Intercede Share Discussion Threads

[yump] 12/12/2011 09:28

Speaking from direct experience though, there is sometimes erm, er, what you might diplomatically call a 'skills gap' on occasion, which requires a little more attention than flying backwards and forwards repeatedly. John Lewis may well have got the phrase "Never knowingly undersold" from the US.

[roger-lawson] 12/12/2011 08:46

Not exactly. They should of course be hiring Americans to staff their US operations, not shipping over Brits who do not understand the culture.

[boadicea] 12/12/2011 08:39

A good start to the week -


I would assume this consolidates IGP's position as a vital and significant player in the US identity/security market.

[pyman] 08/12/2011 16:01

sounds like a buy then. Theres a tight freefloat here. I m a bit surprised theres many weak holders around for an instituion to keep soaking up.I m no expert on the nuances but looking at volume over the last six months there looked to be mostly buying on the dips and IGP feels to me like there are a lot of long term holders- me included. Anyone a seller here?

[aphrodites] 08/12/2011 11:51

Somerset

It is one thing to approach shareholders who are looking to sell and to mop up their loose stock but it then depends on what the buyer does afterwards to satisfy its appetite for further stock.

If all it does is then sit on the market offering the MM at 65p the stock it has bought lower down in an effort to suppress the share price so that it can hopefully buy more stock, then as we are seeing now, the share price is not going to go anywhere.

And I am reliably informed this is exactly what is going on and has been going on for many weeks now.

If I was Herald or Hargrave I would want to see this share price a lot higher for my end year valuations. I would come into the market and test for size at a higher price and see exactly how much is on offer. That would sort the blighter out who has been playing these silly games.

[yump] 08/12/2011 10:16

I don't mind waiting for 'the big one', that's often the nature of a tech business - getting proper traction. Its just becoming a little unclear where that's going to come from or if there are in fact lots of medium sized ones, all waiting in the pipeline.

Don't want to hear about any more partnerships.
Just the money please.

I want to know what this market is worth to IGP, potentially and in the next 2years.

[somerset lad] 08/12/2011 10:14

fft,

I take your point, although IGP of course benefits significantly from the change in mix because of the maintenance fees associated with new licences.

[fft] 08/12/2011 09:56

somerset,

if you discard custom development (as wjc argued in post 2920), then yes, new sales have increased at 24%. But why should custom development be ignored ? it is new business. If the company is doing less of it, then why ? and more importantly, are other parts of the business providing a better growth story. The main stream is proving more growth, but not enough.

As you saw in my post 2909, when you look at all sales, and strip out the maintenance side, there has been very little growth (2% a year for the last 2 years).

[somerset lad] 08/12/2011 09:44

fft, I thought "new sales" were up 24 per cent. from 2010 to 11? A bit of trawling leads to post 2920 in a strand starting with your post 2909?

Aphrodites, if IGP had a large institutional base then an institution seeking to buy a significant stake would presumably look to buy from one of the other institutions; we don't have that and so it seems fair enough to me that an institution looking to buy in volume would seek, if possible, to buy directly from larger holders and I see no problem in the company introducing the buyer to possible sellers.

[fft] 08/12/2011 08:41

WJC,

far to glib.

AIM doesnt make companies and management behave in such a fashion. It is the choice of management if they decide to run the business for their own benefit or for the benefit of shareholders.

Its a moral thing really.

But with *new sales* (i.e. strip out maintenance revenue) having dropped over the last 2 years, it is arguable whether they are running it for anyones benefit.

[wjccghcc] 08/12/2011 08:36

Aphrodites,

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. Unfortunately AIM was ever thus.

[aphrodites] 08/12/2011 08:25

WJC

We can all live with the LTIP providing we can be confident that institutions and shareholders can see that the Board is creating shareholder value.

And by shareholder value I mean seeing a gently rising share price on the back of increasing orders and profits.

But what have we seen? Over a period of many months, and from what I hear the full knowledge of the CEO, a share price which has been deliberately manipulated to facilitate someone to buy cheap shares!

We can gather from your carefully worded comments that there is an institution active in the market buying stock but at a price not much higher than 60p.

Is this what a free market is all about?

Obviously the IGP Board is aware of this and presumably both Herald and Hargrave Hale as well. Certainly, the MM's are playing ball by not allowing the share price to move far away from the 60p level.

And as you should have gathered from my posts, it has been clearly evidently to me that shenanigans have been going on in the market for some time.

So now as shareholders we all sit here like a load of dummies and allow the share price to be manipulated to facilitate an institution/someone to buy cheap shares.

With the lack of liquidity of this share it is all too easy for an institution and MM to work in league together to create a false market in IGP shares just so that the institution can buy stock. And effectively the IGP Board is assisting them to do so.

Is this what we all want as shareholders? Would we all like to receive a 2p dividend or to see the share price nearer to £1 to reflect the true value of the company?

It is all very well you saying management can focus on what they do well which is building a global leading business rather than worry about second guessing the City. In this respect they have been providing the City and shareholders with an impeccable track record for the last 2/3 years but no appreciating share value.The share price today is no higher than it was in 2007 and that is after a string of stimulating announcements.

I am sorry but the whole picture of events in IGP is one of paying no respect for shareholders like those who post here. The whole sequence of what we are seeing is a CEO and his wife and other directors thinking of only one thing. And that is their own well being in allotting themselves loads of cheap share options and setting the business up to be sold in 2/3 years time.

What I cannot understand against this background is why the Board, Herald and Hargrave are all prepared sit back and to allow the share price to be kept artificially low just to allow someone to buy stock at 60p! It would not take a lot of management time to authorise the company broker to buy £1m of shares and see the share price a lot higher.

I hope Roger Lawson keeps the pressure up on the Board and we start to see it change its ways. And as a start I would like to see a change of broker!

[rambutan2] 07/12/2011 16:59

igoe, surely this is the sort of partnership you've been waiting for - a more immediate and sales orientated one.

"...a truly commercial off-the-shelf solution to meet the current and urgent cyber security needs of the nation's critical infrastructure providers and major enterprises."

"Using MyID, we are able to deploy a full end-to-end identity and credentialing system in a fraction of the time and cost compared to using a more traditional systems integration approach."

Even Obama is pushing it...


And note that Microsoft agreed to put a quote on the rns.

Imho sales will happen - and not years down the line.

And there will be more good news coming out of the Microsoft relationship.

[wjccghcc] 07/12/2011 15:26

Aphrodites, I'm not making excuses for them - it's my opinion and you can agree or disagree with it, as I'm sure they do.

As I said, I'm not against the LTIP in principle, I can live with the 1p strike price, but the EPS targets were wrong and I have made my views known.

I don't think it's a question of letting an institution buy in the market - if the institution wants to, it will. However, most institutions I know wouldn't get out of bed unless they felt they could buy 50k of stock, however attractive the story. IMHO there is an institution at the moment buying in the market since they've soaked over 250k of PI sells post LTIP. However they're not currently willing to pay much over 60p as far as I can tell.

Whether a MM is manipulating the share price to facilitate an institution buying in or not, I don't know, but I don't think the company are. My reason for being against share buybacks is that I'd rather management focus on what they do well which is building a global leading business rather than worry about second guessing the City. Since they are becoming a cash generating machine and are unlikely to need new funding for any acquisition, the share price will (ultimately) take care of itself.

[aphrodites] 07/12/2011 14:09

WJC

Being inexperienced regarding the City is no defense for the way this has been handled.

Memories in the City are long when it comes down to making mistakes.

I know I keep harping on about the cash raising exercise back in 2007 when they gave shares away at 33p to Hargrave Hale. A collapse in the share price from 75p to 50p in a few days to allow an institution to get cheap stock at a give away price. Was that inexperience?

And what are they/we paying the company broker for?

Come on. This is not a spur of the moment reaction.

You clearly have the ear of the company but that does not mean you need to cosy up and make excuses for them when they make mistakes.

And I understand from one of my colleagues that they contacted certain shareholders informing them if they wanted to sell to call a broker who had a large interested buyer.

Why not let the large buyer buy stock in the market? Then let's see where the price moves to. It might then reflect what we all believe should be a price nearer to £1.

I am sorry but this whole manipulation of IGP's share price in the market stinks.

They will not attract new institutions if they continue to operate like barrow-boys.

[wjccghcc] 07/12/2011 11:48

A couple of points on the recent discussion.

1. The LTIP was approved by the major institutional shareholders. Over 50% of the LTIP schemes I've looked at have a nominal strike price so unfortunately it is still the most common practice. I do not like the performance conditions although given they haven't done one for 8 years, I can cut them a bit of slack. I think they are inexperienced regarding the City and Parris's defence is more a spur of the moment reaction. Hopefully, they'll take on board shareholder feedback and consult more widely in 2014 when the LTIP expires.

2. The HP partnership is a big thing. Currently EDS/AI supply the GSA for the smaller federal contracts. When HP bought EDS, they've revisited their ID offering and IGP have supplanted AI gong forward.

3. A lot of the sales and marketing cost increase is due to the record number of pilots they are running. Previously they would only implement paid-for pilot schemes. Now they don't charge for them.

4. There is likely to be some form of cash return with the FY results since the cash balance should be over 7mm and acquisitions aren't currently in the picture. The introduction of a dividend/special dividend is probable while share buybacks are unlikely.

[igoe104] 07/12/2011 10:56

WE have lots of partnerships, some that we never earn from. we need to start turning more of these partnerships into more decent contracts.

[rambutan2] 07/12/2011 01:28

Really good news (This opportunity also leverages the installed base of Microsoft FIM clients and OCG is in an excellent position to exploit this market) and hopefully just the start of some Microsoft flavoured excitement during 2012.

Richard Parris, Intercede Chairman and Chief Executive said, "Oxford Computer Group is an important new partner for Intercede, servicing non-Federal Government clients with a complete end-to-end PIV solution. OCG's choice of Intercede's MyID and MyID MA for FIM to provide a complete identity and security solution allows them to implement a solution much more quickly and effectively than equivalent systems. This opportunity also leverages the installed base of Microsoft FIM clients and OCG is in an excellent position to exploit this market, the addition of Gemalto to the alliance further extends the market reach and sales horsepower behind our joint team."

[looby loo] 06/12/2011 22:45

Another excellent partnership in the bag. Well done Richard Parris!

Intercede, Oxford Computer Group and Gemalto Announce US Sales Alliance

Industry Leaders Team to Deliver Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Solutions Based on Microsoft Forefront Identity Manager (FIM)

Leicestershire, UK, and Bellevue, WA, December 6, 2011

[roger-lawson] 06/12/2011 15:29

I have not talked to her but I will try and do so. Particularly so if there is no positive response from the company and we need to escalate this matter. For a start I was going to ask them to have a remuneration vote at the next AGM (they didn't last year - not a requirement for AIM companies) so shareholders can express their views on the issue.

[aphrodites] 06/12/2011 14:13

Roger

You have hit the nail on the head and that is what gripes so badly in many shareholders gut.

Have you attempted to seek the views of Katie Potts whose investment fund took a holding in IGP by a direct sale from the CEO?

It would certainly help to know what they feel about this and if they were even consulted.

But not sure they would want to make their views known in public.

It is all very well him selling his own shares to her to widen the institutional base but then to allocate himself and his wife options to protect his interest in the business is taking the mickey.

[igoe104] 06/12/2011 14:13

worth a read.

[roger-lawson] 06/12/2011 13:22

I agree with the last comments. As regards the LTIP, I am not opposed in principle to the introduction of an LTIP in this company, if the value of the awards granted are reasonable and the performance criteria are set appropriately. Neither is true however. In reality, a very significant chunk of the company is being given away for potentially very pedestrian performance and primarily to the chief executive and his wife who already have a load of shares.

That is what made shareholders stand to attention.

[fft] 06/12/2011 13:12

The LTIP could come to a conclusion with shareholders neither seeing a higher shareprice or a dividend.

That doesnt seem right to me. The benefits seem to haven been purely setup for management (dont forget the exercise price is 1p).

If the LTIP had had an eps element, or a higher sales target etc then i feel more confident about not just being diluted with no gain.

RP's endgame could work if he just keeps the shareprice where it is and gains the extra LTIP shares before selling out. But that would mean another few years of no gain for ordinary shareholders. I am not convinced his and our aspirations are linked.

As mentioned above, a dividend payment would provide him with enough extra income, and also give us something.

Given the lacklustre company performance over the last couple of years (though the sales price has been erratic!), i would prefer to see a more top level sales led focus, but i dont really see that, and i am not sure why or whether the existing faces are capable of doing more on the sales side than they have done in the past. They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but if they get this wrong they may have done an IND and lost the opportunity.