LSE company dividends information has been updated. You can find this is in the menu on any Quote page. ADVFN team.


Pci-pal Plc

0.00 (0.0%)
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Pci-pal Plc LSE:PCIP London Ordinary Share GB0009737155 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 56.50 22,466 08:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
55.00 58.00 56.50 56.50 56.50
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Business Services, Nec 11.94 -2.94 -4.50 - 37.08
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
15:10:21 O 1,769 55.48 GBX

Pci-pal (PCIP) Latest News

Pci-pal (PCIP) Discussions and Chat

Pci-pal (PCIP) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Pci-pal (PCIP) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 31/5/2023 09:10 by adamb1978

You need to look at growth rates - PCIP are growing at >30% p.a.

PCIP's figures for Jun-24 financial year are more or less in the bag given the recurring revenue model. I expect them to make around 1p EPS for the year to Jun-24 and then around 5p for the year to Jun-25.

This makes them appear expensive based on the year which starts in a months' time but they're spending money on growing in the US, Canada and Australia. If this growth were to suddenly stop for whatever reason then they could axe all the sales and marketing spend in those territories and some G&A and become very profitable very quickly. That wouldnt be in the best long-term interest of the company though so a company at their stage has to juggle the path to profitability and spend on growth.

Looking at a c.5p EPS figure for Jun-25, I'm expecting the share price to be north of 100p during calendar 2024 as the market values them off the 5p and with that growth which I mentioned.


Posted at 24/5/2023 08:09 by adamb1978
Hi Simon

Even that 3x sales multiple which FinnCap reference will be hugely conservative for PCIP in the not too distant future. FIrstly their basket will include various loss-making companies (whereas we know that PCIP will be profitable in the 6 months to Dec-23), secondly PCIP as you state is growing far faster and also arguably we should also be able to value PCIP on a PE basis in the Jun-25 year when I think EPS might get to as much as 10p.

My view is that PCIP could be at 100p once the patent issue is cleared and 200-250p within 2 years


Posted at 14/5/2023 20:19 by adamb1978
Hi Simon

Thanks for the two ChatGPT outputs. Its seems abundantly clear that the two parties have reached some form of agreement - the question is the content.

To start to guess the answer to that, worth thikning about pros/cons for each for agreeing a settlement:

- why settle now: (1) removes up to say £1m cost for the remaining case, (2) removes the [probably low %] risk of losing and the need to design around the patent and -ve impact on reputation and share price
- what would they need in the agreement: freedom to operate, likely via a license to the patents

- why settle now: (1) removes cost for the remaining case, (2) face saving (consent order content is confidential)
- what would they need in the agreement: agreement from PCIP to drop patent revocation action

I struggle to see a bad outcome for PCIP from this. Only question is whether PCIP will be paying Sycurio an annual fee for a license to the patent. If PCIP are removing say £1m remaining legal costs, they could probably justify to themselves that it might be worth spending say £100k - £200k pa. for a license to the patent. I don't see any fee being substantially more than that and they'd otherwise just go to court.

For Sycurio, taking that sort of free rather than spending say £1m themselves for the court case (assume the same remaining costs as PCIP) is probably a good deal too as its definite upside for the new management team, rather than risk blowing a pile more cash on something which they previous team started.

Does my logic make sense?


Posted at 11/5/2023 08:28 by adamb1978
Hmmm, now I'm more confused. Based on my understanding:

- the European patent has been revoked

- the two parties have filed a consent order in the UK, which based on my understand is a document which asks as court to rubber-stamp an agreement/settlement which they two sides have reached

- however, in the US, looking at the document on the above link, it requires Sycurio to provide a range of documents to PCIP. It looks like PCIP had a call with the COurt on 2 May to ask the Court to compel Sycurio to produce these things

The US document appears to me to suggest that a settlement hasn't been agreed, unless the settlement was agreed between PCIP requesting the documents on 2 May and today? And presumably there was a certain lead time up to 2 May i.e. in lining up the session with the court in the US, so perhaps it leaves a window of say 2-3 weeks for the settlement to have been agreed? I'm not sure why PCIP would have asked for these documents if they had an agreement with Sycurio

Posted at 10/5/2023 20:23 by adamb1978
Thanks Simon. A couple questions:

1) I couldnt see 'Consent ORder' anywhere on the caseboard link. Is this one?

2) Based on this, I assume that Sycurio and PCIP have reached a settlement. Agreed? Assuming so, this can only be positive for PCIP and I assume is what triggered the spike in the share price today

Posted at 21/4/2023 18:58 by simon gordon
In the cloud and through channel partners (app stores) you sell your offering. ECK still sell to on premise contact centers and had to buy a cloud company to get in deeper on the market.

The Bidstats tender could be an example of what a channel partner could face, if they can do two of the services and outsource the Open Banking and PCI DSS to one supplier then based on the current market offering PCIP is the only one who can offer the channel partner that combined service (maybe KeyIVR as well, I'm not sure).

I think it was for that reason that Teleperformance started a partnership with PCIP in 2022, before that they dealt with ECK.

I don't know the scene, just read what the company says and take an educated guess. It's like putting an abstract mental puzzle together. My intuition is that PCIP's offering is what the market wants now and in the future and they can bundle and upsell these new payment services (tools). James Barham has had this in mind for a long time and now it's coming to fruition.

I think PCIP's offering is superior to ECK's and more joined up and centred on one touch point, payments.

PCIP - 28/6/22:


Damian Milligan, Transformation and Innovation Principal Consultant, Teleperformance said, “Teleperformance has constantly evolved its services to meet the needs of our global enterprise customers over the past four decades. As mobile and ecommerce, open banking and alternative payment methods evolve, our partnership with PCI Pal will provide additional reassurance to our enterprise customers that we continue to provide the highest levels of payment card industry compliance and innovation regardless of the payment method selected by their customers.”



Bidstats - 9/3/23:

The Contracting Authorities, along with approximately 20 other councils of varying sizes, are looking to review their Financial Management & Payment Systems.

Specifically, the following areas are of interest:

-Income Management Systems

-Banking Services Merchant Services

-Call Masking & IVR systems for compliant Moto payments

-Open Banking Payments


Posted at 10/4/2023 18:09 by simon gordon
Some hard stats on UK patent court case results:

Lucretius on LSE - 10/4/23

Using information from the source of Simon Gordon’s post today on the PCIP thread on Advfn, some facts emerge about patent cases in the court of first instance in the last three years for which analysis has been done. The number of cases which goes to court is very small.

-In 2019, there were 16 cases in the court of first instance. In 10 of those the defendants, prevailed on the grounds that the patentee’s patents were invalid. In 5 cases the patentees prevailed as their patents were judged to have been infringed and valid (in the 4 of the 5 cases where validity was at issue). In the remaining case involving two patents, both patents were judged to have been infringed and one was judged valid but the other invalid (So: a score draw?).

-In 2020, there were 13 cases in the court of first instance. In 8 cases the plaintiffs prevailed as their patents were judged to have been infringed and valid. The defendants prevailed in 3 cases as the patents weren’t infringed and/or were invalid. In 2 cases, each involving 2 patents, the patents were judged to have been infringed but 1 patent in each case was judged invalid (So: score-draws, again?). The author of the 2020 analysis notes that 2020 may be unusual: “This low proportion of patents that were held to be invalid contrasts with 2019, where only 4 out of the 18 patents the validity of which was challenged survived such challenge, and also previous years where typically considerably fewer than half the patents the validity of which was challenged survived.”

-In 2021, there were 19 cases in the court of first instance. In 13 cases the defendants prevailed as the patents were either judged infringed but invalid, or not infringed but invalid, or not infringed and valid. In 4 cases the plaintiffs prevailed as infringement was either admitted and or judged to have happened and the patents judged to have been valid. There were two cases of the score-draw variety.

So: given the small number of cases that actually go to court, the odds should favour a settlement on the eve of the trial (or on the eve of the second day of the trial as in the Eckoh case) and on PCIP’s terms as: one, the odds, based on the decided cases in 2019 and 2021, favour PCIP; two, the background to this case points to its being a try-on by Sycurio; and three, PCIP management, who appear to be of high integrity, have been as consistent & transparent about the case as possible, and strongly refute infringement. PCIP won’t blink first, in my view.

Posted at 09/4/2023 08:37 by simon gordon

1. Sycurio fold pre trial.

2. PCIP buckle pre trial.

3. PCIP win trial.

4. PCIP lose trial.

5. PCIP appeal lost trial (12 month wait).

6. PCIP accept lost trial and do a deal.

Odds of PCIP winning in three jurisdictions:

A. USA 85%.

B. EU 30% patent revoked and 40% patent amended = 70% chance of some sort of success.

C. UK can't find any stats.

Posted at 14/3/2023 14:56 by simon gordon
Patent litigation cost for PCIP:

-2022: 797K
-2023: £1.9m
-2024: £1m

Total cost: £3.69m

If Sycurio go all the way they could be on the hook for £8m and their reputation trashed in the space. Quite a gamble they're taking when in the past other companies have folded, PCIP have said you want a fight, bring on it, we are serious operators.

Finncap - 14/3/23:

Some 18 months ago, rival Semafone (now Sycurio) made claims of patent infringement against PCIP in the the UK and US (made shortly after Sycurio had been acquired by Livingbridge). PCIP believes the claims were made to disrupt its momentum and gain commercial advantage, given PCIP is the fastest growing provider in the market, with the most extensive partner ecosystem and the most established cloud offering.

Posted at 03/10/2022 11:23 by simon gordon
Superb analysis from Lucretuis on the LSE board - 2/10/22:

I am a holder. This post is long (apologies) but sets out my analysis of recently published financial information about Sycurio and the chain of companies that control it.

Recent filings at Companies House indicate that Sycurio is ill-equipped financially, without an injection of funds from Livingbridge, its PE owner, to fight PCIP, let alone the unnamed party in the second patent infringement case, to the bitter end, which could be 2024 or beyond.

Even absent the patent cases, the chain of companies that controls Sycurio will need funds from 2023 onwards from Livingbridge, unless Sycurio sees markedly improved sales growth and cash generation, to help to pay off bank loans taken out to part finance the acquisition of Sycurio.

In view of this, irrespective of the legal merits of the cases, which are virtually impenetrable to outsiders, it looks like Sycurio took an ill-judged gamble by suing PCIP in September 2021. If the intention of the patent cases was “primarily to disrupt delivery of our growth plans”, as PCIP claims, and to force PCIP into an eventual settlement because of the prohibitive costs of defending the claims, then the plan is not succeeding. Despite the legal actions, PCIP is growing much faster than Sycurio: PCIP’s sales growth was 62% from July 2021 to June 2022; Sycurio’s 10.5% in 2021 (calendar year).

It would seem that Sycurio’s shareholders are much more likely that PCIP’s to have to put their hands into their pockets were the UK and US cases to be seen all the way through the courts.

The patent cases are not the only thing that looks ill-judged. According to the accounts of its acquisition vehicle, Yale Midco 3, Livingbridge paid £112.5m, costs included, for Sycurio in June 2021: a very, very toppy price at the top of the tech boom. According to its website, the Livingbridge fund which bought Sycurio, Livingbridge 7, has raised £1.25bn, of which about £90m (7% of the fund) has been lent to Yale Midco 3, via intermediate companies, to partly fund the purchase of Sycurio. No new funds were put into Sycurio as part of the deal.

Yale Midco 3 also raised a bank loan in August 2021 of £29m, to be paid off by August 2026, from Wells Fargo and Accel-KKR Credit Partners, together with a revolving credit facility of £2.25m. The bank loan and RCF are secured on Yale Midco 3’s shares in Sycurio. So: the lenders, in effect, control Sycurio and not Livingbridge 7 until the loan is paid off. At December 31st 2021, £29.2m was outstanding on the loan and £363,000 on the RCF.

While the accounts of Yale Midco 3 are not crystal clear about repayment of the loan, it appears that the loan is repayable in quarterly instalments from 2023 to 2026. Assuming equal quarterly instalments, this means annual capital repayments of about £7.3m from 2023 plus interest.

Yale Midco 3’s only source of downstream cash to repay the bank loan is cash that it can extract from Sycurio. (To the end of 2021 Yale Midco 3 had lent to Sycurio rather than extracted cash from it, having lent Sycurio about £3m to pay off its bank debts at the date of the takeover. Sycurio had cash on hand of £4.3m at the end of 2021 but some, or all, of this may be needed for its working capital requirements). How much cash is Sycurio generating for Yale Midco 3 to extract?

In the year to 31 December 2021, Sycurio generated cash available for an owner to extract of £1.3m (after adding back £562,500 of reorganisation costs recharged by Yale Midco 3. Legal fees of £460,947 were incurred on the patent cases in the year but it is not clear how much of these were paid in the year). Although Sycurio’s EBITDA was nearly £6m, £1.6m was spent on capex (tangible & intangible), £0.4m on finance lease payments, debtors increased by £2.5m and other net cash outflows were £0.2m. The resulting £1.3m is far short of the £7.3m (plus interest) that Yale Midco 3 will need from 2023 to service its debts. Even if cash generation is better in 2022 (and 2023) than in 2021—for instance there is no increase in debtors and/or EBITDA before legal fees increases—legal fees on the patent cases will be much higher. How secure is Sycurio’s EBITDA and cash generation?

To an outsider Sycurio’s EBITDA margin of 32% in 2021 looks quite high. This raises questions of how much Sycurio is investing for future growth in people, products, and technology. For instance, in 2021, the average number of operational staff was 93 (89 in 2020) but in aggregate they were paid nearly 10% less than in 2020! Compare this with PCIP whose staff numbers went up from around 70 in June 2021 to over 100 by July 2022. Will Sycurio need to invest more to compete effectively with PCIP, thereby undermining its short-term cash generation at the very time it will need to generate cash for Vale Midco 3 to be able to meet its debt obligations?

Another interesting thing is that Sycurio was preparing the legal ground for the patent infringement cases before Livingbridge bought the company in June 2021. The evidence for this is clear. According to Sycurio’s accounts in the year to 31st December 2021, £460,947 was incurred on “intellectual property legal costs” relating to the two patent cases. In the accounts of Yale Midco 1 for the year to 31st December 2021, into which the accounts of Sycurio are consolidated from 24th June 2021, the date it was acquired by Yale Midco 3, legal fees on intellectual property are disclosed as £349,169. So Sycurio had incurred over £110,000 in legal costs before Livingbridge bought the company in June 2021. Perhaps the potential legal case was dangled in front of Livingbridge by Sycurio’s previous PE owners as part of the sales process: a ready spanner to throw in the works of PCIP’s expansion plans, after the fund raising PCIP announced in April 2021.

Livingbridge’s decision in September 2021 to proceed with the cases looks like a bluff, and especially so now that the tech bubble has burst. Who would now pay more for Sycurio than the value of its bank loans outstanding? Or, looked at another way, is it worth as much as PCIP? Which company would you rather be a shareholder in? As well as losses from having mistimed its purchase, Livingbridge faces huge potential further potential downside: all Sycurio’s patents granted in the US and UK are at risk if PCIP succeeds with its counterclaims of patent invalidity (how much would it be worth then?) and Sycurio could be facing costs of £7.5m and upwards if it loses the cases.

Comments welcome from any investor in Livingbridge 7 and from others with counter-arguments.

Pci-pal share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 |

V: D: 20230602 15:01:51