Lighthouse Share Discussion Threads

[cwa1] 15/8/2012 15:08

Great news :-) Attempt to get Hickey out:-

The Requisition has been received from Rock Holdings Limited and Southern Rock Insurance Company Limited, who together own approximately 5.0 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital, and proposes the following ordinary resolutions:



1. to remove David Hickey as a director of the Company;



2. to appoint Allan Rosengren as a director of the Company; and



3. to remove any other director appointed pursuant to the Articles between the date of the Requisition and the conclusion of the General Meeting.



On the basis that the Requisition is not withdrawn, the Company will shortly and by no later than 3 September 2012 send a circular to shareholders containing the notice convening the General Meeting (the "Circular"). Shareholders are advised by the Board not to take any action in connection with the General Meeting at this stage but should wait until they have received and read the Circular.

[nigelsom] 02/8/2012 08:32

Interesting to compare director pay with shareholder pay (dividends). No prizes for guessing who does better...

[graham1ty] 02/8/2012 07:13

Thanks for that link CWA.

Hickey says that 2there is adanger that thew share price remains very low ........and there is nothing we can do about that"

First, get the share price back above 5p. Give presentations, rebuild some kind of trust. Explain why/how it is in good shape. explain the balance sheet. get new advisers. Cut salaries. pay a special dividend. Reassure the adviser base. Directors buy shares. Company buy shares for cancellation.

no, nothing the Board can do about the low share price. Until the price is back above 5p, the move to delist has destroyed some shareholder value

What do the Board care: spread the word; Directors pay was over £1,100,000 last year

[nigelsom] 01/8/2012 09:41

Graham - he's beyond belief, isn't he! Total cetainty about everything until he has to produce evidence etc. I wonder if he is into astrology too!

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 18:24

Trader. They have to come back with a new delisting proposal, offering small shareholders an out ( and let them dare do that at below 5p....) or proposals to get the price above the 6p level....

Nothing else will do

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 18:17

Nigelsom

In the meeting today he said that IFAs, part of the Group, were "generally completely in favour". (It was an odd phrase as they are either completely in favour or not). Asked to clarify he said there was universal support.

i doubt it

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 18:10

I wonder who he thought he had spoken to when he claimed that 90% of shareholders were in favour.



Has he got a few imaginary friends, or did he just canvass his own opinion?

[trader2] 31/7/2012 18:10

So.. we get to retain liquidity for our holdings - but as to value? Even with today's fillip we are still at a very depressed level with the needs of the shareholders in no way aligned to the needs of the Board. May be that shareholder power needs to be applied some more - it is difficult to see appreciating value in the status quo!

[gengulphus] 31/7/2012 17:47

With regard to David Hickey's comments reported in MoneyMarketing saying that Allan Rosengren's comments influenced shareholders:



I can inform David Hickey exactly whose comments were the deciding factor in this particular shareholder's vote: David Hickey's comments. Trying to dismiss your critics' arguments en masse as "ill informed or ignorant speculation" rather than actually addressing each of them individually is a dead giveaway that you don't actually have answers to some of them...

Gengulphus

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 16:20

Perhaps they could use some of their £1.15m to pay for the cost of this shambles?

Incidentally, I reckon there is a major question over the NEDs as well.

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 16:13

Did the letter to staff say that they would use some of their £1.15million pay packet to pay the AIM costs ? would love to hear from a Lighthouse IFA and their view on all of this

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:54

Just reading the comments on Money Marketing, and one comment claims that Hickey has now written to Lighthouse staff saying that the proposal was lost by a small margin!!

Keep on digging Hickey...an EGM to remove the board would mean you are toast. You have been completely offensive to me - as one of the owners of the business you work for - and even in defeat you are disingenuous.

[toback] 31/7/2012 15:46

I think the size of the shareholder revolt means things have to change.

I think Rosengren has to lead this as the largest shareholder with the backing of the other large and vocal shareholders. I would encourage them to move - I would vote.

We need a strategy to return value to shareholders.

Who would put faith in Hickey doing that?

Hickey should have gone today - the reason this failed is all down to him, his arrogance and mouth demonstrate a lack of understanding of the market and in his position as a leader of a group supposed to be in favour of smaller shareholders he is a disgrace.

Get him out.

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:44

And what about the bit about him only having spoken to a couple of shareholders unhappy at the proposal?

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 15:38

See on Money Marketing that Hickey blames Rosengren !!!! Not Hickey's fault at all. This would have been defeated even without R's shareholding.

And what does it say of his reading of the "ignorant and ill informed shareholders" if he does not even knowe what his biggest shareholder wanted !!!

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:38

Maybe we should all write to Rosengren to offer support for a putshe?

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:36

Graham - the RNS I meant was today's: " the Board will continue to respect Shareholders' preferences". The cheek of it!

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 15:34

PPPPS, thanks for all who voted, thanks for all who kept up pressure on board, kept it in the Press and then for the joint two fingers ( actually that vote a bit more like one finger) at the Board

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 15:31

Nigelsom, the Chairman walks around with his foot in his mouth. We all saw the ignorant and illinformed comment. Now I see in FTAdviser he is quoted as saying this vote "will make his life a lot more difficult". poor diddums. Only £270,000 to make it worthwhile......how will he cope.

It has been suggested that his position "untenable". IMHO, too thick skinned. Will blame this defeat on people ganging up on the Board. So, I personally do not expect any falling on swords. Far easier for them to battle on and continue to take £1m pa in salaries ( compare and contrast with sub £5m company value.....)

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 15:26

A few further points: while very good to have the support of Allan Rosengren and Julian Telling, this was defeated by another 28m of shareholders who voted against. This was not just former directors having a strop. An overall 75% turnout is unprecedented.

Second, the complaint of Hickey in the Circular was that they had a "heavily discounted shareprice". He believed that shareholders would think this is worth MORE as an unlisted share than on AIM. Well if that is the case, the Board must go back and work on meeting shareholders; talking through their strategy; holding presentations; explaining their balance sheet..........ie a charm offensive. I doubt this will happen. But remember they thought the share price, at 6p, was too low. This is their Company, get on the case, get the share price above 6p.

Third, I have done some number crunching. the Board was paid £1.135m last year; in total over the last 9 years they have taken out £8.5m. Hickey has taken out £2.1m. Compare this to the total Board shareholding ( most given via options and not actually paid for) of £250,000. WHAT MATTERS MORE TO THE BOARD, THEIR SALARIES OR THEIR SHAREHOLDINGS ? Compare also to the £100,000 to £150,000 cost of AIM he quoted.

So finally, when Hickey went ahead with this, was he ill informed or was he ignorant ?

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:24

Thx Graham - I got my votes in via broker but it is great to feel that someone was actually there from the PI community. Hope you enjoyed the last comment in the RNS...butter, melt and mouth. Did anyone ask how much all this pantomime has cost us (the owners of the business) in terms of the EGM as well as the advisor fees etc leading up to it?

[graham1ty] 31/7/2012 15:19

Quick summary.

Hickey opened with preliminary words; Three points to make;
First, Board has no intention of bidding. ( My comment; this is not what the objection has been; it is ther manner with which they have imposed the delisting, and it has not been portrayed as a money grab)
Second, they will put in place a matched bargain facility ( Me: wow, and if they were seruiusly trying to deflect shareholder anger, why not have it in place BY today ?)
Third: corporate governance will not change. ( Me; but the circular clearly states the non execs will stand down)

Q and A sesssion actually quite subdued, with no further argument given as to why this is the right move. They claimed that "generally all" IFAs are for the delisting: I question how on earth he can claim that.

Made a lot of volatile shareprice and slagged off market makers. Claimed the low price and volatility "unsettles advisers who may leave us". Well the answer to that is get the share price up.

Nothing else really to report. Same old arguments. Was question "what benefit if any have Just Car Clinics shareholders had since the delisting ?". Answer: none and shareprice ( matcched bargain) aabout the same.

Board quiet. Must have known beforehand that they had lost. Announced results, refused to engage in further questions about "what next" and kicked us all out to draft the RNS ( surely they had a draft prepared, they knew they were losing ??)

[nigelsom] 31/7/2012 15:04

Ditto - thanks in advance.