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 charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

PCF Pcf Group Plc

0.95
0.00 (0.00%)
14 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 4776 to 4800 of 5625 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  201  200  199  198  197  196  195  194  193  192  191  190  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
25/11/2021
16:32
Why do you think delisting is high on Somers objectives when they must have been keen to list as a Bank in the first instance? This would represent a significant U turn
seasidehippo
25/11/2021
12:21
The advantages of not being listed are:
1. Less scrutiny. So, for example only annual accounts and only required after 9 months.
2. Some savings due to a smaller Board of Directors


I imagine delisting would now be high on Somers objectives. If so shares will relist first and then Somers will make a desirory offer for your shares, because they know most investors would rather have some cash now rather than be a holder in an unlisted company.

cc2014
25/11/2021
11:34
I think that is right Seaside. Although there would be RNS notification of the shares being delisted, so they must have that covid extension.

Thanks for your continued input on this stock. It has been very helpful in calming the nerves.

the millipede
25/11/2021
10:27
I guess without listed status there is no obligation to publish RNSs for such things as changes in Directors etc?
seasidehippo
21/11/2021
15:05
Good posts!
iain123
21/11/2021
11:55
It takes a good man to apologise but this was not at all necessary. I look forward to sharing constructive chat with you in the future. I agree the RNS could and should have been worded better. Onwards and hopefully upwards enjoy the rest of your weekend.
seasidehippo
20/11/2021
18:15
Final post by me on Thursday's RNS. After first reading I jumped to the conclusion that the inclusion of 'suitability to be a listed company' in 'the assessment' meant that the Board has begun considering whether it is suitable for PCF to remain a listed company - as a first step towards taking the company private. It has now been suggested to me by someone better versed in these matters that this probably - one cannot be certain given the imprecise drafting of this and other RNSs - refers to the point at which the NOMAD and/or AIM will declare themselves satisfied that PCF has done sufficient remedial work to its financial and governance controls etc. to be deemed once again 'suitable to be a listed company' (a status which it appears to have lost temporarily - hence the suspension); and only then will the suspension be lifted: see generally AIM rules for NOMADs #14 under the heading 'Appropriateness of AIM Company'. I apologise to the venerable SeasideHippo who called this correctly in his post no 3623. By way of amends may I say that my cup too is now half full. And while I am unpersuaded by much of CC2014's post 3620 (which applears to proceed on our shared assumption that delisting would occur automatically yesterday) I do agree with the following statement: 'This Board are experts at the lack of information by omission'. Cf. AIM rule 10 (principles of disclosure) which states "An AIM company must take reasonable care to ensure that any information it notifies is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information". I would only add that whoever is responsible for drafting the RNS is by any standards a very poor draftsman - which is why we poor mugs have to spend so much time teasing out the meaning of what they do say! For example ‘managing loan originations at a lower year on year level’. Which years? Presumably y/e Sept 22 is lower than y/e Sept 2021 - which is not meaningful as we do not know the level of originations for y/e Sept 2021. And ‘taking account of the position of the group’. Meaningless because the position of the group has not been disclosed to us. A bit like the famous proposition that the whisky bottle in the cupboard is empty when there is no whisky bottle - sense without reference. Broad hints in place of the proper information we are entitled to under AIM disclosure rules, and by any measure a far cry from the ‘transparent and comprehensive’ updates promised on 28th June.
hopespr1ngseternal
20/11/2021
08:47
Hopes, Many thanks for digging out that nugget! Great news.
the millipede
19/11/2021
07:03
Yesterday’s RNS introduces for the first time ‘suitability as a listed company’ (whatever that means) as a component of the ‘assessment217; to be completed before the suspension is lifted. The absolute commitment to lift the suspension as soon as the assessment is complete has also been replaced by a mere apology for the fact that trading is suspended. Once again the company has shown itself unable or unwilling to give minority shareholders clear and unambiguous information - in contravention of AIM disclosure rules. Some consolation that nothing adverse can be expected to happen before the next AGM which has to take place by the end of March 2022. Perhaps we’ll hear the fat lady sing after all!
hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
21:43
Seaside: readily available??? A lot of bright people on this board and we have all been labouring under the delusion that six months was a hard deadline.Hmmm.
hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
21:22
Ah!! clearly this was not mentioned in the RNS as this is information readily available in the public domain and probably also to wind you up. Hopefully you and your mates will adopt a more positive stance in the future.
seasidehippo
18/11/2021
19:46
The missing piece of the jigsaw. Under temporary rules introduced during the coronavirus pandemic AIM has discretion to extend the deadline for delisting shares suspended during a period which includes May 2020 from six to twelve months. AIM must have exercised its discretion in the company’s favour. It would be interesting to know when the company received notice of the extension. Presumably the failure to mention this in the RNS is an application of the policy of saying as little as possible in the interest of maximum obscurity.
hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
18:46
I think, based on what the company has said today, that "shares remain suspended pending completion of the assessment," delisting is not going to happen tomorrow.

My fear all along has been that delisting would happen. The AIM rules say it should happen tomorrow.

But for me the RNS is clear enough that something must be happening in the background to prevent it, at least for now.

That is my view anyway. We might know more tomorrow.

the millipede
18/11/2021
18:35
As I have said before the apparent policy of the company towards minority shareholders is to say nothing until compelled to by a deadline and then to say as little as possible. If they are now looking at taking the company private this is absolutely radical and surely requires a separate paragraph stating unequivocally that the company has abandoned its prior unequivocally stated policy of relisting as soon as the process is complete and explaining WHY. Instead it is slipped in weasel-like almost as though it is an unimportant afterthought to the agenda that the company set out in June and has not retracted.
hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
18:20
Offer price? My concern has been that PCF might delist tomorrow and become private by default.

In those circumstances we would all potentially be left with our shares but have no means to trade them.

I can’t see any offer being made, to be honest, but perhaps I am too negative on that.

the millipede
18/11/2021
17:26
For me the control environment etc etc are inextricably linked to whether or not the company is suitable for listed status non should be taken in issolation. IMO the wording of the paragraph could and should have been clearer. Unfortunately we wont know for sure until early in the New year. What do you think the offer price could be if the company is taken private?
seasidehippo
18/11/2021
16:53
Seaside, I don’t have to be right, and may well not be. Clearly as a shareholder I would rather be positive.

But I am trying to understand the words that have been written and communicated to us. If there is a different way to look at things I am very open to hearing what that is.

Cheers, TM

the millipede
18/11/2021
16:26
I concur with seasidehippo's interpretation 1-1
seasidehippo
18/11/2021
15:57
I concur with Millipede's interpretation.

It's extraordinarily late in the process to reveal such a fundamental agenda item.

crackerboy
18/11/2021
15:18
In the June update it was clearly spelt out under the heading ‘Annual Report and accounts and lifting of the trading suspension’ that when the PCF Group and its NOMAD are satisfied with the outcome of this work they will seek for the suspension to be lifted……the PCF Group is working tirelessly towards lifting the trading suspension as soon as possible’. Was this untrue when uttered. Or did it become untrue and if so when? Why are we only being told this for the first time. Time to
lawyer up - we are being mugged

hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
15:18
Do you think you may have taken this out of context? What could they possibly gain by leading us up the garden path??
seasidehippo
18/11/2021
15:17
In the June update it was clearly spelt out under the heading ‘Annual Report and accounts and lifting of the trading suspension’ that when the PCF Group and its NOMAD are satisfied with the outcome of this work they will seek for the suspension to be lifted……the PCF Group is working tirelessly towards lifting the trading suspension as soon as possible’. Was this untrue when uttered. Or did it become untrue and if so when? Why are we only being told this for the first time. Time to
lawyer up; we are being mugged.

hopespr1ngseternal
18/11/2021
14:40
Seaside, Till today, the review has been described in terms of “financial controls and reporting processes.” The RNS of 28 June listed other items (under Remediation Plan) but went on to state “When the PCF Group and its NOMAD, are satisfied with the outcome of this work, they will seek for the share trading suspension to be lifted.”

Everything they have written before today has strongly implied or stated that their plan has been 1/ Conduct a review into what went wrong 2/ Release all delayed results 3/ Shares resume trading.

This is the first time the company has indicated this might not be the plan, since unbeknownst to us all, the scope of their review included a hitherto unmentioned item: “The assessment of the Group’s….. suitability to be a listed company.”

Separate review/ or part of the same review? I don’t think it matters to be honest. We are being led up the garden path.

the millipede
18/11/2021
14:13
You are right to draw attention to the RNS being inconsistent with a delisting tomorrow. It makes no sense to me. As far as I'm aware and I might learn something new tomorrow under the AIM rules there is nothing to discuss or negotiate or plead for leanience. The rules as far as I'm aware having read them is that the shares will be delisted and AIM have no discretion.

Almost as if the Board do not understand this, or are trying in the background with AIM to stop it happenning but have no assurance from AIM, or maybe AIM are trying to help them out but no assurance has been received.

However, they must be aware delisting is on the cards, as if delisted they can't issue an RNS. Today is the last day they can issue an RNS, so they've left it to the last possible day, to um inform us they have been considering whether being listed is appropriate.


The Board aren't imho working for all shareholders. The non-execs are working for Somers, will have been picked by Somers and that's why none of them have resigned. They are all in this mess together and covering each others backs. I may be right or wrong on this, but I'm more surprised that the PRA haven't forced some new non-execs on PCF. Or, maybe the PRA aren't that bothered. The bank is small and PCF have enough capital that depositors funds are almost certainly protected unless the economy starts falling apart.

cc2014
18/11/2021
14:09
What separate review???? Please read the whole sentence. "The assessment of the Group's financial control framework, reporting processes, governance structures and its suitability to be a listed company (the "Assessment" is nearing completion.
seasidehippo
Chat Pages: Latest  201  200  199  198  197  196  195  194  193  192  191  190  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock