Ishs $ Sd Discussion Threads

[ben value] 23/6/2010 16:11

Moathunter - 23 Jun'10 - 15:52 - 1054 of 1054 (Filtered)

Moathunter - whatever rubbish you were spouting at 15:52. Get a life. You should have been watching the footy.

[moathunter] 23/6/2010 14:52

SJ- I think "jpsmithson" was referring to "spob, Rainmaker, ammons" behaviour on the UNIQ thread.

[ammons] 23/6/2010 10:56

Are you running out of breath yet?

[moathunter] 22/6/2010 14:38

The information below is intended to protect ADVFN members' savings from sharp practices.

Please exercise caution when investing in companies with a thread created by "spob" or "Rainmaker".

Example: MAE – Mallett Plc. Thread created by "spob" for "Rainmaker".
The individual in question uses the pseudonym "spob" in order that his other name "Rainmaker" does not appear overtly promotional of his own holdings.


BEWARE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES:
Upon the creation of a thread to promote a given company, the thread creator might also:

1. Generate a 'buzz' of excitement via multiple aliases, to ensure high visibility of the thread to all (you may be posting to one person!),
2. Paste authoritative and hence persuasive quotes from leading investors (Buffett is a favourite), so we associate the company promoted as being a 'wise investment', and
3. Ban those who wish to discuss the company's risks at length (such posters go strangely silent).


The culmination of such actions is a seemingly very attractive stock thread that draws newcomers into buying shares in the company.


For maximum gain to the thread creator, the companies recommended are invariably small in market capitalisation, illiquid in trading volume and of high speculative risk to equityholders.
As a heavily promoted stock, SDIG bears testimony to this (see my post 1042 above).

You have been warned. Have a healthy dose of scepticism in any seemingly exuberant threads.

(Subsequent posts rubbishing this or supporting the individual will most likely be written by himself, under an alias; Inga66, spob, pote, Rainmaker, abc125, ammons or others...).



The above is for the greater good of all ADVFN members.
Regards.

[moathunter] 17/5/2010 11:25

You flatter me, Ydderf. Frankly, SDIG was just one of those companies where we get sucked into researching for ages and still it's a "No".

So it goes on a 'popcorn list' to see what happens over 1+ yrs = useful feedback on whether you're thinking straight or not.

Others that sucked in many research hours but eventually thought were dodgy companies:
SOM Somero- its customers have no need to buy the product (a new cement screeder) for years.
MRX Metalrax- in 2008 what it actually produced was a mystery.
RGD Really Good Food- too much debt in a commodity industry (Sugar)... recently gone from 3 pence to 25p!!
HVE Havelock Europa- too much debt and the 3 sources of revenue seem permenantly reduced, so it's working for the bank [and employees] only, nil shareholder equity.
NTBR Nothern Bear- no logic in using debt and a bit of hammered share price equity to acquire companies that vastly more knowledgeable sellers (owners) are willing to hand over mainly for cash. Attempts to consolidate construction via acquisition leads to failure.

Can't commment further on each- short on time.

[ydderf] 17/5/2010 06:59

moathunter - an intelligent analysis, rare on this ADVFN, what else is on your 'popcorn list'?

[envirovision] 14/5/2010 08:20

Lets not forget Manufacturing in the UK witnessed the biggest Jump ever seen since 1992 in March.

[dpeach] 13/5/2010 18:18

diku precisely, contract wins last announced in Jan, nothing, then poor trading update (may / maynot get the money owed back company in administration) this all helped to move price down from 7ish pence to 2.5p had a little rally then monday announcement. Is it just by chance with results due end May / begin June, alternative directors are going to come to a quick decision within a month (prior to results?? we'll have to see) Above all let's hope they do actually work in shareholders interest.

[diku] 13/5/2010 16:40

How do we know if they are close to signing or have signed a big contract but not disclosed in the hope of insider bid going through..

[envirovision] 13/5/2010 16:09

Aside from tangibles £35 Million was raised 2.5 years ago.

[stewjames] 13/5/2010 15:46

Agree moathunter.

One small consolation for holders, I suppose - the MBO team probably wouldn't be getting the bargain they think they are. Particularly if they're the ones running it. (Or will they simply be able to move most of the cash out of the company and get a free ride at trying to make the business work against previous evidence?)

[moathunter] 13/5/2010 08:43

Agree Jonwig- I had serious reservations about SDIG too. After 8 hrs research, it was on a "popcorn watch" as light entertainment over the next year or two.

In mid 2009, I repeatedly advised Rainmaker and others that:

# SDIG has been incapable of generating any free cash flow, so its assets are worth liquidation value

# Ignore the "£3.9m cash" on its balance sheet, as it is not a non-operating asset that could be returned to shareholders with nil effect to the company, as most big cash holdings are. Their cash is needed to pre-purchase labour and product before being paid at the end of a contract.

# Ignore the claimed £80m+ "great forward order book" (stated in all their annuals), becasue the clients are predominantly discretionary item retailers that will only spend £1 on operations when demand for goods exceed 2007 levels... perhaps in 2012.
Meanwhile, SDIG's high fixed cost structure from it's labour force will burn through cash. So they have to sell the US division to stay afloat, constantly cut costs, re-jig financial reporting dates, 'one-off' writedowns, 'non-recurring issues' (in the latest RNS), all the usual tricks.

#Ignore their stated NAV- that's in part from the overhyped IPO valuation on the intangibles (IPO'd on July 2007, pre Northern Rock!).


Looking under the bonnet will show a business model that doesn't scale up at all well (no regular repeat purchasing, SDI stump up capital up front for new builds, blind auction tender bidding to win business, more clients=more stafff=more fixed costs) and illusory profit from maintenance contracts (obviously maintenance work cancels out the need for new builds/ future purchases).

Skim their 124 page pre-IPO admission document and you'll get a clearer picture of just how small an operation SDI and the US division really were- tiny £1-4 million companies.

[jonwig] 13/5/2010 06:03

Envirovision - I wouldn't call ydderf a troll, though he can be quite challenging. A bit backward at times, as suggested by his username.

Interesting outcome of this saga. Going back to around post #205 (March 2009) a poster 'Rainmaker' suggested the deep value in this company (assets, cash, etc.).

I challenged that view by pointing out some serious anomalies in the company's balance sheet but 'Rainmaker's case won the day, with a 4x rise to over 10p in a matter of a couple of months - part of the "dash for trash" as the FT called it.

The market is a funny thing!

[ammons] 13/5/2010 05:38

6Kenny,

Read my post number 418 on this thread. As I previously told you. You are responsible for your own investment decisions. As is everyone else.

[6kenny] 12/5/2010 22:11

yet another rainmaker tip gone belly up.......

[stewjames] 12/5/2010 22:05

Surely you realized (and factored into your considerations) that if an MBO is being considered, then any bid approach of your own would be more likely to meet with a hostile reaction? Insiders have significant advantages in trying to push a bid through under fair value, directly opposed to their obligations to shareholders. MBOs are fishy ethically at the best of times, frankly. In what way is mooting a bid below the (then) market price anything other than completely self serving? So far, all it's done is knock a big chunk off the market cap.

I actually have less problem with MBOs, though, than I do with the way the supposedly independent directors behave in these situations. Do you really think the announcement would have been so passive if an outside party (yourself, for example!) had come in with an early stage offer at this low a price?

[ydderf] 12/5/2010 17:12

StewJames - I reached my conclusions because I thought about bidding myself, after all the market cap is only a smidegon over 2 million.

That I thought about it seriously after noticing the announcment, illustrates that it is open to anyone else to do the same - maybe someone will - however I took the view that that there were better value businesses around - AIM is teeming with them - with less risk.

Who knows what the current cash position is - you would have to make a formal intention to bid statement then do due diligence. Not a chore for the insiders who presumably have live management accounts.

I tried to buy in the market at less than 2p but there is no stock around, though it would probably come cascading out if you asked the market to go 2.75 or 3 bid on your behalf, or even approached the major holders with a bid above 2.6p.

All of these moves are open to anyone on the planet so what is the gripe. if the price isn't right, don't accept it surely? Unless the bidders can get the shares, they can't succeed can they?

[envirovision] 12/5/2010 16:04

Stewjames please dont feed the troll:

ydderF - 12 May'10 - 16:03 - 1034 of 1035 (Filtered)

[ydderf] 12/5/2010 15:03

whingers - what exactly is the gripe here? it is a totally free market, anyone can buy shares in the company and bid more than 2.6p, but seemingly there aren't any takers even at 2.5p, in fact one poor soul has sold 20k today for 1.5p!

and although there's lots of talk about action on this thread, fact is nobody is doing 'owt except whinge.......

my guess is the buyouters are beginning to wonder if offering 2.6p is too much....

[dpeach] 12/5/2010 12:46

w1ndjammer, hope your calls have been productive, as with everyone else I think this stinks and have asked my BiL who runs a large fund in cwharf to give his view on it. let you know what says and who recommends to talk to about it.

[diku] 12/5/2010 10:56

When insiders are interested in buying themselves...does it mean they are not working to the best of their ability while the company is with a wider shareholder!...once they have taken over I bet you top dollar they will work 24/7 to reap larger rewards for themselves!...

How about the wider shareholders minus the insiders who are interested in the company accept 2.6p per share and then the wider shareholders can form their own board!...

[w1ndjammer] 12/5/2010 07:57

so the fact that less than 12 months ago Gordon Smith bought

495k of shares at 6p

400k shares at 7.5p

now he and his cronies think its only worth 2.6p

with the resession behind us

hmmm need to make some phone calls.

WJ.