London Finance & Investm... Share Discussion Threads

[topvest] 26/9/2012 20:03

I have to agree with you Markt on these RNS announcements - sloppy as there are at least two typo's which doesn't give you any confidence that the numbers are correct! It's a stupid South African SE requirement. "between 1500%" and what? + on or about the 29/9 is total garbage. Anyway, I suspect the WSE results are tomorrow or Friday and LFI Monday.

[cwa1] 26/9/2012 18:04

The board of directors of London Finance & Investment Group P.L.C. advises that its earnings per share for the year ended 30th June 2012 are expected to
decrease by between 40 - 60% and headline earnings per share for the year ended
30 June 2012 are expected to increase by between 1,500%.

by between 1500% and what.....?? Strange RNS, surely.

To be fair it does say on or about 29/9, so they can just about wriggle free on that one!

Nice to see that they have worked so diligently that they have spotted that results will differ more than 20% from prior results a whole 2 or 3 days before they are getting published.

[harrykewell] 09/5/2012 09:20

Tells me nothing mate.

Just your personal rant as far as I can see.

[markt] 08/5/2012 13:47

Uh.....no !!

see
markt 25 Apr'12 - 13:08 edit

[harrykewell] 02/5/2012 15:35

Has anyone received a telephone call regarding a hostile take over, whereby some americans are offering between £8 and £17 per share.

Sounds like a scam but £8 would be nice.

[markt] 25/4/2012 13:08

Any interest in an AGM resolution to the remove the BOD ?

20 year performance for LFI under the leadership of David Marshall shows a noticeable loss if remove the one off gain due to sale of a property.....and a flat performance if include that property gain...which is a significant loss if take into account inflation.

Other funds have multiplied X 4 over the same period....such as Morningstar Smaller Cos. or Blackrock Smaller UK Companies.

While shareholders have done badly...it looks like the return to the Marshalls has been running at 14% per year on their investment value. (incl. son has been getting director's fees at subsidiary)

and D.Marshall has intentionally hidden from LFI shareholders that a son has been getting paid from the operation of LFI.....and that money is paid to an overseas company linked in some way to David Marshall (from MWB, NBI, FIF.....)

Doctors Direct. Return of 0 to shareholders after investment of 1/2M pnds.
Sanctuary Group. De-listed ...then owned by creditors I think.
MWB....from 300p to 8p now. Effectively a complete loss at the moment. (except for 1/3rd of the shares that were sold before the slump)

The investment strategy of David Marshall has been proven over 20 years.

THAT IT DOES NOT WORK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


..for shareholders....while it may work quite nicely for the Marshalls with a yearly return of approx. 14%. And not disclosing certain related party transactions to LFI shareholders....such as subsidiary payments made to son.

And the board needs changing....at the moment it appears to be a group of yes men, all under the control of David Marshall. (Sarasen bank members on the board are involved with David Marshall companies imho, eg. Monteagle Marshall) imho the board does not comply with the LSE and FSA regulations for independance or for review of performance and modification of strategy...nor does LFI comply wth the Company Act that requires the company to operate for the benefit of all shareholders...and not mainly for the benefit of the major controlling shareholder.

Any LFI shareholder out there interested ?....Or all asleep ? Or don't care about the return from their money ?

LFI needs to invest in companies without putting a director on the board.....and to invest in good investments (which LFI BOD) have shown they are unable to detect.
If needed, use a respected fund manager to select investments or provide a list of prospective investments...or I (or anyone) can provide such a list.

[markt] 20/3/2012 17:29

...the sale wasnt voted on till last days before xmas.....and not completed till Feb....so wouldnt have paid the 90% outstanding till completion in Feb......10% was paid in advance ...

so

cash balance in the accounts looks to be "wrong" imho....but noting that the cash did arrive later, in Feb.

at 31st Dec stage the deal could have fallen thru...and buyer just loses 10% if backed out....showing accounts to be wrong...imho...

...a possible payment surely should not appear in cash balance....

[topvest] 11/3/2012 08:18

Markt - I do agree with you that it does look incorrect on the cash point, unless they were paid on exchange rather than completion. Would you pay £2m before you completed on a property purchase? I wouldn't!

[topvest] 05/3/2012 21:45

Markt - you have a fair point; I am inclined to agree with you unless the cash was paid by the buyer pre-completion which would have been somewhat unusual on a property purchase.

[markt] 05/3/2012 11:37

Cash balance reported in the accounts at 31st Dec.
FALSE imho

At 31st Dec the sale of the apartment had NOT been completed....LFI had NOT been paid...so the cash did NOT exist in the LFI accounts. The money has (I assume) since been paid, in February....but imho the accounts should be correct.

...how accounting rules treat a future payment I don't know...whether or not it should be included in the NAV calc. for 31st Dec....or whether you should declare the book value of the apartment, since not in fact fully sold at that date, but yes, contracted to be sold.

is a 2nd correction RNS needed !?

[markt] 29/2/2012 18:20

FTSE 100 at end of June =6000
FTSE 100 at end of Dec 2011 = 5600

Fall = 400. = 6.7% . FALL

But LFI results state the the FTSE rose 20%.

Appears to me that LFI results are factually FALSE !!!
(sometimes I wonder if they know what they are doing....no NAV increase since 1992, 20 years ago, would argue that they don't !)

[markt] 24/1/2012 17:40

By having WSE as a controlled subsidiary of LFI.....it means that the assetts of WSE get bled to pay running costs....and then the same assetts get bled again by LFI to pay LFI running costs !!

3% in each case.

So....it looks to me like the WSE assetts that are part of the LFI NAV....are getting bled by 6%/year !!

Part of the reason that LFI has approx. the same NAV/share as it did in the period 1990-1994 !!

[markt] 14/12/2011 15:10

at MWB where LFI is invested and where David Marshall (LFI boss) is on the board

('if' I recall correctly it was David Marshall that backed MWB into an LFI shell back in the late 90s).



"Accusations fly as investors round on MWB board
Shareholders in hotel and property company MWB Group heard accusations of market manipulation, poor accounting and a failure to grasp fundamental details of the business at its annual general meeting. "

accusations at MWB of
- market manipulation,
- poor accounting and
- a failure to grasp fundamental details of the business

[markt] 13/12/2011 19:23

and the Athelney Trust has increased the dividend since 1993 from 1p to 4.9p



while at LFI the dividend is basically the same as it was in the years 1990-1994 !! despite claiming in accounts that increasing the divi is one of the main aims of the company.
=====

Wherever you look, you find funds that have grown since 1990-1995
BRSC is another....or Morningstar.

While LFI is the same as it was 20 years later !...and has paid low dividends.

[markt] 13/12/2011 19:19

at Athelney Inv. Trust...
which operates a general portfolio as LFI does
cost to run the co.
is approx. 90k/year.
whereas LFI is around 300k/year....

(noting that LFI has had no action to take for its 3 strategic investments. Athelney has no strategic investments)

So how does LFI justify its cost of 210k being almost 3 times as high ?

To watch FIF and MWB costs 200k/year ? (noting that with large shareholdings you can not sell easily, only every 5 or so years perhaps)
FIF and MWB have been held for years now. FIF since about 2002 or so. MWB from before that.

The Athelney Trust seems to be a lot more popular....very small discount to NAV (surprisingly small). Perhaps because the chart shows that it has a clear up trend to the NAV and price !. And people want to buy stuff that goes up !.

Whereas LFI has the same NAV as it was in 1991, 20 years ago !!
while still under the control of the same Chairman, D.Marshall.
====

The cost to run WSE is 280-300k/year.
+ 54k paid from Hartim but not to WSE...+ 30k from CRE but not to WSE= approx. 380k !!!

And WSE pays 46k/year office rental costs although it has no staff !! (day to day running is done by City Group, paid around 90k for it)
(while it appears that Monteagle Marshall (large % owned by Marshall family trusts) has staff at LFI offices but it is not charged office rental). Logic ??!!
Are shareholder assetts being intentionally bled ?
Could one argue that WSE is being bled ?

(son employed as director of subsidiary of 75k.....if same for 10 years then = 750k....payments to "overseas company" ref. D.Marshall of 25k from FIF, 7k from NBI, 15k from LFI, 15k from WSE, about 30k from MWB, .....

.if NAV grows then it can be supported but NAV does nothing then high costs bleed the NAV and stop the NAV and share price from growing....as seen at LFI).
---

City Group PLC provides accounting/advisory services for operating in Luxembourg (Monteagle Marshall), Channel Islands etc....services or skills not needed or used by WSE or LFI.
Are WSE/LFI subsidising the provision of those skills, to others ?

====

I don't propose selling LFI shares....but changes in how LFI is managed and a reduction in costs.

[markt] 06/12/2011 14:37

Topvest
..any opinion on the following ?

strange numbers in the accounts imo

Book value ....cost.....of investment in WSE

2008 = 6.08M
2009 = 4.383M
2010 = 6.161M
2011 = 6.161M

...and all these different numbers despite not buying or selling any shares in WSE ?!!

imo the book value or cost should be......the cost !!
and hence does not change unless you buy or sell some more of that item.

====

and an additional point !!

In 2008 LFI bought warrants in WSE....and then exercised some of those warrants.
The numbers do NOT add up !!



Book value at end of year 2007 (30th June) was 4.567M
spent 429k in buying WSE warrants in 2008
and
then exercised some for 853k
(ref. page 5 of the accounts.)
(the rest of the warrants expired out of the money)

So, cost of shares held in WSE = 4.567M +.429 +.853 = 5.849 M

Book value at 30th June 2008 was stated as = 6.082M in 2008 accounts , page 5....this number does NOT agree with what the sum of the 3 parts is.

Difference in the numbers is 233K !!
---

And the Company Act requires that any payments to connected persons are declared. A son being a connected person....employed at subsidiary.
The LFI accounts have not made this declaration in the years to 2010.
Now, it may be that LFI will try to get round the law by the connected person having this employment as a secondary employment not as primary employment.
In my opinion must comply with the law and the spirit of the law and declare all payments made to/from connected persons.....and avoid rubbery accounts.

[markt] 29/11/2011 14:26

Admin. costs rose in 2011 from 293k to 314k....despite lower wages cost at subsidiary

staff costs fell by 69k, note 3 in the accounts....but inv. mngmt costs increased !!
while no share issues at MWB to consider whether to participate. no share issues at FIF, no share issues at WSE.....


..so possibly an increase of 15-20%.

Of course no explanation of justification for this large increase.
and no break down of costs.....no info to shareholders.


===

54k management services rental income...
but WSE pays 46k.....even though it has no staff !! (day to day running is subcontracted to City Grp. for 94k)

so...it appears that Monteagle Marshall uses the LFI offices (see Monteagle International website) and has staff there but only pays 8k...while WSE has no staff and pays 46k !!

Are the Monteagle Marshall companies being subsidised ?
...paying 27k rent for an apartment worth 2.6M is arguably a subsidy...
(as a result of complaints the rent quickly went from 27k to 40k to 53k....inferring that the co. accepted that the rent was not correct)

[markt] 21/11/2011 15:27

.... 182K approx. paid to Marshalls, that we know about !, was higher than the divi income from all of LFI investments of 175k

so it looks to me that the Marshalls effectively receive all of the dividend income paid to LFI !

...the dividend paid to LFI shareholders is paid from assetts...

====

I don't suggest to sell LFI shares....rather that the operation of LFI should be reviewed....that strategy should be reviewed since disastrous perf. over last 20 years, ..ensure that it does in fact operate for benefit of the shareholders...and that each/every related party transaction should be reported (not the case at the moment, at present says 'lots of transactions with this list of people/companies')...state in all accounts the payments made to "overseas company" related to D.Marshall from companies where LFI shareholder money is invested (MWB, FIF, CRE, NBI, City Group ?, A.N.Other...)...it is a related party transaction....
..and many pts. such as revealing all significant options awarded and the perf. conditions....and reveal the internal money flow within LFI, reveal costs....reveal in LFI PLC public accounts items such as 63k motor vehicle rather than hiding it in subsidiary accounts which the normal public will not see !!!.....and justify that expenditure (very strange for a tiny company without enough income to support the operating costs !) and if can not justify it then perhaps step down !!