We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plexus Holdings Plc | LSE:POS | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B0MDF233 | ORD 1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.125 | 1.20% | 10.50 | 39,667 | 16:35:05 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.25 | 10.50 | 10.375 | 10.375 | 10.375 | |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oil & Gas Field Machy, Equip | 1.49M | -4.02M | -0.0381 | -2.72 | 10.93M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:35:05 | UT | 250 | 10.50 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2024 | 14:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Result of AGM |
| 09/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc AGM Statement |
| 15/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Posting of Report & Accounts & Notice of AGM |
| 14/11/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Middle East Exploration Well Order |
| 22/10/2024 | 12:43 | ALNC |  Plexus swings to annual profit amid increased contract momentum |
| 22/10/2024 | 06:05 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Loan Agreements Update |
| 22/10/2024 | 06:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Final Results |
| 19/9/2024 | 15:27 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Holding(s) in Company |
| 01/7/2024 | 06:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Succession Board Changes |
| 18/3/2024 | 13:58 | ALNC | Plexus boosts revenue and swings to profit in "critical" first half |
Plexus (POS) Share Charts1 Year Plexus Chart |
|
1 Month Plexus Chart |
Intraday Plexus Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13/12/2024 | 22:13 | POS - Teh plan | 9,409 |
| 12/12/2024 | 09:47 | Plexus POS (with Charts) - A green play on Oil and Gas ?! | 86 |
| 09/12/2024 | 18:30 | Plexus Holdings 2022 - Wellhead Systems for Oil and Gas Engineering | 1,774 |
| 04/8/2024 | 09:21 | The juvenile jumped up no mark thread part 2 | 4 |
| 31/5/2024 | 08:33 | The Oxford Anthology of Roman Literature by Knox, Peter E | 10,016 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16:35:05 | 10.50 | 250 | 26.25 | UT |
| 13:27:52 | 10.25 | 87 | 8.92 | O |
| 10:06:55 | 10.37 | 30,320 | 3,144.94 | O |
| 08:25:39 | 10.50 | 9,000 | 945.00 | O |
| 08:01:09 | 10.50 | 10 | 1.05 | O |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 13/12/2024 08:20 by Plexus Daily Update Plexus Holdings Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Field Machy, Equip sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker POS. The last closing price for Plexus was 10.38p.Plexus currently has 105,386,239 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Plexus is £10,928,553. Plexus has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -2.72. This morning POS shares opened at 10.38p |
Posted at 23/11/2024 10:42 by michaelg1 Any avatars use ChatGPT? I must say I am mightily impressed with it (having sat through some uses of it at teh away days last week).[...] I reckon this is going to help me with some of my graft - I asked it a tricky question I am being asked to peer review on and it came out with a pretty amazing response: Removing a shareholder expense subsidy from a with-profits business can have significant implications in terms of regulatory notification and requirements. Here are the key considerations: 1. Impact on Policyholders and Fair Treatment Policyholder Interests: With-profits policies are designed to share the financial performance of the business between policyholders and shareholders. If the shareholder expense subsidy is removed, it could result in a reduction of the benefits that are shared with policyholders, as the business may need to increase charges or reduce payouts to make up for the loss of subsidy. Regulators will be concerned about whether policyholders are treated fairly. Fairness and Transparency: Regulators (such as the Prudential Regulation Authority in the UK or equivalent bodies in other jurisdictions) will want to ensure that any change to the cost-sharing arrangements is transparent and does not disadvantage policyholders unfairly. You would typically need to demonstrate that the removal of the subsidy is in the best interests of policyholders, or at least does not harm them. 2. Regulatory Notification Requirements Notification to Regulators: Depending on the jurisdiction, removing a shareholder expense subsidy could be seen as a material change in the nature of the business or the way in which the costs are allocated. This might trigger a requirement to notify the regulators. In the UK, for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) would be involved in such a decision if it affects policyholders or the solvency position of the company. Changes in Financial Position: If the change affects the financial position of the business (e.g., increasing the costs to policyholders or the capital required to maintain solvency), the company would need to report these changes in its regular supervisory reports (e.g., Solvency II reports in Europe, or equivalent). Actuarial Certification: In many jurisdictions, removing a subsidy could require an actuarial certification that the changes are in line with regulatory expectations, especially regarding the fair treatment of policyholders. The company's actuary may need to assess whether the change could affect the financial outlook of the with-profits fund. 3. Changes to the With-Profits Fund Structure Fund Management: With-profits funds are often structured with a balancing mechanism between shareholders and policyholders. Removing the subsidy could alter the fund's overall cost structure and affect the balance of returns between policyholders and shareholders. Regulators will want to understand how the fund will continue to operate with these changes and whether policyholder interests are still adequately protected. Governance and Oversight: Changes that impact the fairness or structure of the with-profits fund may also require changes to the governance arrangements. The with-profits committee (if applicable) may need to be consulted, and the regulators may require an updated report on the committee’s views. 4. Impact on Capital Requirements Solvency and Capital Adequacy: If the removal of the subsidy impacts the financial stability of the with-profits fund, this could affect the company's solvency position and may need to be disclosed. The change could alter the capital required to ensure the business remains solvent, and regulatory capital requirements may need to be recalculated and communicated. 5. Policyholder Communications Information to Policyholders: While this is not strictly a regulatory notification requirement, regulators will expect the company to properly inform policyholders about any changes that might affect their policies, including the removal of a shareholder expense subsidy. The company may be required to provide clear communication about how the change will impact policyholders, especially if it affects the benefits they receive or the charges they incur. Notification of Material Changes: If the removal of the subsidy is deemed a material change to the terms of the policy or the nature of the with-profits business, regulators may require the company to formally notify policyholders and seek their consent, depending on the specifics of the change and the jurisdiction. 6. Potential for Review or Consultation Regulatory Scrutiny: Given the potential impact on policyholders, regulators may want to review the decision or conduct a consultation. This is particularly relevant if the removal of the subsidy leads to significant changes in policyholder benefits or charges. Approval Process: Depending on the magnitude of the change, regulators might require a formal approval process before the changes can be implemented. This could involve submitting a detailed report on the rationale behind the decision, its impact on policyholders, and any mitigation measures. Conclusion Removing a shareholder expense subsidy from a with-profits business could have significant implications for both policyholders and the regulatory landscape. It is important to carefully consider the fairness of the change, the potential financial impact, and the regulatory requirements for notifying and consulting with relevant authorities. Proper documentation, transparency, and communication with both regulators and policyholders are crucial in ensuring compliance and maintaining trust. |
Posted at 18/11/2024 23:46 by disc0dave46 I simply stated that prior to the interims it was Green, now it's Amber / Red. In a matter of months. Not disputing the reasoning other than it's a massive drop through Amber/Green, then Amber to Amber / Red. Particularly as its previously issued going concern and cash issues to start with....thus IMO it should never have been Green. But hey Paul can assign whatever he believes is appropriate, doesn't mean folks have to agree.Don't recall there being any correlation with the ratings based on the self serving actions or effectiveness of the BoD (zero mention of management - which is of concern to me with regards to POS).Can keep dancing around this issue but it's a personal decision not dependent on what anyone says or does. Have also posted previously that I'd prefer to see this move on fundamentals not because of what someone says on a podcast or on here. |
Posted at 18/11/2024 17:29 by disc0dave46 I've posted up facts from the Stocko small cap reports. It's not idle speculation at all. Paul had POS as "Green" even before their their March interims and it's now "Amber / Red". When "Green" it had previously also issued material uncertainty when I'm assuming Paul had a smaller position (will correct that if not accurate), so no difference to now even with holding 3.2%.My overall point is it should never been "Green" the risks were still very much in view following fund raises and material uncertainties, the significant down grade by Paul was overdue and as I posted, IMO its Red all day long. A pure punt / gamble nothing more. No offence to Paul but I'mnot swayed by his bias to put my hard earned in here and that's my choice, as is anybodys that does buy. I took on board Paul's optimism but not buying it predominantly due to the BoD's actions. |
Posted at 18/11/2024 12:15 by vikeshm1 Agree with Disco, PS is being played by POS which needs a price rise before the raise.Also you do wonder if Ps had never got involved the price would never have gone to 25p and back again, and i wonder if right now it would probably be around 7p-8pwhich maybe about its right value? |
Posted at 14/11/2024 07:34 by bloomberg2 Not expecting share price to do much at the open !! |
Posted at 16/10/2024 10:44 by barry evans Good morning AVATAR333 and el.Report a post Poster: elpirata Thread Title: POS - Teh plan Post Excerpt: good latemorn avatars Please fill in the form below to submit a review of the post. Reason for reporting: Off-topic Comments(optional) (No HTML and 500 Character Limit): |
Posted at 03/10/2024 11:44 by disc0dave46 Paul is as honest as the day is long IMO and is not a P&D merchant (unlike some I could mention!).Yes the share price spikes following any positive mention by Paul but that's a reflection on how much respect he has and is of no fault of his, it's just life.How many of us talk positively to our mates down the pub about a stock we hold and think will generate some decent profit for us - it's no different to the two Paul's having a similar chat. They just reach a wider audience and potentially do influence folks behaviour more than us mere mortals. |
Posted at 03/10/2024 09:11 by paulypilot Well it's a good job I'm not a social media influencer then, isn't it.I'm an independent analyst, covering (at the latest count) over 640 UK listed companies, giving an independent view on them all on Stocko. We don't get paid by any companies, we get paid from subscriptions, hence our views being independent. We disclose if we have personal holdings in everything we write about. Once a quarter Paul Hill asks me to present our best ideas from the latest news, which is what I do (Again disclosing if I hold any positions personally). I do not trade any positions after the broadcasts. Nor do I buy beforehand, intending to sell afterwards, it's just not what I do. Brokers that publish research are not independent, because they usually charge the companies fees, so that is completely different. I don't charge any fees to companies, and my opinions cannot be bought, by anyone. Hope that clarifies. You really should find out the facts, before posting hostile garbage like the above. PS. People who followed my 2024 share ideas are currently up 28% YTD. |
Posted at 03/10/2024 08:48 by paulypilot Of course I'm not going to sell into any "effect" from the podcast with Paul Hill. That would be deplorable, and it's just not what I do. We just enjoy chatting about interesting shares, only a few of which I hold personally. There is no hidden agenda. If you invent an alternative agenda, then that just says more about how your mind works, than mine!My POS position is long-term, and the largest it has ever been. Obviously I would have to tell you (via an RNS) if I sold any significant amounts, as I'm just over 3%. I know people like to think they sound clever when making up posts about other holders, but it's actually just annoying & inaccurate reading some of the above. Focus on the company, not gossiping about other people maybe? News now long overdue, every day I look for a fresh RNS from Plexus, telling us how our company is getting on, and it's a daily disappointment to hear nothing. When will they put us out of our misery?! I can't stop people trading in & out, we can all do whatever we want with our own money. In the long run this will all be background noise anyway, as it's the commercial success or failure of the company which will determine whether we make decent money or not. Paul. |
Posted at 08/5/2024 10:28 by paulypilot No, Paul Scott is not selling his position!This is a long-term holding for me, and the short term share price doesn't really matter. I tend to buy the dips, and top slice into big rises, which works very well. Only for a small portion of my overall holding, as >90% is a long-term position. Although 13p is the level where I've previously had a rummage around for loose change to top up, so it's tempting to take out clumsy sellers when this happens. I'd like more frequent updates from the company, although it's previously been criticised here when it does put out updates. Significant newsflow tends to be infrequent, so we just have to be patient I think. Cash position should be fine after the 2 large one-off deals, so we shouldn't have to worry about dilution or insolvency. Also I like that previous announcements said that the large rental deal is capable of being increased again. Price drifting down between announcements is just the reality here, as people get bored and chase other things. Then vertical moves up on good news, where you can't get any decent size. Hence why I'm happier to just let my position run, and wait to see what happens. Paul. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
