Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[horridharry] 09/12/2011 08:02

How can it be paying for goods upfront when it has trade creditors of £3.8m?

[jeffian] 08/12/2011 17:07

Ah, bb misunderstandings, eh?! Without an "I" in front of it, it read more like a command than a statement!

Me? I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions from the veiled comments of an anonymous avatar on a free bb. As I've said before, if you've got something to say, say it. If you don't want to say it in a public domain, davidosh has offered to collect and collate evidence for shareholders to put to the Board. And if you have been served with a legal gagging order, best to say nothing at all!

[timesmoney] 08/12/2011 15:44

It was my assumption not yours!
In the absence of any response from CA what would you assume?

[jeffian] 08/12/2011 13:27

I "assume" nothing.

[timesmoney] 08/12/2011 12:54

Assume CA is an ex employee caught in a confidentiality
clause or subject to a previous gagging
agreement and has recieved a heavy
lawyers letter.

[jeffian] 08/12/2011 12:24

Well? What happened, CA?

[jeffian] 07/12/2011 18:40

In what way? I don't see any posts being removed. Or have you received a visit from 'the boys'?

[curvedair] 07/12/2011 18:02

Looks as though I've rattled one too many cages so this is the last post I will be making. Good luck to those that continue the fight!

[tommyjnewton] 05/12/2011 08:28

The problem appears to me is that the rogues see themselves as likely to get away with all manner of nonsense pretty much scot-free. The upside for them is the possibility of completely asset-stripping a company for themselves. Cash can be removed by purchasing worthless rubbish and stock can be sold to related parties for two shillings and threepence-halfpenny. You pay off anybody obstructive on the board or elsewhere to turn a blind eye.
I am sure these people weighed the odds and decided that it was a good game for them. Can anybody see them being chased to return stripped assets? A high profile case where crooks suffer a police investigation, get arrested, humiliated and punished and made to pay back stolen assets is required.
My SIPP has had a hard time thanks to crooks and bent companies.

[davidosh] 03/12/2011 22:06

Timesmoney...I think you are spot on there. The reputation of the markets is getting badly damaged and there have been high profile cases over the last three years as the downturn really shows up where the bad guys are hiding rather than everything continuing to float along unnoticed with City backing and little questioning at every placing and fundraising. Then the money dries up...

There needs to be better regulation and strict rules on who selects the non execs, how many are needed and remuneration should not be set by a cosy remcom that can even award itself massive bonuses too. ShareSoc has put forward many recommendations.

I am keen to hear from anyone posting here who thinks they can seriously help shareholders past and present to understand what caused the true demise of a £30m market cap company and lead to it becoming worth little more than 750k today.

I know of at least two private shareholders who are considering legal action over the events that lead to their losses. It may be that some of you hold vital information and we already know that the largest shareholder has commenced legal action. Anyone interested in co-ordinating the investigation on behalf of private investors ? Shareholders have been hammered here so there is little to lose if nothing is getting salvaged from the wreckage. How many are keen to step forward ?

Incidentally anyone wishing to email me can do so via this posting on TMF...



Simply hit the post reply button then put your comments to me in the box BUT uncheck the 'reply to the board' option and tick the 'email me' option

[timesmoney] 03/12/2011 19:19

Look at charts all you like they will not help one bit when management who hold or control major stakes go rogue. You can't shift em. Where else could management survive such total incompetence or skulduggery?
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
One day the powers will understand that companies like MBL destroy the reputation of the junior markets and light regulation will always attract the thieves and blaggards.
Easily resolved with genuine independent non execs elected by the SE.in the case of micro caps say min of 2. If the non execs are unhappy they resign, a company without non execs is suspended, followed by an investigation by the SE..

[kimboy2] 03/12/2011 16:26

I think we will find the double counting was on the balance sheet.

[bam bam rubble] 03/12/2011 16:09

The large revenue figures also look dubious I would not be surprised if there was some double counting going on there

[cockneyrebel] 03/12/2011 15:59

I think your reply is probably typical of 90% of the punters who got caught up here.

The related party transactions looked a big alarm bell imo. They had the cash to pay the divi but chose to pay it after the following year's interims - just strange at best.

To think buying GMV start up for £2m or whatever it was and expect that to be some sudden change of business model that they would be doing well at when other first movers had more experience and beaten them to it is just laughable imo.

One little search on the directors and their cullinary exploits would have been enough to prevent me buying.

CR

[kimboy2] 03/12/2011 14:18

It was a known that DVDs and the rest were basically in run down. However MBL were making good cash and were going to invest in new businesses which leveraged the infrastructure and knowledge they had.

A dividend shouldn't have been paid till they had a long term sustainable income IMV.

The problem has been a) they lost the cash cow and b) they wasted whatever cash they did have on duff investments. I expected a blueprint business model to be something like The Hut.

To me b) wasn't really self evident till after a) had happened.

The related party transactions, which were declared belatedly perhaps, I had a look into and didn't think that there was much in them.

IMV the management, in terms of the Allan family, should have been aligned with the shareholders as they owned 40% or so of the company. The really big money would have been made making a success of MBL rather than thinking up little schemes for extracting cash.

That is not to say they didn't of course. Perhaps the bonus was an early indicator of this except they wouldn't exactly have been alone in sheer greed.

As for charts well i think people who watch charts are only watching other people with charts. Do they make money doing it ?

Well given that the market as a whole is down in the last 10 years I am fairly sceptical about anyone's claims.

[cockneyrebel] 03/12/2011 13:37

Where do you begin to explain when these went bad?

I owned them as Air Music and Media. I never knew as much about investing then as I know now. The warnings then were 'no divi', constant let downs and tight margins. When these became MUBL and had knew management they were still going to struggle from those weak margins for two reasons - one is that CD's and DVD's are constantly being competed with by downloads. Second is that they are a distributor and when things get tough, distributors get squeezed. Producers want more for their product and retailers want to pay less.

But even if you ignored the pressure a co like this had to come under in a recession there were no end of alerts that said get out imo. First the chart rolling over. Another was the constant banging on about the cash they by some punters but they paid no divi. Eventually when a final divi was paid it came after the interim results were announced for the next year. I've never seen that before, I was told it was to do with peak cash flow but to me the sensible way would have been to pay an interim divi and a smaller final divi or no final divi. It just smelt.

If an investor had done greater due dil they would have seen the 'related party transactions' and checked them out. They would have put me off but I might have taken a bit longer to see those as often I buy stuff on news then do further digging if I think the shares are likely to rise before I have the time to go through the co. But I do miss things like that too to be fair. If I'd held a lot of these I'd certainly have done a lot of digging.

Then there was the buy of GMV - a complete departure and took the business model (that most was so happy with) in a totally different direction. Then there was the other stuff about when does the Morrison contract end and the variou other rumours. Then there was the pay PG takes for what seems like doing very little....I could go on and on but won't. The lack of news and keeping investors informed was another clue.

What I'd say is, watch the charts imo. As much as charts are mumbo jumbo to many they are an homogenisation of the knowledge that is in the market and greater than the knowledge of a single investor or two. While shares may often fall for no reason, especially in a bear market, when a chart defies what looks like a co constantly telling a good story it might be a warning imo. When you get a chart that is falling and when there's a few iffy noises going on and you look at things like the strange divi timing or the sudden buy of GMV as a departure then to me I'd have alarm bells ringing. I'd sooner sell something at a loss if I'm concerned. I might throw some decent stocks away too early doing that but you stay much safer imo.

If you lose 50% of your money in a share you then need to make 100% on that money to earn it back. Avoiding losses is far more important than making gains imo.

Having said all that, I still pick up some dogs. I still buy some risky stuff. The important thing is to know it's risky and be prepared to sell at a loss if the chart or other issues make you suspicious imo. Far better to take a modest or even moderate loss and get out than keep holding or averaging down as that just msakes you even more entwined and complelled to hold. Move on, make the loss up in something heading the right way and faster imo.


CR

[kimboy2] 03/12/2011 12:18

I am really interested in the period before they lost MRW. There has been, and still is, a lot of smoke and not many facts.

Clearly the bonus was an issue but not illegal. Then there was U-xplore. I had gone along with that because I thought it was an investment into U-x rather than a payment to the directors, and in particular his neighbour.

Then there was the warehouse and the further connections with his neighbour.

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to these issues but I believed that MRW was a virtual certainty, franked by the proposed MBO, and would float all these boats.

When did the facts actually change, other than MRW, which made this a certain failure.

[microscope] 03/12/2011 11:57

Sadly kimboy it is surely a place of where to start for CR answering that!

2 million into an imho near start up valuing it at 13 million, a strategy review on the back of an erm, strategy review, loss of Morrisons contract, multiple profit warnings, and most of that while the share price was many multiples of what it is now.

Anyone still holding now, while they genuinely have my absolute sympathy, after that little lot, and so, so much else, needs to ask themselves a few questions imho!

[jonc] 03/12/2011 11:38

Crikey there have been multiple facts that have signposted the disaster that was ahead.

[kimboy2] 03/12/2011 11:37

CR
What salient facts changed and when which made you negative on MUBL.

[cockneyrebel] 03/12/2011 11:01

Ta Kimboy2 - even more relevent then.

CR

[tommyjnewton] 03/12/2011 11:01

Would the Serious Fraud Office investigate a company like this? I warned about the smell from this company some time back on these boards.

[kimboy2] 02/12/2011 19:55

It was Keynes;

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?