Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
London Finance & Investment Group Plc LSE:LFI London Ordinary Share GB0002994001 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 33.50 0.00 08:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
32.00 35.00 33.50 33.50 33.50
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Nonequity Investment Instruments -1.76 2.90 11.6 10
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- O 0 33.50 GBX

London Finance & Investm... (LFI) Latest News

More London Finance & Investm... News
London Finance & Investm... Takeover Rumours

London Finance & Investm... (LFI) Discussions and Chat

London Finance & Investm... (LFI) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all London Finance & Investm... trades in real-time

London Finance & Investm... (LFI) Top Chat Posts

London Finance & Investm... Daily Update: London Finance & Investment Group Plc is listed in the Nonequity Investment Instruments sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker LFI. The last closing price for London Finance & Investm... was 33.50p.
London Finance & Investment Group Plc has a 4 week average price of 33.50p and a 12 week average price of 33.50p.
The 1 year high share price is 41.50p while the 1 year low share price is currently 33.50p.
There are currently 31,200,000 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 2,359 shares. The market capitalisation of London Finance & Investment Group Plc is £10,452,000.
smithie6: While the Marshall thing is a negative factor the share price looks cheap vs NAV which has been in up trend for last 2 or so yeaes I think....mostly due to FIF price rise Discount to NAV looks a bit big at the moment & FIF share price perhaps relatively solid the big discount is phps unwarranted ?
markt: 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 seen at LFI). --- City Group PLC provides accounting/advisory services for operating in Luxembourg (Monteagle Marshall), Channel Islands 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: Dividends Has LFI under the control/guidance of the Marshall family been able to grow the dividend over the last 20 years ? Let's take a look. aware that dividends are being paid by consuming the nett assetts....not paid from income received (running costs have always exceeded the no income left over to pay dividends) DIVI 1990 0.75p NAV = 33p 1991 0.75p NAV = 21p 1992 0.4p NAV = 20p 1993 0.5p NAV = 37p 1994 0.6p NAV = 34p 1995 0.7p est. NAV = 1996 0.8p NAV = 47p 1997 0.9p NAV = 45p NOTE that subsequent NAVs till 2006 are less than the truth imo since do not include the true value of the LFI apartment (rented to company where D.Marshall is the MD/CEO) 1998 0.5p (6 months, change of year end) NAV = 47p 1999 1.0p NAV = 36p 2000 1.1p NAV = 50p 2001 1.2p NAV = 54p 2002 0.8p NAV = 37p 2003 0.85p NAV = 34p 2004 0.9p NAV = 37p 2005 1.0p NAV = 44p Following NAV numbers are more accurate but perhaps 3p below reality since property valuation/estimation is less than reality. 2006 1.05 NAV = 52p 2007 1.1p NAV = 66p 2008 1.2p NAV = 39p 2009 0p NAV = 21p No dividend ...prevented by law since nett assetts not high enough 2010 0.6p NAV = 23p ...dividend is back to 1990s level. Why ? Because 5-6M lost by not selling MWB, MWB share price has collapsed. Amount lost is 80-90% of cap. value of LFI !! MASSIVE. 2011 0.6p NAV = 35p ...dividend is back to 1990s level. Why ? Because 5-6M lost by not selling MWB, MWB share price has collapsed. Amount lost is 80-90% of cap. value of LFI !! MASSIVE. If remove the gain due to the property then you get a NAV of 28p. A NAV of 28p in 2011, versus a NAV average of 29p over the period 1990-1994 ( 5 NAV values). RESULT ? That if exclude the property then the NAV in 2011 is the same as it was in 1990-1994 !!! And if take into account inflation..(dividends have never kept up with inflation)...that is in reality a big reduction in NAV.. ie. LFI under the control of the Marshall family has performed VERY BADLY badly from the 90s to now.
markt: The NAV of the shares of LFI of Mr D.C.Marshall (Mr Marshall's family trusts being the biggest single shareholder) does not appear from what I can see to have performed over the longer term. The LFI NAV in 1990-1994 was 33p, 21p, 20p, 37p, 34p. 1996= 47p, 1997=45p The LFI NAV 2006-2011 was 52p, 66p, 39p, 25p, 27p, 35p Share price performance over 10-20 years looks to be....random !.and down If it had been invested in Black Rock or A.N.Other fund for small companies the 33p would now be 4-6 times greater, ie 130p-200p. Whereas LFI share price is 22-24p. Very different. ..imho it does not show any up trend or demonstrate investing skill (5-6M pounds lost by not selling MWB holding, with LFI cap. value around 7M now, that is a big amount of money lost....tiny or negligible chance that it will ever be recovered imo) With inflation 33p in 1990 would now be worth around 50%-100% more, 49p - 66p. The dividends have not kept up with inflation. Imo shareholders in LFI have lost money since 1990-1994. ==== I don't propose to sell shares...I propose that changes are made at LFI....change investment strategy (if has not worked), change control of the board, separation of the board from the investment manager (and replace them if performance is ever poor), avoid having anyone on the board of investee companies (that strategy has not worked) possible new investment manager(s) ? lots out there in small company sector with good records...
markt: Doctor's Direct floated in July 2002 by broker Loeb Aron (company founded by Frank Lucas, non-exec at LFI) raised 1M pounds to give cap. value of 3M 3 different types of warrants included in the float. 3!! Attention was on warrants and clever arrangements and perhaps not analysing if it was a good investment. P/E at the float was > 30 !!. For a microcap where turnover was only increasing at 10%/year and profitability in microcaps is always/often marginal and hence should be really cheap if only producing 10% turnover growth. Absolute farce imho. (A certain chartered accountant at LFI/WSE/City Grp. personally invested !....personally I could not believe that WSE had invested at that price, I still can't, approx. 1/2M thrown away) 150k costs , I assume most of it to the float's broker Loeb Frank Lucas obtained benefit from the float (as founder and major shareholder) ....WSE shareholders lost everything I assume....(the WSE accounts do NOT even tell you that the company went bust....silence, the directors intentionally hiding bad news....does not appear to show much honour or integrity imho, shareholders would have liked to have known what happened...) Last company accounts. 2004. Micro company with only 1M turnover managed to burn/destroy 850k cash raised in 2 years. That is moving !! a company that had reported significant growth in the years before the float...hmmmm Only 2 annual reports issued after the float !! June 2003 and to June 2004...(not issued til May 2005), ....... Appears that sold the main operating part of the company for 220k in 2004. So in July 2002 the company is worth 3M and before June 2004 the main part is sold off for 200k !! From 3M to 200k !. Looks almost like a drive in drive out destruction of assetts/money ! The IPO was June/July 2002 and by April 2003 the chairman, part time FD and A.N.Other were not being paid cash but being paid in shares...since clearly the company was completely stuffed !! 850 k !! The directors included Edward Beale (he is the CEO for running LFI/WSE on a daily basis, since work subcontracted from WSE/LFI which have no employees) and Mr D.C.Marshall as chairman. Company later de-listed and administrator wound up the company. Creditors meeting Oct 2006. 850k raised and quickly smoked by the company that was turning over 1M pounds and reported that it was growing turnover.....hmmmmmmm.... ==== Has no impact on the share price of LFI but it does add to some concerns about the openess of the operation of LFI/WSE imho (which is effectively D.C.Marshall and his son, they have the power on the boards since biggest shareholders at LFI and since Mr Beale works in Marshall companies so needs to toe the line imho, Frank Lucas's company receives benefit by doing work like floats such as this one for Doctors Direct so he'll toe the line imho, )
markt: Topvest Can you ask the company if the Share Benefit Scheme shares have been conditionally placed with employees or not.... and what the performance conditions are ? The company accounts say that the scheme shares "have" been conditionally placed with employees.... BUT the information/replies from the company is that the shares have NOT been conditionally placed and are still held by the Trust Fund... LFI/WSE....cloudy, because the directors want it that way imho otherwise they would provide straight answers... As shareholders I think that we have a right to know the reality. (and I would like to see that the performance conditions are realistic and take into account the poor performance of LFI shares under the same managers, 55p in 2007, 20p now, 4 years later !!). If the share price goes to say 25p then the managers should not get 4% of the company shares for free. Bad performance should not be rewarded in my opinion. If achieve real growth over the medium/long term that is higher than the market(the stated objective of the company) then a reward is fair. But the medium/long term perf. of LFI has been so bad that to beat the market over the medium/long term looks almost impossible. The share price was in the 30p region I think back in the 90s, if you compound that with say 6% annual growth...then you get a figure way way above the current market price. (In my view the Scheme shares should only be offerred under perf. conditions that put the shares under an option price, so that still have to be paid for, to align the employees with the shareholders). ==== I will tell you in advance that they will refuse to tell you ! eg. Frank Lucas, founder of the broker Loeb Aron, LFI director and Edward Beale, CEO of City Group PLC (owned by LFI). All seems very strange to me, Company Act talks of transparency etc....
markt: Cautious Investor "Should shareholders trust the word of the directors ? Frank Lucas is described as independant director....and as associate of Aron Loeb , broker, and receives a commission for any trades that he introduces... but !! old LFI RNS notices state that Frank Lucas is in fact the founder of Aron Loeb !! and hence one assumes to be the major shareholder in Aron Loeb" The 2 pieces of information are contradictory. 1 says 'associate' and 1 says 'founder' (and hence major or sole shareholder). The LFI RNS "contradicts" the LFI company accounts. Both are issued by LFI directors. Hence it appears that one of the 2 is not true. The rules require that directors must give a "true" report to shareholders. Cautious Investor ...come on, tell us what is the reality regards F.Lucas. He is just an associate of Aron Loeb or he is the founder (as the RNS states) (if you want I will post the RNS, issued in the past by the LFI directors) ==== Cautious Investor ....also, you appear to be intentionally misleading the market....imho ...there is a director of LFI that has made "large" share sales in LFI in recent weeks.... if you want the share price to go up....then perhaps you should tell that LFI director to buy shares and not to sell them !! (that director has sold many times over the number of shares in LFI that I could sell, ie. his influence is much more important than mine) any case, my posts are pointing out any mistruths or similar from the directors.....the honesty of the directors etc is important and perfectly correct that the public discuss it on message boards.... sadly the LFI board, to which you have connections, refuses to answer questions and refuses to provide clarification so that the truth is known... ....but perhaps there are many related party situations ....and the board prefers to keep things quiet.... such as....are family members of Mr Marshall using the luxury apartment owned by LFI (an apartment that LFI borrowed money at 5% for and then rented it out for years obtaining only a 2% return !!.....and LFI has costs, 2.5%-3% of cap. value to run the company, so it could be argued that an 8% return is needed, to break even..) and what is the justification for WSE paying 47k rental to City Group when City Group only pays 43k for all of the offices....and WSE has no staff !!, it subcontracts all its work to City assumes that WSE only needs an office for 6 board meetings and for the auditor to have somewhere to do his paperwork....47k does not make sense. LFI/WSE refuse to clarify this point or to publish any breakdown of expenses. They have something(s) to hide ? Who knows. Cautious Investor - stop hiding the truth and start giving us some answers.
cautious investor: Markt Independence is a state of mind. Not everyone is as self serving or as incompetent as you seem to believe. Have you met Mr. Lucas? Are you going on personal experience? Or is this just more outpourings from your vivid imagination? Where do you get this idea that Loeb Aron are receiving any commission? What makes you think that auditors would have overlooked such an obvious possible related party transaction? Share prices (as any aspiring economics student can tell you) are based on the balance between supply and demand. Your ill informed and highly speculative posts can only reduce demand and thereby reduce LFI share price. Is this what you want to achieve? If it is, all readers of this blog, myself included, would benefit from an explanation of why you want to reduce the LFI share price? If your objective is only to speculate about theoretically possible but totally unsubstantiated misdemeanors, then you have already achieved this ad nauseam, and having performed this "public service", unless there is overwhelming demand from other readers of this thread, I do not see any benefit from your continuing participation on this thread. If other readers want you to continue, please will they post to that effect. I will then stop following this thread and start a new one for those who want a thread based on reality, rather than outlandish fiction. Markt, if you do not get support from other readers, please stop posting here.
markt: NAV performance of LFI under the leadership of the Marshalls mentioned above. 1990- LFI NAV= 33p. total divi 0.75p 1991- LFI NAV = 21p, total divi 0.75p 1992- NAV= 20p, total divi 0.4p 1993- NAV= 37p, total divi 0.5p 1994- NAV= 34p, total divi 0.6p 1995 1996 NAV= 46.8p divi 0.8p 1997 NAV= 44.6p divi 0.9p 1998 NAV= 47.3 divi 0.5p 1999 NAV= 36p total divi 1p 2000 NAV= 50p total divi 1.1p 2001- NAV= 54p total divi 1.2p 2002- NAV= 37p total divi 0.8p 2003- NAV= 33p total divi 0.85p 2004- NAV= 36p total divi 0.9p 2005- NAV= 44p total divi 1.0p 2006- NAV= 52p total divi 1.05p 2007- NAV= 66p total divi 1.1p 2008- NAV= 39p total divi 1.2p 2009- NAV= 21p total divi 0p. 2010- NAV= 23p total divi 0.6p (same as in 1994 !, ie. no growth) NAV in years 2000-2011 is the same or less than it was in 1990-2000 !! (the past performance is not indicative of the near term future for LFI share NAV, but it does I think put into question the investment strategy of LFI (ie. Mr David Marshall sitting on the boards of cos. where LFI invests, and his income being paid to an overseas company, one assumes tax free) since over the last 20 years it does not appear to have worked) BTW...MWB share price has imho almost zero chance of returning to the peak price of 3 pounds...noting the rescue share issue and massive dilution at around 30p/share in 2009-2010 which LFI did not subscribe to. LFI could have sold all at 3 pounds, LFI managers didn't, they blew it. Cost to shareholders ? 5 Million pounds ! Almost the current cap. value of LFI ! (= 6M) ==== BTW at this moment, with the LFI general portfolio....I would not want to be geared so much (bank debt to buy extra blue chip shares)....since FTSE is finding resistance around current price, is only 10% below the peak of year 2007..and most news from retail sector is bad, (+bale out of Portugal (European risks), USA debt, high oil price, interest rate rises could hit disposable incomes and house prices) and it could affect market sentiment over the long summer, and the bounce back from April 2009 trough is perhaps peetering out for some companies...June 2010 accounts report that 2.1M bank loan, blue chip portfolio value is/was 4.7M ...imho, a risky time to be geared long on a basket of blue chip stocks......or at least, watch very carefully ie. approx. 50% of value of blue chip stocks is paid for by borrowed money.
markt: Any opinions on the Benefit Scheme ? Did you know that 1 of the 2 main beneficiaries of the scheme is the son of D.C.Marshall ? And that if LFI/WSE share prices double in future years that the shares of the scheme will be worth 1M pounds ? (rising back towards what many shareholders already paid or paid + inflation, so little or no real gain) 1M pounds of shareholder money...past performance of LFI/WSE over last 10-15 years has been bad. Anyone not happy, like me, that the performance criteria for the shares allocated have been kept secret from shareholders ? Anyone not happy, like me, that the details for how many shares allocated to who have been kept secret from shareholders ? Anyone not happy, like me, that the fact that 1 of the 2 main beneficiaries of the scheme is the son of D.C.Marshall was kept secret from shareholders ? (if shareholders had known perhaps they would not have voted in favour or would have asked for more/some information) ===== LFI directors salaries down in 2010 from 2009, from 47.5k to 42.5k. Creates the impression that director's costs are being reduced. BUT ! the reality is very different imho At the subsidiary City Group PLC the directors salaries increased from 147k to 169k ! 15% increase !!, while inflation was around 2-3%. So public reduction is 5k pounds while non-public increase is 22k increase !! Total result is 17k increase in directors salaries of LFI and its subsidiary City Group, while give the impression to LFI shareholders that directors have reduced their income, false !. Adding the salary costs of Directors at LFI and City Group you get 169k + 42.5k= 211.5k !! This is a high cost imho as a % of the income received by City Group/LFI. Over 10 years it it is 2.1M. Over 20 years it is 4.2M. Mr Marshall has been a director of LFI since 1971. 40 years. And Mr D.C.Marshall also receives payment from each company that he sits on the board of, and this is paid I think, to an international company according to the accounts of each company, one assumes registered in a tax haven, such as Luxembourg where Monteagle Marshall is registered. Perhaps tax free. The payment from Creston is perhaps paid to City Group. 30k/year. ===== The NAV of the shares of LFI of Mr D.C.Marshall (Mr Marshall's family trusts being the biggest single shareholder) does not appear from what I can see to have performed over the longer term. The LFI NAV in 1990-1994 was 33p, 21p, 20p, 37p, 34p. 1996= 47p, 1997=45p The LFI NAV 2006-2010 was 52p, 66p, 39p, 21p, 23p NAV now, 21 years later = 26p !!. Share price now 18-21p. Share price performance looks to be....random !.and down ..imho it does not show any up trend or demonstrate investing skill from the directors whose salaries add up to 211k/year. (noting that the directors company is also responsible for providing accounting etc services to a number of listed companies that does provide income to the company (that equals the cost, 1/2M in each direction) (The payments to Mr D.C.Marshall are around 107k, paid to a certain overseas company which is never named. One assumes it is in a tax haven. If same pay for next 10 years then = 1.07M pounds !).
London Finance & Investm... share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
London Fin..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200604 18:23:52