We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lupus Capital | LUP | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 176.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 176.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 11/1/2013 17:51 by jeffian Tipped as a 'buy' in Investors Chronicle. |
Posted at 08/4/2011 13:51 by jeffian Not that it means much, but rated a 'buy' in current Investors Chronicle. |
Posted at 18/1/2011 11:43 by cockneyrebel Looking rather good today - I read that TW. trading update this am AndrewByles and wondered if punters were back focusing on LUP after reading it.I think many investors are too gloomy on construction - yep, I'm not expecting construction or suppliers to the sector to be having a party but the shares seem to be factoring in far worse than reality for many co's connected with the sector imo. CR |
Posted at 23/12/2010 20:57 by smicker In contrast to others experiences here, i am in from 16p and this share is now my second largest holding and greatest percentage winner in 13+ years investing. The fact remains though, that this was due to actions taken by the previous management team. The new team are impressive but have blotted their copybook for me with the incentive scheme which, in fairness, does not make them unique.My reason for holding on is that the previous management team (GH) still holds a reasonable amount and i would expect him to have sold up by now unless he intended to make another attempt to take control of the company. From what i have read about him and his actions to date, he does not seem to have the profile of a passive investor. |
Posted at 16/11/2010 17:38 by zooter11 Well the big operators seem to like the company.I wonder what % of shares are tied up with G.H and the big investors. |
Posted at 14/10/2010 23:28 by smicker Surprised to find no comment on the SL increase RNS. Its nice to have an investor with such big pockets increase their holding to counter balance the possibility of GH reducing. |
Posted at 08/9/2010 11:31 by jeffian Pretty good results as expected but I'm still slightly disappointed they are being so mysterious about the divi. I'm sure that many PI's (and other investors) from the Hutchings era were specifically attracted to the stock by the generous and progressive divi and are looking for its reinstatement asap. It's all very well saying "the Board is committed to the resumption of dividend payments...." but what does this mean? ".....once permitted by the Group's banking arrangements, and when it believes it is prudent to do so, taking into account the Group's earnings, cash flow and balance sheet position." It would hardly be commercially sensitive to let us know the hurdles that have been set so we can make a judgement for ourselves as to when/if payments might be restored. |
Posted at 08/2/2010 21:35 by newbold120 You may well be right - there are no perfect institutions - and there could be queues of people backing up to back Greg. However- institutional investors of any kind don't like backing troublesome/colourfu - Greg buying LSS at the top of the market with debt was a serious error of judgement - Despite his energy and ability to keep fit, some might wonder whether his best days are behind him..... Don't kid yourself - the building products businesses are above average assets, but not stellar. They are not must have but arguably cheap vs their through the cycle potential and valuation |
Posted at 02/2/2010 15:08 by newbold120 A personal view....The banks would have behaved even worse if Greg had stayed and shareholders would have probably been forced into a highly dilutive rights issue. Greg needs to face it that he possibly made the right acquisition at completely the wrong time, with too much leverage and destroyed millions of pounds of shareholder value. You can decide yourself whether Greg's judgement has been proven to be flawed by looking at the share price and the P&L. Many other companies geared up, overpaid buying the wrong things at the wrong time (sometimes the right things at the wrong time) and their Chairman/CEOs have largely "resigned" too and kept a low profile. How many of them are trying to get themselves reappointed through an EGM? None. Most are just too embarrassed and want to move on and achieve something else. Not Greg. Building Tomkins was a different matter - 1) he never used gearing 2) had the cyclical wind on his back for 9 years. It was a bit like a pyramid business - run too hard (starved of capex and R&D), with all the manufacturing in the developed world, when he would never take a long term view, restructure and move manufacturing to lower cost areas. This is still a major achilles heal of the business. TOMK was always going to fall over at some stage given its main auto customers pretty much all went bust. It galls me that he offers to "work for free" until the share price reaches 90p. How about 1) paying back what he has earned to date destroying shareholder value 2) being unpaid until the share price reaches 180p, the level at which he raised millions of pounds from private investors and institutions for the acquisition of LSS? Attacking the major shareholders is a completely suicidal mission. Even if he were to get back in, which institution is going to want to own shares in a business run by a guy who openly despises and criticises the owners of >80% of the stock market (Lupus' existing and majority potential owners). Most blue chip institutions could never justify to their clients investing in a such a company. Lupus would become a pariah company, shares would be trashed, banks would become unwilling partners again, and Greg would probably try and buy it all on the cheap with a US PE house. He just needs to move on. Given the number of shares he has purchased, he is probably one of the only investors to be in the black. If he wants control back, let him try and raise the money and buy the business at 180p. Only which institutions would back him given his public performance and criticism of fund managers? And Boards/leading shareholders do anything but sell to former CEOs/Chairman. |
Posted at 26/10/2009 10:55 by a0148009 Page 22 today's FT - Aviva voting against GH."David Lis, head of UK equities at Aviva Investors, which increased its stake in Lupus to 15.2% last week,said he would not back Mr Hutchings. Given the breakdown in the working relationship between Lupus Capital and its major lenders under previous leadership, change has been, and is, from our point of view, an absolute necessity," Straight forward and frank, institutions have been pressured by the banks, there is another word for it but it could be libelous. AO |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
