Jtc Share Discussion Threads

[jtcod] 14/6/2018 08:51

I see that Comcast is on a current PE of 6.7 whilst Fox News is on 20. That doesn’t bode well for shareholder value creation if the cash is coming from a share issue BA. I can see why you are not impressed.

[jtcod] 14/6/2018 08:35

I am not too familiar with Comcast BA. As you say it's a cash offer. Have they informed the market as to where the cash is coming from?I would be very worried as a Comcast investor mainly because of the target companies. I read a book on Murdoch and his dealings a few years ago and I cannot imagine any Murdoch company being run like a normal public company. These are more like private family businesses and that I suspect will make for a slow process on integration, plenty of 'surprises' and a strong culture that will resist change. A clear-out of key personnel will likely be significant over time if I am right regarding the culture. It will be the only way to get things done and see what secrets they are trying to hide from you. Personally I wouldn't touch a Murdoch business even in a fire sale.

[blusteradjuster] 14/6/2018 07:49

JTC,

You mentioned M&A recently - I wonder what the success rate (in terms of shareholder value delivered) is with these mega-deals?

Can’t help thinking Comcast would be better breaking itself up. That is to say that this bid satisfies the egos of director(s) rather than shareholders.




Comcast, the US media conglomerate, has submitted another offer to buy parts of 21st Century Fox, after getting rebuffed last year in favour of Disney.

Comcast saidit has offered $65bn (£48.6bn) in cash for assets that include Fox's film and television studios and international businesses.

The bid sets up a fight with Disney, which announced its own plan to acquire those businesses last year.

The two firms are also vying for ownership of Sky in the UK.

Comcast said its proposal is "at least as favourable" to shareholders as Disney's plan.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 19:22

Fed Raises Interest RateshTTps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44473148

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 18:15

.....and I am not bragging. That is pure luck.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 18:09

Sadly MT the story it is not that unique. I think looking back, it's a miracle really that I have only lost money on one O&G company.

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 17:26

'O&G sectors where many are run by tinpot dictators with contempt for shareholders imo.'

As Tethys and Skyland Petroleum's shareholders know only too well!

Both systematically destroyed by one man and his criminal cabal for massive personal gain.

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 17:22

Polish PM to push for EU referendum this autumn - that should put the cat among the pigeons in Brussels this summer!

Andrzej Duda has laid out plans to directly ask his citizens about the country’s relations with Brussels.

The referendum would ask Polish people whether or not the nation’s membership of the bloc should be guaranteed in the constitution.

And another question would see them asked whether they think the primacy of the Polish constitution over international and European law should be guaranteed.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 16:17

I would add that I expect the worst such occurrences to be in the commodity/O&G sectors where many are run by tinpot dictators with contempt for shareholders imo.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 16:11

It's an innovative idea and certainly a lot could do with changing, including the calibre of people working for SEC, FCA etc. Laws which protect and compensate shareholders are pretty good in the USA but woeful in the UK so they need addressing also.On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if the most common and costly fraud perpetrated on shareholders of public companies is M&A negotiations. You won't see that in any balance sheet. Whilst Director meetings are minuted and have ID's to witness proper conduct, there is no requirement of a CEO or Chairman to be accompanied by an ID for M&A meetings between two companies. The advisers always have a vested interest in the deal happening as soon as possible so you cannot rely on them to stand up for the shareholders. What happens for many such meetings I am sure is a "What do I get out of it?" approach. At the end of the day, the shareholder invariably loses because it affects the offer. There are some very greedy people heading boards of public companies and some without any sense of integrity.

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 15:43

Harry Markopolos, the former derivatives professional turned independent financial forensic investigator who spent nine years trying to convince the SEC that Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme, said that "in the history of accounting it's impossible to name even one multibillion fraud that the Big Four uncovered - now, if I asked you, to name all the big, multibillion-dollar accounting frauds that the Big Four aided and abetted, we could be here all afternoon,"

"The incentives are totally screwed up in the accounting industry. There is no way the company should be paying the audit fees. It should be the shareholders. It should be a fee. Every time you buy a share, a certain number of basis points should be allocated to audit fees. Because the audit fees are currently way too low. Management brags about how low they've gotten the audit fees.

"So audit has become a commodity. The people doing the audit, 80% to 90% of the contact hours are by someone in their 20s. Well, who is going to catch fraudsters when you're in your 20s? The only way you're going to catch fraudsters is to have thinning hair, gray hair, or no hair. You have to have been around the block and then burned several times before you're able to catch fraudsters."

Markopolos now has the institutionalized shortcomings of the audit world in his sights and identified the insurance industry as the next big sector for major financial fraud to come to light.

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 15:35

The GBO audit partner was Grant Thornton - auditors of the £150m MPL fraud.

I wrote to them asking what what methodology they use to check the cash funds claimed by the management of Companies they are paid handsomely with shareholders funds to audit, are actually in company bank accounts. Received the following rather unhelpful reply:

Thank you for your enquiry.

We owe a duty of confidentiality to our client and cannot discuss any details relating to the client about which you are seeking information.

Your sincerely

For and on behalf of Grant Thornton (UK) LLP


I wrote again to Grant Thornton in connection with what two industry colleagues and i believe is a case of industrial scale theft of up to $40m of shareholders funds by the management of MPL in 2013/14 - still yet to receive a reply so we passed it over to the SFO, where the wheels of progress clearly move just as slowly!


'The latest accounts suggest an actual cash burn to date of shareholders funds and bank loans totalling £44.6M - BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR WAS EVEN ABLE TO COMMENCE LAND RECLAMATION WORK DUE TO THE NEED TO BRIDGE A 50M WIDE FAST FLOWING TIDAL CREEK TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE SITE. (BRIDGE COMPLETED DEC 2014 - est cost £2m)

In attempt to hide the scam, the management came up with all sorts of lies to put shareholders off the trail including, fraudulently telling the market for nine months in various RNS releases from March 2014, that land reclamation work was in fact progressing well and in line with management's expectations with up to 500 operatives on site - when in fact THERE WAS NO ONE ON SITE BEFORE DECEMBER 2014 - since it was impossible to gain access before the tidal creek was bridged.


We think this warrants the close attention of the AIM Regulator and Serious Fraud office. What do you think?'

[blusteradjuster] 13/6/2018 15:21

There’s a Goldilocks optimum between regulation and exploitation out there somewhere JTC.

Proving hard to find so far.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 14:46

Let's hope some common sense prevails BA, for the sake of small businesses at least.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 14:44

My company used to arrange business cover for SME's as well as funding for business purchases. We would liaise with clients and insurers on such claims. The level of work involved, not to mention the stress for a small business owner is substantial. Have 5 of these and the proprietor of a small business would be hard pressed to focus properly on their business .......and that is assuming the insurer is prepared to play ball on the claim. I really sympathise here because this is a nightmare for them.

[blusteradjuster] 13/6/2018 14:39

Tim Goodwin of law firm Winckworth Sherwood cautioned that the ruling may not apply to other complaints.

"Even with a high level decision like this, to a degree the issue of employment status in the gig economy is up in the air.

"The government is consulting on this issue, and may bring forward legislation. So it's quite possible that Parliament may overrule this decision within the next few months or years."

And Alan Lewis, employment partner at law firm Irwin Mitchell said the decision was not a "game changer" and that cases would continue to be argued on their specific facts and, for businesses that rely on self employed contracts, that means further uncertainty.

"This decision is not necessarily a win for 'gig economy' workers seeking to challenge their employment status."

"Pimlico's plumbers do not operate a gig model and the implications for Uber, City Sprint, Deliveroo etc may be limited, although the publicity around this case may encourage other 'self employed' contractors to challenge their legal status," added Mr Lewis.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 14:32

I bet 'employers insurance' premiums are soaring right now.

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 14:25

An example of the far reaching nature of the Supreme Court ruling on workers rights is employers insurance. Imagine how many of these workers have been let go over the years. This is not a new directive by the court as I understand it, it is retrospective. That means every such employer faces a potential claim from possibly many of their past workers. Now, every employer has employers insurance by law but who pays? Is a retrospective claim valid under the policy or does the employer pay and potentially even fail under the weight of it? Or do the insurers take the hit and face huge losses and a firestorm of extra work and costs from lawyers and loss adjusters?

[blusteradjuster] 13/6/2018 14:05

The BHS collapse - wasn’t that the fault of the EU?

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 12:46

It is estimated there is currently 5m employees potentially affected by the decision - so it has the potential to significantly drive up business costs.

However, it is good news for many 'UK' businesses - Champagne corks will be popping at the Luxembourg and Irish HQ's of the huge multi national corporate tax evaders who pay minimum wage in the UK, smug in the knowledge that UK taxpayers will be heavily subsidising their eastern european migrant employment costs through huge housing benefit, tax credit, and free NHS, Dentistry and schooling!

[jtcod] 13/6/2018 12:31

This Supreme Court ruling on workers rights is going to herald a nightmare for employers. This potentially could become the new PPI. Some business models simply won't work anymore. Not saying it's wrong but it has thrown a spanner in the works that's for sure.hTTps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44465639

[mount teide] 13/6/2018 12:25

The US correctly let house prices collapse following the financial crisis - Seattle was one of many major cities that experienced falls of up to 75% in residential property values.

As a consequence the US property market - despite a partial recovery over the last decade - is much better positioned to absorb a rising interest rate environment than the UK and particularly Europe and its banks - most of which would collapse with interest rates anywhere near current US rates.