Pcf Share Discussion Threads

[cjd190573] 08/9/2021 11:14

It is now so close to their year end, that possibly 1st October or W/c 4th October could be the next likely earliest re-list date. They will also have given the PRA a full three month window to demonstrate that they are fully compliant.

[cc2014] 07/9/2021 13:18

We know from competitors the underlying business sector is healthy so writing new business should be good.

We can also say that other banks have reversed the level of impairments intially provided for.

We also know funding costs have been low for the last year due to QE, which would have helped NIM.


However, I cannot believe that without a set of accounts, the PRA are happy to let PCF carry on trading unconstrained, regardless of what's on the PRA website. I am guessing but I would think the PRA are allowing PCF to continue to write business but within a total quantum. PCF aren't in the market for savers cash at highly competitive rates, which they would be if they were expanding.


In summary imho, turnover static, but margins good. Less whatever considerable cost is being spent on whatever issue it is they are trying to sort out.

[dandigirl] 07/9/2021 12:16

Of course it is in the interest of shareholders that this is dealt with.

But why so long? Every day means additional costs.

I just hope that the bread and butter business is doing really well given that the used car market is currently vibrant.

[rmillaree] 06/9/2021 17:51

Is there any chance the delay in sorting this out might be actually in the interests of shareholders?

Eg if the numbers were coming out poorly now (when process was started) by delaying the finalisation the current numbers at "back on track time" will be better simply due to the fact that hopefully the company is accruing profits that are dropping to retained earnings.
It really is a long shot hoping that by them being so slow in sorting that the problem will have gone away by the time the numbers have been clarified !! - it had crossed my mind.
Hopefuylly that makes sense as a question from a numpty in the technicalities of their breache(s)

[dandigirl] 06/9/2021 09:05

Ha! Me, too. I checked this a.m. more in hope than anticipation.

I comfort myself that ultimately PCF has a good business operating in a vibrant sector.

I hope that opportunities are not passing them by because others are doing well.

[graham1ty] 06/9/2021 07:25

Naively I check for RNS on a Monday morning.......it is coming up for four months.

I have nothing to add.....we are all in the dark.

I have checked ( yet again) the PRA website and their appears to be absolutely no change to the regulatory status of PCF ( at least that individuals like me can see). According to the PRA ( if, say, I was a worried depositor, wondering whether PCF was safe) there are no red flags at all.

[georgelees] 03/9/2021 14:46

I guess when a new CFO hires two sets of accountants to second guess each others work and billing by the hour it will go on and on until someone calls time on it. There is no reason it should take this long.

[cc2014] 03/9/2021 11:09

Another week goes by...

The situation is very difficult to understand. A foresnsic review does not take 9 weeeks.

[hopespr1ngseternal] 26/8/2021 15:09

Couldn’t have put it better myself! Provided that they can find a decent CEO this is unlikely to affect the company’s earnings power over the medium term which is all that really matters.

[seasidehippo] 26/8/2021 14:41

What will be acceptable IMO is when the suspension is finally lifted following completion of all remediation and forensic work and publication of the accounts. This should then provide the market with an acceptable level of assurance.

"And they all lived happily ever after"

[graham1ty] 25/8/2021 20:45

CC, the outer boundary of what is acceptable was passed some weeks ago......

[cc2014] 25/8/2021 10:23

If the accounts were signed off by the auditors, even if the rest of the remediation work was not complete they would be published.

I previously suggested getting the forensic review done in a month was going to be pushing it. As Graham notes it's now 2 months and that's plenty long enough. I'd say if we go another week it's got to the outer boundary of what's acceptable.

[graham1ty] 25/8/2021 07:11

Is not part of the issue that costs they are currently stacking up have to be assigned to the historic period. So, today’s costs for looking at pre Sept 2020 issues have to be in that year’s figures. So, we have Hare and Tortoise. They cannot Issue the final Sept 2020 accounts, until this exercise has finished. And every extra day, the 2020 profits shrink a little ( overall, a lot by now......).

So, I think, from what they said, they cannot as an interim measure just give us the 2020 accounts. Mind you, it is now two months since that sole RNS telling a bit about what this is all about. And I will never forgive the phrase “timely, transparent and comprehensive “

[hopespr1ngseternal] 24/8/2021 13:43

Agree with seasidehippo. I would be astonished if the ongoing delay was attributable to the 2020 audit. Far more likely that it has to do with the remediation work.

[seasidehippo] 24/8/2021 09:35

So you would publish accounts with forensic work ongoing? Unbelievable!!!

[cc2014] 24/8/2021 07:44

Ok,

PCF told us on 3rd March the accounts would be done by the end of March. (the last possible date without Covid to get the accounts done under AIM rules and approx 3 months later than would be normal for a company of PCF's magnitude)

PCF told us on 11th March the accounts would be done within the next 2 weeks.


I infer the accounts team is of out of its depth and the Board is too as it was not until 19th May, some 6 weeks later that it was discovered the regulatory reporting was wrong. No RNS in the intervening time, no communication, just like now.

[seasidehippo] 23/8/2021 15:54

That's putting it mildly!!

[hopespr1ngseternal] 23/8/2021 15:49

CC2014 inference is interesting speculation is a big waste of time.

[dandigirl] 23/8/2021 12:37

CC2014: Eloquently put in every respect. Have an uptick.

[cc2014] 23/8/2021 09:19

I'll speculate.

I think PCF has expanded too quickly and couldn't/didn't recruit people with the appropriate skills fast enough. Leading to gaps in finance, governance and systems.

This I expect will have been coupled with some agressive and poorly substantiated accounting transactions.

There may have been some in finance who didn't like what they saw. They tend to report upwards what they don't like but after a period of time when they aren't listened to, they resign and move a more professional company. It's easier to move than stay part of something that isn't working properly.

If so we're likely to see some horrible impacts on the accounts, but these will all be non-cash impacts with no fraud. Just a whole load of stuff which pushed the boundaries, which was all fine until the auditors started asking too many questions and then of course the auditors were required to ask more and more questions.


Going forward the underlying business model is unchanged, but we are left with a damaged balance sheet and a whole lump in on-going costs to get staff and systems to where they should be.


I find it impossible to guess how bad things are. The length of time it's taking suggests to me things are in a really really big mess. Particuarly the systems side of it.

I mean how long should it take? Basically you need two things. A copy of the trial balance and a list of all accruals over some de-minimis limit. Then you start going through the blance sheet making sure the accruals are correct. Biggest accruals first.

[graham1ty] 23/8/2021 07:48

Three months now to investigate, change, get house in order......

Actually, the audit will have started in about January, and the first restatement was 11 March, so actually coming up to six months. If this is all at the insistence of the new CFO ( “you do this my way, or I go”) she has been in post since 19 March.

They have given no indication of catastrophe, however, after this length of time, I am not inclined to rely on anything they have said. Oh dear

[dandigirl] 19/8/2021 21:10

hopespr1ngseternal: Nowhere have I written that I am of the view that what is going on as a dagger to the heart. On the contrary, I have indicated that this is a good business. I am making the simple point that every day spent on this is costing - no matter how it is accounted for. Surely, we can all agree on that?

CC2014; Thank you. A good sign, I think, that funds are needed to do business.

[cc2014] 19/8/2021 16:52

PCF treasury function have finally woken up and realised their previous savings rates weren't competitive.

They are in the market now at:
1 year 1.0%
18 month 1.0%
2 year 1.43%
3 year 1.52%

[hopespr1ngseternal] 19/8/2021 14:18

Dandi: of course it’s serious and margins will be impaired by new hires and improved systems. But it is unwarranted at this point to view what is going on as a dagger to the heart of the company. Communication from the company is poor but unless you tell me that while shares are suspended the company has no obligation to report significant developments to shareholders I shall assume that there are no such developments and that the June RNS holds good. After all the new FD EY and PWC have been looking at this for months now. Still we can but wait and see. GLTA

[dandigirl] 18/8/2021 23:19

hopespr1ngseternal: Your 3266. Are you serious? I can’t believe what I’m reading! So that’s all right then. Give me strength.