Lupus Capital Share Discussion Threads

[sir brainy] 26/1/2010 09:52

Worse still - looks as if they'd happily sell off oil services to reduce debt and turn LUP into some kind of lumbering clumsy low-margin building materials manufacturer.

[jeffian] 26/1/2010 09:49

Clutching at straws. It's over. We need to get behind the new management and move on or sell up if we don't like it. The only remaining query in my mind is strategy - we have implicitly changed from the GH model of 'private equity-style' trading of businesses for profit to a static building materials group (as evidenced by the background of Eperjesi and the two NED's) with a small oil-services tail so we bought into a buccaneering trader and we now appear to be in something in the TPK/WOS/SIG mould (one NED is even Non-Executive Chairman of SIG plc!).

[a0148009] 26/1/2010 09:41

I reckon the success fees reported 14 Jan RNS could be in addition ie. £240k and £120k plus VAT to go on top.

Well that is "fantastic" GDP up 0.1% Q4. Big cheer boys the recession is over!!!!
Takes at least two consecutive quarters to announce a recession but only one positive 0.1% to say it's all over!

AO

[sir brainy] 26/1/2010 09:20

You can't always trust the pre-mtg assurances particularly now the exhoritant cost of the stand-ins has been revealed.

[a0148009] 26/1/2010 09:18

Statement looks a bit ambiguous re remuneration does this cover success fees paid in January. VAT will also be a significant figure. I am sure GH will suss this out. Clearly no chance of reinstatement for GH with proxies.

Would like to know more about Eperjesi looks a bit of a rolling stone - was he head hunted from Kingspan or on his way out anyway.

AO

[sir brainy] 25/1/2010 18:21

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Felton-Smith have been paid a daily
rate of GBP2,750 per full day and GBP1,750 per full day respectively. In respect
of the year ended 31 December 2009, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Felton-Smith charged,
through their service companies, GBP321,750 and GBP180,250 respectively for
their work as Directors.

[jeffian] 25/1/2010 15:09

AB,

Re your final paragraph, I haven't decided which way to go until I see the response of the Board and, particularly, the level of irrevocable undertakings of support (if any), but although I supported GH last time, I fear the (short term) consequences of him succeeding second time around. In the event of shareholders voting for GH as CEO, surely the position of the Board becomes untenable and they will have to resign en masse? They have been through a selection procedure and appointed a new CEO and have also rejected GH's specific request to be considered, so if GH goes over their heads and overturns all that, they'll have to go. Of course, GH could build a new team around him in time but in the short term there would be a vacuum and the market hates that. I suppose it is a question of whether short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, but I've rather enjoyed the recovery in the share price and don't look forward to it reverting to where it was when GH was last at the helm!

[randolph and mortimer] 25/1/2010 11:57

In the gregegm previous post:

'plus no doubt, fees to investigate an attempted unnecessary rights issue.'
That means there was an attempt, just like the one the banks wanted at 10p which he stopped.

[randolph and mortimer] 25/1/2010 09:04

Just noticed that another rights was attempted by the bank. It is the insties' interests to vote this man on to see £2 a share again. Today's statement makes no such noises. Bloody banks make me so cross.

[randolph and mortimer] 25/1/2010 08:53

Good summary Itsnobigdeal.

I don't think someone as talented as GH would take to bulletin boards.

Sir Brainy,

You are a funny man! Keep 'em coming.

Looks like the cable switch was made basis $1.61 ish, the mean av for Dec. Wasn't a good price in view that the dollar has to strengthen this year.

Greg needs just a nine per cent swing.

[sir brainy] 25/1/2010 07:08

Great timing. Surely the right time to change dollar debt into £ debt is when $ is cheap vs £, not vice versa? Dopes.

Never trust company directors who can't spell check their RNSs - what's all this 'focussed' and 'benefitted' etc - they are not intelligent enough to be directors, eh Randolph & Mortimer?

[smicker] 24/1/2010 19:10

Have to say i'm beginning to admire the man. I cant remember too many of the bank ceo's offering to work for nothing. Likewise committing 9m of his personal funds to the business says he is serious that he can deliver shareholder value. I just hope for everyones sake that his enthusiasm is soon channelled in a positive way, i've made a smart comment here recently that his interventions have had a positive share price effect but i'd prefer price appreciation reflecting operational improvement

[tuning peg] 24/1/2010 17:15

what's the significance of the 90p share price target?? Presume that's greg's average book cost? What then, does he sell up and move on?

[topvest] 24/1/2010 13:35

All getting rather sad. It's not going to happen Gregg. Take your money off the table and start again somewhere else.

[jeffian] 24/1/2010 00:39

Itsnobigdeal,
I'm struggling to follow the rationale of that post.
Para 1: Other than making a pest of themselves by calling expensive and probably futile EGM's whenever they want, what are the "rights" of 10%+ shareholders which may have "disastrous" consequences for the rest of us and why would such a shareholder seek to damage his own investment? If it is GH you are specifically referring to, how does this relate to the several shareholders with larger holdings than him?
Para 2: "bankers and other controllers sought to drive the share price down to 10p". How on earth can you justify that statement?
Para 3: My understanding of the information circulated prior to the last EGM was that GH was neither "dismissed" nor "asked to resign" but resigned of his own volition because he was not prepared to have any bank appointees on his team. It could have been pride; it could have been a bluff which was called; either way, had he stayed and fought his corner he would not have been out in the cold trying to claw his way back in. His refusal to countenance working with short-term bank appointees also begs the question of whether he could possibly work with Pike and the new NED's.
Para 4: What "reasons" have been given here or elsewhere that would be grounds for "no confidence" in Mr Eperjesi?

[itsnobigdeal] 18/1/2010 02:37

I do not think that anyone is giving adequate consideration to the rights of 10% and or 25% shareholders in a listed public company. These rights enable them to veto very important powers which the directors would otherwise have, and the directors/institutions are taking a reckless and disastrous course by ignoring or seeking to minimise the position of 10% and or 25% shareholders. When this happens don't blame Greg for the likely disastrous outcome.

As for those who tell us all manner of calumnies blaming others because in their investments they have put all their eggs in one highly speculative basket, they patently deserve what happened to them. Greg did his duty by the shareholders which include prominently the duty to protect and enhance the interests of shareholders when bankers and other controllers sought to drive the share price down to 10p and then keep it there to try to justify a mammoth dilution/rights issue/liquidation.

It is blatantly unjust to have asked Greg to resign (or to have dismissed him) because he alone stood up for the rights of the ordinary shareholders. Companies in the long run do not benefit from what amount to unfair ruthless and vicious dismissals and misconduct of this nature. No doubt when nemesis catches up with our Company, the banks and institutions who brought this situation about will attempt to smear Greg on this score too.

As for Mr Eperjesi I have no confidence in him at all for the reasons that others have already given on these bulletin boards above.

[topvest] 15/1/2010 20:00

Looking at my book cost, I'm down 50% with dividends reinvested. If this keeps going we might get back into profit!

[strangeman] 15/1/2010 19:00

It's been suggested before.

Shouldn't we just be happy that Greg's making a noise and keeping up awareness of Lupus, which seems to be half the battle in stimulating a company's share price these days ?

[sir brainy] 15/1/2010 18:35

I'm not sure I was accusing anybody - more an innocent question lol

[tuning peg] 15/1/2010 17:53

Sir Brainy - interesting accusation that R&M is actually GH masquerading as a poster on this BB - surely he wouldn't stoop so low? However R&M's recent postings do seem unhealthily positive towards GH's tenure ...