We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| 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
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 7.25 | 90,946 | 08:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.00 | 7.50 | 7.25 | 7.25 | 7.25 | |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oil & Gas Field Machy, Equip | 12.72M | 2.93M | 0.0170 | 4.26 | 12.52M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13:50:41 | O | 80,946 | 7.3975 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/4/2025 | 12:15 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Result of General Meeting |
| 31/3/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Directors’ Subscription and Loan Note Conversion |
| 28/3/2025 | 12:06 | ALNC |  EARNINGS: Parkmead progressing Serica deal; Good Energy profit up |
| 28/3/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Interim Results |
| 24/3/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Investor Presentation via IMC |
| 21/3/2025 | 17:19 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Results of Retail Offer |
| 19/3/2025 | 16:30 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Retail Offer |
| 19/3/2025 | 14:36 | ALNC | *Plexus may raise up to GBP500,000 more via retail offer |
| 19/3/2025 | 14:30 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Result of Placing and Posting of Circular & NOM |
| 19/3/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Plexus Holdings Plc Proposed Placing, Subscription and Retail Offer |
Plexus (POS) Share Charts1 Year Plexus Chart |
|
1 Month Plexus Chart |
Intraday Plexus Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14/6/2025 | 23:10 | What can be, unburdened by what has been | 5,890 |
| 25/5/2025 | 19:32 | Plexus Holdings 2022 - Wellhead Systems for Oil and Gas Engineering | 1,919 |
| 13/2/2025 | 13:47 | POS - Teh plan | 10,015 |
| 11/1/2025 | 16:25 | Plexus POS (with Charts) - A green play on Oil and Gas ?! | 87 |
| 04/8/2024 | 10:21 | The juvenile jumped up no mark thread part 2 | 4 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 14/6/2025 09:20 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 7.25p.Plexus currently has 172,691,366 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Plexus is £12,520,124. Plexus has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of 4.26. This morning POS shares opened at 7.25p |
Posted at 14/6/2025 13:59 by avatar333 Just in case:AVATAR333 - 13 Feb 2025 - 14:39:14 - 1337 of 5883 What can be, unburdened by what has been - POS On the subject of food: I've been meaning to post a (not very amusing, I'm afraid) ditty for jeffian concerning his 'blockage' at the end of December: jeffian had barely completed his wassail; but he ended up resorting to a diet of Prunes and Ale. |
Posted at 05/6/2025 11:48 by avatar333 Good morning, jeffian.AVATAR333 - 05 Jun 2025 - 09:25:08 - 5519 of 5535 What can be, unburdened by what has been - POS Good morn ye merry gentlemen. AVATAR333 - 04 Jun 2025 - 14:10:44 - 5504 of 5535 What can be, unburdened by what has been - POS Good aftermorn ye merry gentlemen. AVATAR333 - 03 Jun 2025 - 14:10:22 - 5447 of 5535 What can be, unburdened by what has been - POS Good aftermorn ye merry gentlemen. AVATAR333 - 02 Jun 2025 - 09:31:51 - 5396 of 5535 What can be, unburdened by what has been - POS Good morn ye merry gentlemen. |
Posted at 23/4/2025 14:50 by barry evans In March 2025, some of the most expensive EV charging networks in the UK include BP Pulse, Instavolt, and Shell Recharge, with prices reaching 85p per kWh or higher. Rapid charging networks like Osprey, MFG EV Energy, and Gridserve also have high prices, ranging from 79p to 85p per kWh. While some networks like Tesla offer lower rates, generally around 63p per kWh for non-Tesla owners, other networks like GeniePoint have the highest network-wide price at 88p per kWh.Here's a more detailed breakdown: Most Expensive Networks (generally 85p/kWh or higher): BP Pulse: This network often has high prices, especially for those without a subscription. Instavolt: Instavolt is known for its high charging speeds but also its higher prices, with costs per kWh reaching 85p. Shell Recharge: Shell Recharge, particularly its Ultra-Rapid 175kW chargers, can be among the most expensive, with prices reaching 93p/kWh. Other High-Priced Networks (around 79p - 85p/kWh): Osprey: Osprey's ultra-rapid chargers are known for their speed, but also for their price, with costs per kWh reaching 79p. MFG EV Energy: Similar to Osprey, MFG EV Energy's ultra-rapid chargers can be pricey, with costs per kWh reaching 79p. Gridserve: Gridserve's high-power chargers are also on the higher end of the spectrum, with costs per kWh around 79p. Cheaper Alternatives: Tesla: While Tesla Superchargers are generally more affordable for Tesla owners, non-Tesla owners pay a higher rate, around 63p per kWh. Fastned: Fastned offers ultra-rapid charging at competitive prices, typically around 69p per kWh. GeniePoint: While GeniePoint has the highest network-wide price at 88p/kWh, individual charge points within the network may offer better deals, and the network also includes free charging at some locations. |
Posted at 03/4/2025 20:44 by disc0dave46 Just had a quick look at the latest AR, particularly the BoD remuneration.BVD picked up £881k, with £555,675 for his BS loss of office payment.So looking at how much BVD took up as part of the fund raise, he bought £1,505,999 shares, but also had £650k worth of discounted shares as part of his accrued interest on the convertible loan notes.Being a cynic and not having too much trust in the BoD and particularly BVD, one could say he's not exactly backed up the lorry to partake in the fund raise, yes he didn't have to invest anything but he's had quite a lot from the business over the years, as have his family. Not to mention the share options that are yet to be handed out.IMO a better barometer of the future prospects are shown by how much the CEO and CFO bought in the fund raise (c £30k each), yet the CEO picked up £159.5k in FY24 (now BVD may have had first dibs on how many shares he was going to buy in the fund raise), but even so, c 19% of his pay, IMO doesn't inspire too confidence that the share price will hit 22p.I may be taking 2+2 and coming up with 5, but can't shake that I don't trust the BoD and in particular BVD. Wish I did have Paul's confidence and good luck to him, but unless the wellhead kit rental contracts come pouring in then don't see their income being anywhere near the £9.4m forecast, even if they do a PE of 36x for a punt is excessive to say the least. |
Posted at 29/3/2025 12:15 by disc0dave46 Hadn't thought of that!So if I've got this correctly, the Van Bilderbeeks via Plexus Property International Ltd (PPL) have 49% stake in KMS who have now I assume been handed the £3m order to produce all these new well head kits funded by shareholders of POS. Folks should check out the directors of PPL!.So Ben and Stas participation in the placing (guess £800k-£1m) possibly via third party entity (was that PPL?) could be viewed as an investment into their 49% in KMS, as well as POS, with the rest of the c£3m coming principally from shareholders here!.Talk about looking after number one, a win win for Ben and his family IMO. |
Posted at 27/3/2025 06:39 by carcosa Agreed the stuttering and constant umms and rrr’s was indeed a distraction. Hopefully he presents to customers a little more confidently when it is face to face. However if you can get past that the messaging seemed to be:Expansion of the Licensing Model: Plexus aims to reduce dependency on direct manufacturing by licensing its high-margin intellectual property (IP) to third parties. By securing more licensing deals, Plexus can scale its business without significant capital investment, improving margins and long-term profitability. Positioning for the Energy Transition: Plexus is focusing on the natural gas sector. The company is actively developing solutions that support lower-carbon extraction methods, aligning with stricter environmental regulations. By positioning itself within this transition, Plexus can tap into growing market demand while maintaining a stronghold in traditional oil and gas applications. Strategic Partnerships & Market Expansion: The company is targeting operators who prioritize safety, environmental performance, and advanced engineering solutions, differentiating itself from conventional wellhead manufacturers. These partnerships enable Plexus to access new markets and geographies, further diversifying its revenue streams. Investor Outlook: For investors, Plexus represents a long-term value opportunity backed by its patented technology, licensing potential, and strategic market positioning. While the energy sector remains cyclical, the company’s shift towards a less capital-intensive, high-margin business model is designed to drive sustainable growth. Revenue & Profitability Outlook: The transition to a licensing-driven model should lead to more stable and predictable earnings, reducing exposure to the fluctuations of traditional equipment sales. The long-term monetization of IP through licensing agreements is expected to create steady cash flow. Summary: The reality is that it is going to take two years or more to realise the expected revenue and profitability targets. The recent brokers note breaks down the expectations very well. Given that time horizon I would not be surprised to see the share price fall significantly on occasions, reflecting the shifts in short term investors thinking i.e. boredom. |
Posted at 21/3/2025 14:18 by monte1 Possibly - although if the current share price is around 0.066% of yer estimated price after some 15 plus years, there is a faint possibility that there may be more to it - no? |
Posted at 20/3/2025 11:42 by rmillaree personally i dont think Paul ever "talks his book" when posting official commentary (for reward) to me there is a difference between being positive on a share and thinking its value and "talking ones book" I would agree the difference may be subtle - but being open and transparent ref risks is one thing people "talking ones book" tend not to dofor example when paul first posted on stocky in Nov 23 he clearly laid out the bear point risks - many of which have come to play to spoil the party here. Those "talking their own book" dont normally offer the warts and all comments that Paul normally does when he is supplying his paid for content. per paul when he commented on stocky in nov 23 BEAR CASE - Needs more funding, hence going concern material uncertainty - dilution unknown. Has 10x share price rise overshot? (or was starting price of 2p just ludicrously low?!) Will £8m special project contract win this year be a one-off? General uncertainty over execution & to what extent they can commercialise the tech? with regard to bb's well each to their own in that regard more teh fool anyone who is sheep to whatever anyone else says |
Posted at 19/3/2025 07:49 by paulypilot Good morning! I can't tell you how relieved I am that funding sorted out. Had a zoom with mgt last night, and the relaunch of the rental side of the business is very exciting. Strong demand, they're turning away business. Products greatly improved during the lock-out period (now ended), giving POS competitive advantage.Revised Cavendish note showing b/even next year FY 6/2026 is based on expanding rental fleet, with rapid payback, based on validated sales pipeline, not just hope! They can't say anything about the £9m special project, but client confidentiality ends in July 2025, when they'll be shouting from the rooftops about what a stunning project this was, which enabled a large client to make massive cost savings. I think this is a turning point, and I accept (sadly) some dilution, but far from a disaster. The open offer is a decent size, as they want to look after the private investor following. I think share price now underpinned at a lowly 6.5p anyway, so more upside than downside from here on, IMO. DYOR as usual obviously;. Regards, Paul. |
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. |
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
