One Media Ip Share Discussion Threads

[briangeeee] 08/3/2013 12:52

So, are you saying you'd like to see OMIP trade on SEAQ, rather that SETSmm or SETSqx? Personally I can't see a good reason for any company to trade on SEAQ.

[microscope] 08/3/2013 12:29

If the company is good enough, it will flourish - even on AIM! plenty multibaggers over the years. using a stick to put all companies in one boat, is, frankly, (finds polite word) pointless. I think this one is most certainly good enough.

[capt bligh] 08/3/2013 12:27

On the minus side... many smallish companies in SETS and big ones too, are ruthlessly hammered by clever bot systems that chew up good news and suck all momentum unless it is overwhelming. A decent broker given guidelines can usually get inside the spread.

[briangeeee] 08/3/2013 11:33

Paul Scott made a comment this morning about AIM, all of which I pretty much agree with. http://www.stockopedia.co.uk/content/small-cap-report-8-mar-ind-aga-cup-sco-aty-71438/ "I see that my namesake, Scotty (LON:SCO) is the latest micro cap to announce its intention to de-List from AIM, although it will remain Listed in Austria. It is interesting to read the reasons they give as to why AIM has not worked for them, and these include: Difficulty in equity fund-raising Lack of liquidity in the shares Volatile share price (due to lack of liquidity) Significant costs to remain listed on AIM No need for a dual listing given the company's small size. It seems to me that the first four points in that list are generic problems with AIM, and are caused by the archaic system of having market makers maintaining quotes for a tiny quantity of shares in AIM companies, at a ludicrously wide bid/offer spread. This just deters anyone from buying or selling the shares, unless they are desperate. Nobody benefits from this system overall. It shuts down the market in smaller company shares, so although the market makers might make a fat profit on the bid/offer spread when someone occasionally trades, most of the time the shares are just dormant with hardly any transactions. As I keep mentioning, the solution is simple and obvious - the market needs to move from a quote-driven, to an order-driven electronic order book. This SETSmm approach already exists, and works brilliantly for larger company shares. You can either get your broker to buy directly from a market maker, or if you want, you can get your broker to place an order directly on the order book at the price you would like to buy or sell at. Even better is if sophisticated investors can have direct market access (DMA) and place our own orders on the order book, by-passing market makers altogether. AIM will continue to flounder until the authorities grasp this nettle, and fix things. I'd like to see a highly liquid, electronic market, instead of the stagnant, old-fashioned system we have now, which seems designed to ensure investors are fleeced by a whole load of unnecessary middle-men. Many small cap shares would come alive if they were moved to the SETSmm order-driven system. Then more companies would list in London, the whole thing would spring into activity. Sure, there would be some vested interests who would need to find some other form of gainful employment, but they are slowly killing the small caps market at the moment, so will end up out of a job eventually anyway. Bold thinking is needed, but there seems little sign of that from the LSE, from what I can gather."

[microscope] 27/2/2013 17:50

Instead of the market makers being 4.3-4.8 and 4.6 to 5.1 as per last night,looks as though we finally have 'agreement' with them on 4.75 to 5.25. Wider spread but illusory in a sense. Nice gain today.

[harrogate] 26/2/2013 08:57

See someone paid 5p for a good lot yesterday. Certainly seems the overhang has gone

[capt bligh] 25/2/2013 21:59

Nope ...these warrants actually lapsed and were not replaced... They were those of an original investor who had a notifiable holding at one point , but who has lost interest

[briangeeee] 25/2/2013 21:46

They were issued with new warrants with significantly extended expiry dates. Allowing some to expire seems to have been payment for the extension of the others.

[capt bligh] 25/2/2013 20:50

Yes I know that quite a large tranche of pre ofex options lapsed despite being well in the money... Strange.

[briangeeee] 25/2/2013 16:28

GHF, yes, I was just writing a note to him. I'm pretty sure the lapsed warrants have been taken into account. That's why the total diluted shares have dropped from 2011 to 2012. There were also 1.25m new warrants issued in mid Sept 2012, and the difference between the 2011 and 2012 figures is 1.25m, so that all seems right.

[glasshalfull] 25/2/2013 16:24

Too busy to provide detailed response...but I believe 2.5million warrants lapsed Brian. I'm sure I detailed it on this or previous thread. Some exerciseable prior to the Sept date. Why don't you clarify with MI? Best, GHF

[harrogate] 25/2/2013 16:19

Do we know if any of the warrants not exercised have actually lapsed and therofore not included in the year end calculation? I agree though we should be able to calculate this

[briangeeee] 24/2/2013 01:27

The biggest problem I have with the accounts is that I don't understand the key EPS number and Note 7. To me, the fully diluted EPS looks to be 0.54p, which is 23% short of the 0.7p broker estimate. If it was calculated on the current fully diluted shares it would be 0.53p. Either the accounts are wrong, or they haven't inserted sufficient explanatory notes for me to understand. The current number of shares on a fully diluted basis is 63,978,698, which is the shares in issue plus 3.6m options plus 5.75m warrants. All are well in the money, and the only ones that won't have counted for the full year are the 1.25m issued just before the year end. Apart from this key item, the accounts seem pretty good.

[capt bligh] 22/2/2013 14:04

Very pleased with the results and MI's very positive and cogent summary of the changing marketplace. This company has not (yet) put a foot wrong. Time to update the header GHF. We should expect a new brokers note fairly soon.

[microscope] 22/2/2013 09:24

Very pleased with results at first glance. Looks about inline and we should get a rerating imho. I've said before profits don't go up in straight line, (even though some seem to expect it lol) and we made several acquisitions in the period which had to be paid for, so with cash in bank, it's hopefully all systems go for AIM and amore reasonable share price of 6-7p within a few months. A rating of about 10 for a company with so much growth to come woukld be fair at best. Would be nice to see these results get a bit of media interest, now that we've appointed some quite high profile advisers (which would be in these results too I presume) and publicity firms. Mr Market seems to be giving them an initial thumbs up.

[harrogate] 22/2/2013 08:00

As noted above the fully diluted EPS forecast was 0.7p actual was 0.62p so that is a miss for me. Even if they are inline I would have thought we should be beating numbers if we want the rating to go up. At about 7 times it looks right to me just where it is for now that is all I am saying.

[stegrego] 22/2/2013 07:51

Results look slightly ahead of forecast to me, so everything as expected. Re AIM, it has been proven several times now with DOTD, IDEA etc that a move to AIM really perks up interest and the share price. Hardly anyone bothers with PLUS or whatever it's called now, as its a pain to deal, phone only, bigger costs, hard to monitor shareprice etc etc.

[harrogate] 22/2/2013 07:34

First look I am a bit disappointed.. H2 sales flat v H1 and EPS down from H1 to H2. That might be seasonal with Xmas in H1 ( does anyone know if this is a pattern for us? ) Until we see what 2013 and 2014 look like these look high enough at the moment. Keen to hear other views on this

[capt bligh] 05/2/2013 13:54

H I have been looking at the share register over the last few months and the liquidity that allowed you to buy (and me too)in reasonable quantity is due to a significant fund holding that is now virtually depleted the share register shows virtually no sales other than from this source. In other words our move to aim is going to coincide with a situation where there are very few shares available to be bought. It should be quite mobile, but who knows we might languish like PHSC another old Ofex high flyer ( by the way now doing quite well at last)... lets hope more like DOT digi.

[harrogate] 05/2/2013 13:38

The issue we are confusing is liquidity. I have bought 600,000 + shares over the last year or two here and I see decent sized trades almost every day with OMIP. Why would a move to AIM with the same number of shares and the same holders change that. I have seen many many AIM shares where liquidity is very poor. There are no institutional buyers of micro cap shares on AIM so all it will do is increase the demand by a few individuals who donlt like ISDX.

[microscope] 05/2/2013 11:57

You miss the point Brian in my view. The illiquidity of ISDX means that fair value is much harder to achieve. For what it's worth, a growth company that's profitable with cash in the bank, and something many forget (often conveniently) when saying others on a pe of 6,9,12 whatever, No Debt, my current fair value falls pretty much in the middle of the 2.5p to 12p range, ie i think we would be about 7p on a more liquid market. However I am a realist, so i understand that on ISDX that valuation is unlikely to be achieved because there are not enough people even aware the company exists, who might well be buyers, and therefore 5-6p in the meantime would make some sort of sense. 4.3p on the metrics we have and as Capt Bligh rightly points out, Zulu "compliant", as the company is, leaves plenty upside. When you look at loss making oil stocks on AIM that have never produced a drop, it puts into perspective how difficult fair valuations are to assess.