ADVFN Logo ADVFN

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

PCF Pcf Group Plc

0.95
0.00 (0.00%)
21 Jun 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Pcf Group Plc LSE:PCF London Ordinary Share GB0004189378 ORD 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 0.95 0.60 1.30 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Pcf Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4701 to 4724 of 5625 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  189  188  187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
10/11/2021
02:50
Deal highlight posted on linked-in Tuesday 1m+ bridging loan. The patient still has a pulse.
hopespr1ngseternal
09/11/2021
16:56
CC: apologies for the errors in my post. It appears to be a tale of two cities. Following a hedging debacle Manchester suffered a capital shortfall and the Board in consultation with the PRA responded by putting the balance sheet into run-off. Hence no new business. West Brom got into difficulty during the Great Recession (having a Spanish mortgage book didn’t help) but has been able to reduce its balance sheet successfully and is now trading profitably. Of course West Brom is not listed. Mea culpa. I was looking at a price chart of its PIBS. In the case of PCF we know that things were relatively normal at the end of June but the company stopped taking deposits at about the time it announced the impairment charge of 6m and the sale of defaulted receivables. We all wait now to see what impact this will have on regulatory capital although writing off defaulted unsecured loans is presumably not the same as a cash loss . Stressful times indeed but at least there is an imminent deadline for the removal of uncertainty.
hopespr1ngseternal
09/11/2021
16:49
CC - Thank you.

Writing as a shareholder, I find your posts very interesting and helpful.

I would say the same about everyone posting on here.

Cheers, TM

the millipede
09/11/2021
15:44
On reflection I'm once again going to try and refrain from posting on this Board until the outcome of the 6 month deadline on suspension arrives.

I appreciate it must be a distressing time for some and any negative post may not be welcome.

I sincerely hope things are drawn to a conclusion soon and that the damage to the share price is minimal or none. I've had plenty of bad losses over the years, I know what it's like and somehow I suspect this being dragged out so long is worse than waking up to find that your favourite share has gapped down overnight.

Good luck.

cc2014
09/11/2021
15:33
Rmillaree. No, I'm not really happy. I agree I've mixed up the companies in the Group but I'm still unhappy that the FD wasn't a director of the subsidiary. It doesn't fit comfortably with me and suggests poor governance.

Hopespringseternal. I'm not in agreement with your last post. I'm not sure how you can see MBS trading as normal when they haven't written a new loan in years. Nor can I see how it was not the PRA that stopped the payments when MBS's pillar 3 shows they had excess capital over buffers but failed the PRA qualitative tests.
WBS doesn't have shares btw, it's a building society owned by the members.

cc2014
09/11/2021
14:03
CC: the suspension of interest by Manchester and West Bromwich on their PIBS (permanent interest bearing securities) was in accordance with the the terms of issue. In the case of Manchester the capital shortfall that led to te suspension by the BS was eliminated when they won their negligence case against Grant Thornton - hence the resumption of interest payments. Both societies are trading normally and the West Brom share price has had a very good year. Relevance to PCF shareholders: negligible IMHO.
hopespr1ngseternal
09/11/2021
14:03
CC: the suspension of interest by Manchester and West Bromwich on their PIBS (permanent interest bearing securities) was in accordance with the terms of issue. Nothing to do with the Regulator. In the case of Manchester the capital shortfall that led to the suspension by the BS was eliminated when they won substantial damages in their negligence case against Grant Thornton - hence the resumption of interest payments. Both societies appear to be trading normally and the West Brom share price has had a very good year. Relevance to PCF shareholders: negligible IMHO.
hopespr1ngseternal
09/11/2021
12:55
CC2014 ref the query you originally raised ref recent appointment dates are you happy now that everything was in order and it was you getting your companies mixed up ?
(see my post3530)

rmillaree
09/11/2021
12:08
#3525 CC: May I politely suggest that it is inconceivable that the company would have announced Caroline Richardson’s appointment to the Board without her prior express consent. Is it possible that you are talking the company down because you hope to buy in cheaply after the suspension is lifted? For someone who has clearly stated that he will not invest in the company you seem very focused on small details.

I said I'd reply to this.

The reason I'm so interested in PCF is twofold.

Firstly the stock market has been very generous to me over the years. I do alot of research and seem to have some knack for it. However, more recently I've had some really bad investments, more than can be explained by a run of bad luck. I therefore have to challenge myself as to whether my investment process still works or I have changed something. PCF is one I made a decent profit on but I was lucky or skilled not to buy back in as the share price got so cheap. So, I need to see how this plays out to understand whether my decision making process was correct and what I can learn.

Secondly I hold a large amount of bank regulatory capital, both directly and through funds. Some of it is fairly illiquid and further some of it is unquoted. Bank regulatory capital pays a premium because it carries risk. PCF Tier 2 capital pays around 8% for example. Of course you don't get rates like that without giving something up, so with regulatory capital if things go wrong, the bond may not pay interest or the bond may be converted to shares or indeed your capital may be lost.

For example I hold some West Bromwich regulatory capital, a building society which one might think from it's size would be financially healthy. However, West Brom got into financial trouble over a decade ago and hasn't paid any interest on some of it's regulatory capital since then. It's trading at around 60p in the pound, was lower than 20p at the worst point and will probably make it's first interest payment in over a decade next year.

I'm drifting slightly but with PCF I'm interested to see how the PRA handle the situation because I cannot think of any situation like this where a bank has failed to file accounts. We can already see that the PRA have taken no formal action yet behind the scenes I'm sure it's no coindence savings accounts were withdrawn on the last day before they were required at companies house. I'm trying to establish whether I'm running too much risk, which I'm minded to think I might be, given I enquired about 3-4 years ago about buying some PCF Tier 2 debt.


It is my view that the PCF Board in reality are no longer in control, but puppets to the PRA and that even when the accounts are filed and the governance gaps are resolved the Board will remain puppets. A look at Manchester Building Society which has passed all it's capital ratio tests for years, yet was unable to write an new business due to the PRA, shows that it's extremely difficult to escape the PRA's grasp once things go wrong.

As an aside it is my guess that part of the lack of communication is because the PRA have asked the Board not to communicate anything without the PRA having first sight of it and the PRA move slowly. PCF is a small bank and the PRA will have much bigger priorities. Best to say nothing because the PRA are trying to manage the issue away, the issue being that there's a whole load of money owed to savers and the Bank of England by PCF and who knows what's really going on because the accounts are so poor they cannot agree them with the auditors, even after 13 months. Easiest way for the PRA to deal with a bank that cannot do it's accounts is to quietly run down the exposure to retail investors deposits. A few will have over £85k invested.

So, we will see how this works out in due course. The PRA's favoured solution would be purchase and recapitalisation by a larger bank. That seems difficult given the type of loans PCF make. Maybe one for PFG who owe the PRA a favour. I would imagine Somers are the solution of last resort given they presided over this mess in the first place.

cc2014
08/11/2021
22:15
No. If you repossess and sell the security, whatever debt is left is unsecured.
123davidgwilym
08/11/2021
21:56
Was the debt not all secured ? Or so we were told. All “asset backed”
graham1ty
08/11/2021
19:01
When you sell defaulted unsecured debt you only ever get a few pence in the £. If you keep it you recover more.
However, by selling it you free up staff resources; you crystallise the situation; and you draw a line.

123davidgwilym
08/11/2021
18:58
Couldn't agree more Hydra.
Farewell.

seasidehippo
08/11/2021
18:30
Graham: thank you for this. It confirms that the company stopped taking deposits around the time of the sale of the defaulted receivables. Coincidence?
hopespr1ngseternal
08/11/2021
18:14
… but it’s the funniest.
dandigirl
08/11/2021
17:41
A glass half full post:

It has been pointed out that all Savings products have been withdrawn. I have been trying to work out when, and if there appears to be a specific date they were withdrawn ( either forcibly or not). You can see all their rate tables by clicking RATES at the bottom of the home page of their website.
So, 100 Day Notice account, withdrawn on 6 Oct 2021, just a few weeks ago
180 Day Notice, as above
12 Month Term, 30 Sept 2021
18 Month Term, 30 Sept 2021
2 Year Term, 17 Sept 2021
3 Year Term 17 Sept 2021
7 Year Term March 2021.

All,other Term lengths ( ie 4 year, 5 year), have not been offered for a long while, and certainly before the suspension.

Lesson: they were open for business right until four weeks ago, and certainly through the first five months of the suspension. That does not mean that theirs was the best rate, and therefore might not have attracted many deposits, but there is also evidence that they tweaked rates higher pretty recently ( the 18 Month Term rose on 18 August from 0.76% to 1.01% until 30 September).

A pulse ?

graham1ty
08/11/2021
17:38
Shame on you, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
seasidehippo
08/11/2021
17:15
hopes: Totally agree. What good does it do? Hopefully it makes you feel a bit better, it gladdens my heart that somebody else is writing in such terms to the Chairman and CEO and it lets Franklinstein know that he is continuing to fail to exercise oversight for all.

By the way that "straws in the wind" bit was too cryptic for me. Is it a panto?

hippo: who says it's only a few more days? Did any of us predict that we would still be here, waiting impatiently five and half months on?

Let it be highlighted that so far the Board has failed to submit accounts on time to both Companies House and to their regulators. Do they really care about the LSE suspension deadline? And if they do, might it be extended exceptionally? Hope I am wrong. Sorry to be a damper.

dandigirl
08/11/2021
16:49
Seaside: so was I! But like every generalisation it is open to exceptions. Being serious, there is a degree of consensus that communication with minority shareholders has been very poor and I believe that shareholders are entitled to express legitimate frustration. I suspect that the problem lies with the company’s advisors. Whether it does any good or not for shareholders to express frustration is beside the point though I hope it may prompt the company to consider whether they have been well served by their advisors when this is over.
hopespr1ngseternal
08/11/2021
16:36
I was told to never answer a question with a question.
Good luck in receiving a reply.
My cup is still half full.

seasidehippo
08/11/2021
16:15
Seaside: what harm will it do? Seems a better use of my time than much of the speculation posted here.
hopespr1ngseternal
08/11/2021
15:27
And what good will that do?
seasidehippo
08/11/2021
14:59
FWIW I have just sent the following email to Stran with copy to Franklin. It is a follow up to an email I sent Stran Last week.

"With the deadline for delisting fast approaching you might at least have the courtesy to specify publicly a date for the publication of the 2020 accounts and 2021 interims.

Despite the pretty words I really believe that you are treating the minority shareholders with contempt.

I would not normally write to you in these terms but I and other minority shareholders are beyond angry at the lack of consideration being shown to us."

hopespr1ngseternal
08/11/2021
14:08
Very sensible IMO to utilise all the available time to ensure all t's crossed and i's dotted etc. What does a few more days matter when we have been waiting for so long?
seasidehippo
Chat Pages: Latest  189  188  187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock