Lms Capital Share Discussion Threads

[tiltonboy] 11/8/2016 22:09

eeza,

The closing auction (uncrossing), and indeed the opening auction should be abolished for all but the largest names. In the 250 you get some bizaarre closing prices, sometimes significantly different to levels that the price was trading at immediately prior to the close.

In the smaller names, there is a proliferation of tiny trades going through, which make no commercial sense whatsoever. I invariably take my SETS limits off before the close to avoid tiny "hits", but forgot one today, and ended up wearing 12 shares out of my 5500 order in AEFS. The Exchange need to look into this...but they won't.

I haven't got a scooby who puts these tiny orders and why, and wouldn't rule out manipulation of the closing price, even though I am the first to quash the conspiracy theories of most posters.

Hope that helps.

In terms of LMS, I am quite happy to buy at these levels, and if I could draw one crum of comfort, it is that this shameless board are not taking part in the Tender. Having read the BTEM comment, I am incandescent with rage that they have tried something on again, and appear to have succeeded.

I have warned consistently about the management, even in the face of my good friend SKYSHIP's support in the merits of the company, and the apparent value.

I have recently bought back into MVI, and given that I rate the respective management's recent actions equally, I hope I do not live to regret it.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 16:53

In case Tilts doesn't explain it, my understanding is that all the unmatched trades throughout the session are put into the closing auction to be reconciled.

So 65 trades were unmatched ( Lolololol ) throughout the day.

However, I've seen ( in CLLN - Carillion) where the trades for the day have been 200k and the closing auction has uncrossed a trade of 125k. Total nonsense, IMO, that an amount such as that couldn't be matched throughout the day.

Bent as a nine-bob note.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 16:43

Well Tilts is the expert on the mechanism involved in the uncrossing trade which gives the closing price.

I've always viewed it as a mechanism for the bent & unscrupulous to game the chart for their their own ends.
You can have no trades at all in a share all afternoon but at 1628 every day tiny AT trades appear, hammering away at the bid or offer (depending on how they want to game it) - and that's all to paint the tape for the closing auction.


Bent as a nine-bob note.

[rathair] 11/8/2016 16:41

Also my previous point should still apply.

[rathair] 11/8/2016 16:35

Bent as a nine-bob note lol

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:57

BTEM newsletter.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:52

From the Circular:-

"Further tender offers
Should the Investment Policy Resolution be passed, the Company is also proposing two further
returns of capital to Shareholders by way of tender offers and associated repurchases together
representing 50 per cent. of the net proceeds of further disposals of assets in the Company’s
existing portfolio. These further tenders (and associated repurchases) will be for a maximum of
£11 million and it is intended that distributions of up to £6 million and up to £5 million will be
made. It is intended that the first of the tender offers and associated repurchases will return up to
£6 million to Shareholders (after net realisation proceeds from the Company’s existing portfolio,
after the date of this Circular, exceed £12 million). It is intended that the second of the tender
offers and associated repurchases will return up to £5 million to Shareholders (after net realisation
proceeds from the Company’s existing portfolio, after the date of this Circular, exceed £22 million
in total). Both these tender offers and associated repurchases will be at a five per cent. discount to
the net asset value of the Company at the relevant time.


Subject to the adoption by the Company
of the proposed investment policy, the Concert Party has undertaken not to participate in these
tender offers."


Note the final paragraph.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:47

Yes, very good of them to concede concessions, with OPM, don't you think?

[strathroyal] 11/8/2016 15:43

Interesting comments from BTEM in their latest monthly newsletter. Appears that the concert party has largely got its way through other institutions:

At the end of the month LMS Capital announced proposals to pivot
away from returning capital from realisations, and to instead reinvest exit proceeds in private equity opportunities under a newly-appointed external manager, Gresham House. We had been made aware of the proposals some time ago. Our preference had been for the status quo
to remain in place, deeming a run-off policy to be demonstrably the
best way of eliminating the wide discount on the shares. Considerable
support for the changes made winning a vote highly unlikely, and our attention turned to negotiating concessions. The final outcome, which will see £17m returned to shareholders in tenders in which the Rayne Concert Party will not tender any of their 34% stake, represents a material improvement on the terms originally offered.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:39

& wot a surprise.

65 shares uncrossing trade ensures a closing bid of 57.50p and an offer of 57.75p.

Bent as a nine-bob note.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:36

Also

Kitchen-sinking may be justified when accounts are produced at year end - new broom, new strategy etc.

But kitchen-sinking when it's done to deliberately force the NAV lower prior to driving through a tender of shares is surely illegal. If the portfolio hadn't been written down by ~ 6p then shareholders would have been tendering at a NAV of 94p (less 5%), instead of 88p (less 5%). I regard that as theft from shareholder's pockets.

[eeza] 11/8/2016 15:12

However, the 2 scallwags (Fried loss & sweet) will still be overseeing LMS affairs.

"Nicholas Friedlos and Antony Sweet will both become employees of GHAM and will continue to work on matters relating to the Company's portfolio."

Because LMS is part of the dowry which has been bequeathed to GHE ensuring their employment. Where else would they be given employment. Morals and this pair would never recognise each other.

[skyship] 11/8/2016 13:54

This is what Simon Thompson (The IC) replied a week ago to a query on his LMS thread:

"There is substantial value here. The directors have 'kitchen sinked' the valuations ahead of the transfer of the mandate to Gresham House. I was correct with the first half currency gain - £6.8m, or 6p a share - but this was offset by a £8m plus unrealised loss on investments for disposal. Net liquid assets are around £15m, or 14.5p a share as predicted. NAV of 88p is 46 per cent more than the current share price and in effect a quarter of the share price is cash. My view is that sterling has further to fall, so giving a boost to the portfolio which is 70 per cent US dollar denominated, and with a better asset manager in place then there is scope for the share price discount to narrow markedly. Also, the above 88p NAV excludes the free shares in Gresham House worth 1p a share, and the likely value added through the £1.5m invetsment in Gresham House warrants. I remain a buyer of LMS shares."

I've been in & out of GH many times in the past. New management installed there; and now they will be running LMS - that has to be an improvement.

Also, to invest where they want to invest, they need to sell existing LMS assets; and that will in turn trigger the 2nd & 3rd Tenders.

So, there are big changes here - sufficient to keep me on board.

[shaker44] 11/8/2016 11:59

I suspect you re right unfortunately

[simonsaid1] 11/8/2016 10:28

Perhaps this is a fly in the ointment then - everyone who saw this as 'near-cash' will simply wait for share price to neutralise their losses and cash out. I'm considering putting in a limit order for my break-even price at this point. There's a weird situation here where the investors were in for a limited reason for a limited time and are now being asked to trust a company in a broader sense for a longer spell. Not ideal and could lead to further share price pressure soon. I hope not as I'd like to sell and I would rather be wrong and see the company succeed anyway.

[shaker44] 11/8/2016 10:10

Well said. I feel exactly the same. It was either poorly researched by ST or he didnt read the signals of what the BoD were up to. I bought it as a 'near-cash' investment, not as a long term punt on GH skills in Private equity etc.

[simonsaid1] 11/8/2016 09:11

Thanks Rath, nice to read a different view from time to time. It's certainly frustrating for those of us who bought this because the stated strategy at the time gave a solid chance of a certain return within a certain time period. It's just a bit unsettling when this sort of change occurs.

I think ST is saying that this has become a different type of investment now, and if you treat this as simply a solid holding with new, experienced management, then it works - but it's no longer the quick cash cow people were hoping for (I would rather cash out soon and seek out something with a rationale that chimes more with the type of investment I prefer, this was a bit of a punt and I'm not thrilled).

That said there does appear to be a strange attitude to shareholders at LMS, and a flirting with the line between 'smart, adaptive strategy' and 'wild changes with little consultation'!

[topvest] 10/8/2016 20:10

Not always - Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett is paid peanuts.

[rathair] 10/8/2016 15:15

And yes I know all about the directors milking it but I know of no companies at all in the history of mankind where that does not happen.
We assume that before we invest and just hope they will not be too greedy.

[rathair] 10/8/2016 15:12

I know most of you have been here a while and dont like management but thats all going to change as they are being sidelined.
If you bought for some other plan and you did not get it then fine you are right to be angry but I dont see how you can have lost out financially ?
You just haven't made as much as you had hoped for?
With GHE running the show there should be a big improvement in NAV.
I dont see whats wrong with it apart from a few longer holders here not getting the amount of return they had wanted?
If there are other reasons I'm happy to be corrected.

[spectoacc] 10/8/2016 15:05

Lol @eeza - you may be right. But "where there's muck there's brass"?

[spectoacc] 10/8/2016 14:33

I like the IC for its research, not so much for its tips. And not at all for ST, whom I had a run-in with some years ago over RUS/RUSP - RUSP being basically unsellable at the time, yet he used the shareprice to claim another success. We agreed to differ, not that you'd have known it from reading his article.

Naibu and Camkids another couple he tipped, and possibly JQW too. He's had no shortage of winners, but I take issue with the "tip guru" halo that he continually polishes, particularly when it becomes self-fulfilling - he tips something and it spikes up.

Since I'm in LMS, hopefully this one will come out OK.. I've also very much enjoyed it in the past when he's tipped something I hold, and I've been able to sell into the "Tommo spike" that morning.

[simonsaid1] 10/8/2016 14:16

I misread your comment and thought you were saying ST was recommending Sell on LMS. He's not, and he's still saying buy. Really all this tells me is that he does have a 'stop loss' in mind somewhere for every tip, which speaks at least somewhat to his independence.

I have had a mixed bag with the 3 of his recommendations I've tried, with LMS and LXB Retail Properties underperforming, but a tech firm called Amino he tipped rocketing. One thing I've learned is to check ADVFN for a bit of background before jumping on the shiny IC recommendations, to learn a bit more about the background of the boards of these companies. It's really important with AIM.

It's important to note that the vast majority of Simon Thompson's tips are winners (they published an article this week tracking his 2016 tips, almost all are up), and no stock picker should be expected to be right 100% of the time. IC subscription is very, very cheap, so if just a few more of the tips are right than wrong it pays for itself, and some of us don't have the time to fully investigate every company but still want to take some risks with our money using high-quality research tools.