proxy.

There was a similar situation at Cloudtag (CTAG) recently. Not a vote on delisting but on issuing shares, which a large number of shareholders were apparently against. They formed an action group, reckoned they collectively held something like 50% of the company's shares and went to the trouble of contacting their brokers (Hargreaves Lansdown etc) to ensure that their vote against by proxy was submitted. However, it appears no one attended the general meeting in person (it was held offshore). It's said that the company got the resolution passed simply on a show of hands of those present. My understanding is that if there had been just one naysaying shareholder present he/she could have insisted that all votes be counted.

One thing that may help FXI's shareholders is if there's resistance from the institutional investors (CTAG had no ii's). The ii's will be more on the ball than CTAG's hapless pi action group.

[blah blah] 28/5/2017 11:49

Here's a more detailed list (make the S in httpS lower case)



If all these holders vote against the deal falls. I have to say I find it hard to believe Teh hasn't done his sums because it's hard to see what his next move is if the vote goes against him.

[henchard] 28/5/2017 11:18

If there are some large shareholders in Teh's pocket, they've either neglected to inform the company of their holding or the company's neglected to inform the market (as of 15 May at any rate)

[blah blah] 28/5/2017 10:58

All votes cast - that's the point the Sunday times article is making, it says Teh has calculated that he will win because not enough shareholders will vote. It also says that a senior employee owns another 13%. If he votes to delist and the EBT has 13% and also votes to delist that is 58%, which would mean to defeat Teh would require a 60% turn out, assuming everyone else voted against. You can see why he thinks he might win - but if he doesn't then what?

Of course that assumes the shareholding structure is as described above - I haven't seen a register so no idea if it is.

[galeforce1] 28/5/2017 10:26

Blah blah

Could you expand on the implications if the Employee Benefit Trust doesn't vote?

Does the board have to get to 75% of all possible votes or of all votes cast?

[dafad] 28/5/2017 08:13

Article in todays Sunday Times,