Lms Capital Share Discussion Threads

[my retirement fund] 09/8/2016 17:06

Lol - If this is a freast Skyship, then it is you whom finds themselves upon the menu !

[skyship] 09/8/2016 16:18

MRF - as a passing spectator you are certainly the spectre at the feast - LOL!

[budsman] 09/8/2016 14:52

I see that Tempus in The Times is today recommending shareholders (particularly those looking for the earliest return of the liquidating assets ) to vote against the Proposal.

Hopefully drum up dissident holders.

[spectoacc] 04/8/2016 12:49

As will another 1% off the £ today.

[skyship] 04/8/2016 10:35

...and the holding LMS now has in GH adds another 1p to the NAV...every little bit helps!

[pavey ark] 04/8/2016 09:07

SA I take your point about the movable feast but this time I suspect we have the addition of input from GHAM.

It looks to me that the deal with GHAM is mutually beneficial but it would be in the interests of GHAM for the asset value to be as low as possible at this stage and with the current share buy back at 95% of net asset value/ share ( up to £6m) it would also suit the current management to go low in their valuation.
Given that some assets are in unquoted stock there must be a range of values.
If we add in the fact that the concert party are not participating in this tender I think we can say that the 88p figure is at least very fair and possibly a rather low figure.

I like the look of GHAM and I am a holder in GHS.
I bought my shares in GHS after doing some research and was impressed with the video presentation.The management of GHS came across very well.
Obviously time will tell but the very large discount here should give a nice buffer if things don't go to plan.
Not my highest risk investment !!

[spectoacc] 04/8/2016 06:10

Not the first IT I've been in where NAV has been - ahem - a moveable feast. I go with "kitchen-sinking to make GHE look good later on", but equally possible is "NAV previously overstated". It's too big a move (stripping out the currency effect) in too short a timeframe to not be one or other IMO.

[skyship] 03/8/2016 15:02

LE4R - thnx re VOX - will take a look

[skyship] 03/8/2016 15:01

Re the kitchen sinking - as a posted in 992 this morning "Brockton marked down to £7.38m...could be overdone and a chance for the new managers to look good."

The post-Brexit experience in the commercial property market suggests many fears rather overdone. I expect they will uprate that asset at the next set of figures; but those accepting the Tender (of which I will be one) will do so at a slightly lower figure than would otherwise be the case. Ie, there are benefits to be had for GH and the concert party to post a low NAV for the timebeing.

[skyship] 03/8/2016 14:52

MF - RE UTL - yes, saw that brief post by DB on the JDT thread this morning. Haven't yet had a chance to investigate; but I suspect the gearing from the Zeros renders it more like a SPLIT Capital share - so watch the effects of that gearing if the Market turns down...

[rathair] 03/8/2016 13:45

Ok Util , it looks to be flying high but I have never looked at it before.

[mad foetus] 03/8/2016 13:37

Sorry, UTL, right name, wrong ticker!

[rathair] 03/8/2016 13:37

UIL ? what is UIL I cant find it , did you mean JIL ?

[eeza] 03/8/2016 13:33

Google Brockton and look at all the large deals they've been involved in.

It beggars belief that they could have been losing money on them.

[rathair] 03/8/2016 13:13

Yes I can see what you are saying and why.
I am obviously looking at it from the standpoint of now.
You suggest promised returns may not be made but is not the next one already in the motions of going through?
The management will be sidelined and GHE will be running it in future with future performance related payment which gives them an incentive.
It seems to me that this director wants to keep his gravy train going indefinitely which for him makes sense.But not for past holders of LMS.
But he is being sidelined even though he will remain so does that not bode well for the future.
And the current share price is backed up by NAV of 88p ?

[mad foetus] 03/8/2016 12:48

rathair,
I will try to make this my last post.
There is value to be had here.
But, 5 years ago the company voted to be wound up. Last year they tried to reverse that and lost. This year they have tried to reverse it and won.

For the past five years there has been value to be had here and a clear plan to liquidate all assets and return them to the shareholders. But it hasn't happened. Instead, the directors have taken large salaries, massive rent has been paid to an associated company and an opaque plan has now been presented which involves the chief architect of LMS moving to the proposed new manager on terms unknown.

Whether the value is extracted depends upon whether you trust the board to follow through on their plan. They have a record of not doing so and of putting their own interests above those of shareholders. Even today, they have issued a NAV which appears to be inaccurate (after all, "kitchen sinked" is not a formal term but accounts should be fairly presented, not aimed at painting a picture one way or another), and aimed at benefitting shareholders who do not accept the tender. The tender itself appears solely aimed at persuading those who would otherwise vote against the scheme to not do so. So the deal is effectively "if you let us continue feeding from the trough we will throw you some crumbs".

If you think you can forget the past, it is a good investment. Because I know some of the past, I am out.

[eeza] 03/8/2016 12:45

Were it not for the untrustworthy, devious, greedy, duplicitous, pig troughing BOD you would to say yes.

But whether any of the gains trickle down to the unwashed is another matter altogether.

[rathair] 03/8/2016 12:32

Forget the past for now and concentrate on the plan ahead, and with that in mind is there value to be had here buying now , what with the expected plans ahead?

[mad foetus] 03/8/2016 12:25

Well I sold out on the basis of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

I am sure that whatever becomes of the company it will continue to pay inflated sums to the board of directors and to companies associated with Robert Rayne, who I regard as unfit to be the director of a public company. For that reason alone, I'm out. Whatever value there is here, there is a risk it will be sucked out by the parasites.

Bad karma to dwell on this one. Good luck all, whether you sell, hold or buy.

[eeza] 03/8/2016 12:18

Reputation !!


Lolololol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you don't like this reputation - I have others.

[mad foetus] 03/8/2016 11:52

Also, although I have not read things in detail, I assume the new managers will be remunerated according to their performance. From a lower NAV will come higher fees. It is good that the current board and major shareholders have no interest in paying more fees than are necessary. Oh, hold on, isn't Rayne moving to the new manager to help with the "transition". I'm sure his remuneration isn't in any way linked to that of GHAM.

It is rare to come across people who care so little about their reputation.