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 | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plus Mkts. | PMK | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.19 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.19 | 0.19 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 05/3/2014 14:38 by harry f Agree that one Lenigas share is enough.I didn't flag it as an investment opportunity but more regarding their current legal action against MOG which is currently being heard in the high court. I've only recently picked up on the story, and bobobob5 gives good updates on the LGO board, well worth a read for anybody imo. I don't know the story in detail so apologies in advance for any unintended inaccuracies but I briefly see it like this: LGO had a JV minority interest with MOG. MOG talked it down, referring to it specifically as a liability. LGO trusted them on this view. Behind the scenes MOG had Genel lurking who apparently are much larger and wanted to take the LGO and MOG stakes. MOG then pushed LGO for a sale and managed to acquire it for 1 USD plus liabilities, LGO agreed. It appears Genel had already made their interest known but it appears MOG withheld this information from LGO so shortly after LGO sold they flipped their stake plus the rest for a much larger value, apparently which implied the LGO stake was effectively worth around 10 million USD. MOG's point of view appears to be withholding what LGO see as price sensitive information wasn't material. Clearly it is. I cannot see any reason why LGO would sell at the price they did if they had view of complete information. Now why I've flagged it is for a couple of reasons. 1) There are some obvious analogies to PMK. 2) Imo it gives some indication of the tolerance/ materiality threshold for retrospective action. In comparison to PMK the situation appears more "binary" (or less complex), occurs over a shorter timescale, and involves a smaller amount. Imo certainly food for thought. |
Posted at 23/5/2013 10:17 by harry f If it's ok with you, lets take this to the other board as it's more PLMO than PMK. |
Posted at 30/4/2013 08:30 by harry f Thanks.I'm not up to speed on LGO, not something that interests me at this stage but due to the Lenigas connection could transpire to be closer than we think at this stage. Like Rowan said in the Starvest update, the lack of available funding seems to be a problem for these minnows across the board. I did have a look at STG recently and noticed that the board there, inc Lenigas had tried to obtain shareholder approval to allot shares but then dropped the resolution. Like we saw with PMK back in mid 2011 if there isn't a very good disclosed reason for disapplying pre emption rights then shareholders I believe are entitled to say no. I had a look but couldn't find one. It's an interesting set of affairs atm. There appears to be a number of fledgling companies all with funding issues with which historical discounted placings, and the likelihood for more are undervaluing them. And then there's PLMO which has cash and I believe £20m+ worth of assets removed in irregular circumstances. I wonder. |
Posted at 09/4/2013 09:23 by harry f I'm well thanks pjw, hope you are too. Thanks for the link. It's just one of the minor things I came across and couldn't rationalise.With what I'm seeing, and how people link together I'm sceptical on that version of events posted. I think Brickles was sidelined. I'll just say the last few weeks research wise have been very fruitful for me. After looking at further detail I'm starting to wonder here about the future course of events. 1) As before I'm thinking the most likely way for this to pan out is for a govt agency to disclose it's involvement at some stage, and things progress from there. Although I still feel this is the correct route I don't think it's the optimal solution regarding restitution of funds, after all how would one value the RIE licence? The value to us or the acquirer? I think 5p a share is nailed on, above that with the lack of suitable benchmarks it all gets "fuzzy". How would it be valued? Some arbitration panel? 2) I was thinking about another argument, one an associate mentioned, I picked up on and ran with. Icap now have the RIE, but if they hadn't consider the following: The FSA didn't wish to grant a RIE to Icap, they applied for one and appear to have been rejected, but assume that as a compromise they would have been willing to allow them to have one under the following rules. a) Icap pay an annual charge to the FSA to be able to have RIE status. b) The FSA agree to have this agreement in place for 25 years subject to Icap continually adhering to the strict conditions. A long term agreement of this type is necessary due to the investment the RIE requires. Now I don't think the above would be possible but hear me out because I think it helps valuation wise. Icap now with their RIE will effectively treat it as a 25 year asset, whether it's valued as a balance sheet asset or not. a) and b) above is very much the same.... Icap have use of the RIE for 25 years. So at what maximum price if the scenario could happen would it be worthwhile for Icap to make the agreement with the FSA over a 25 year term? I don't know but will throw some figures around. All nominal values. In all cases values are in the following order: Yearly charge/ Total charge over 25 years/ Effective value per share of PMK (assuming 386 million). £500k pa/ £12.5m/ 3.2p per share £1.0m pa/ £25.0m/ 6.5p per share £1.5m pa/ £37.5m/ 9.7p per share £2.0m pa/ £50.0m/ 13.0p per share £2.5m pa/ £62.5m/ 16.2p per share £3.0m pa/ £75.0m/ 19.4p per share £3.5m pa/ £87.5m/ 22.7p per share £4.0m pa/ £100.0m/ 25.9p per share With the access to revenue streams an RIE gives a holder, of not just one stream but a number of significant others where would Icap theoretically agree to the proposal? Well I think £500k pa is a cert, as is £1m pa, above that who knows? If the holder knows that an RIE over time results in average revenues of say £10m/ £20m/ £30m pa then what price is a good deal? At what point would Icap say "Not at that price, it's too much"? It's a tricky subject to "pin down". The scenario above isn't even one which I think is possible but it starts to clarify the significant RIE value to Icap in the long term. So if option 1) above isn't a certainty how could PLMO leverage this situation? I think if Icap had/ have knocked on the door seeking resolution with PLMO outside the govt agency route then presenting them with an argument such as the above illustrating the real value to them and negotiating from there may well be the optimal solution for both sides. It eradicates the misdemeanours which have gone before, maximises shareholder returns, and allows Icap to definitely retain the RIE, but they'd have to pay for it. The alternative govt agency route would be far more prescribed and whilst it may cost less the misdemeanours are still present. And then there's the question is would restitution of funds and detailed analysis of the facts result in the FSA removing the RIE licence? effectively meaning Icap pay for something they haven't acquired. The bad press, which is already seems to be gathering momentum with LIBOR fixing (OT's post earlier) isn't good too for their reputation. If a govt agency isn't already heavily involved could the argument be presented to Icap that they need to negotiate or else we have no option to present the full facts to a govt agency? After all we need reimbursing somehow. I also get the feeling in general rather than people such as myself communicating directly with govt agencies people would prefer it if I communicated directly with PLMO. It's a tricky one to call imo, and it must be questioned if negotiation is possible. If it is then I feel Lenigas is the right man for us, a partial extract from the other board yesterday read as follows.... "Because that's what David Anthony Lenigas does. He's a fixer. An adventurer. He raises money, floats businesses, saves businesses, finds deals, makes things happen. A boardroom gorilla. He's a salesman. A promoter. Good at it, too." |
Posted at 08/4/2013 11:49 by harry f Just want to run something past you guys for your thoughts.Old PMK had a nomination committee. Back in Sep 2009 Vardey stepped down as a non exec when Amara invested. In Feb 2010 Vardey returns as chairman, I just wonder who suggested this and how this process took place? Just asking because the accounts for both 2009 and 2010 state there were no nomination committee meetings. |
Posted at 25/3/2013 18:34 by harry f Just going back to #4712, I've been pondering this off and on since pjw posted it last Wednesday.It was established that Gahan (seller) and Smith (non exec at PMK) were in partnership back in 2006 onwards at "The Ernshaw Partnership" and then pjw discovered a link going back to 1998 with "Robert Fleming International Ltd". So at the time of sale Gahan and Smith had known each other at least around 14 years. As pjw wrote in #4712: "......I wonder who the Senior Independent Director and the Company's representatives were at this meeting January 2012 Offer of Funding: "During the third week of December 2011, the Company's CEO and Senior Independent Director met with the Amara board in London. At this meeting, the Company's representatives stated that the Company was in serious need of financing and that an amount of £2 million was required. On that basis, an offer of underwritten funding was prepared for discussion and sent to the Company via our advisors Markab Capital on 3 January 2012. The term sheet was explicit in that such financing was "in conjunction with Amara Dhari Investments Limited." and who were the advisers here? "when it became apparent to the Company that the other major shareholders did not wish to participate in such fundraising and that we were the only shareholders offering financing (with a condition of management change), discussions were promptly terminated. Astonishingly, the Company paid their advisers a fee relating to these aborted discussions!" ....both extracts from the Amara open letter, the first para relates to Dec 2011/Jan 2012, the latter Summer 2011. Now who are these advisors and representatives? I've looked through the 2011 accounts and relevant items of note are: P3 (regarding the FSP): "It therefore decided to appoint additional specialist advisers and commence a Formal Sale process" Comment: The above confirms that Wyvern who were instructed to conduct the FSP are considered "advisers". Then you look at P10-P12 of the accounts designated "Board of Directors and Advisers". Here it lists the Exec and Non Exec directors, Company Secretary, Nominated Adviser and Broker, Auditor, Solicitors, Bankers, and Registrars. I think the only one out of these it could be is the NOMAD but then again don't they work on a flat fee basis? .... and if the advisors/ consultants were mentioned above was the NOMAD then wouldn't Amara just have said so in the open letter? So who were these advisors? was it Wyvern? As P3 states there were some advisers present already, did they just recruit a few more for the FSP? ...and if it was Wyvern then why weren't they listed in the 2011 accounts? If it was Wyvern on both occasions back in 2011 then I don't think it looks good at all now. Why? There's a board with fiduciary duties and it stands to sense that any advice they seek must be for the benefit of shareholders as these are the people who's interests their acting in and who pay the fees. But then there's a big issue, and like Nick Smith it concerns independence. If it was Wyvern all along then can they be viewed as independent? after all if the company finds itself in a sale situation further down the line they can also act as agents for this transaction generating substantial fees, so one could argue this is a conflict of interest, i.e they have a potential interest in a sale taking place. I don't know what the specific rules are but to me it's just intuitively correct that the "advisors" and "sellers" should be 2 unconnected companies, otherwise their potentially compromised. ...and finally if it was Wyvern all along acting in shareholders interests then why wasn't the advice "Sell in Q3 2011" or similar? We've long since established something of this type if necessary was the correct advice. |
Posted at 21/3/2013 12:21 by harry f Just been looking through the annual reports at what I feel are relevant "DX" and "Pipeline" disclosures.In the 2010 report: Page 11: "Giles Vardey (54) # Independent Non-Executive Chairman, Chairman of the Nomination Committee (from 8 February 2010) Giles has over 29 years' senior management and board experience in financial markets, investment banking and high growth companies. He is a non-executive director of Pipeline Financial Ltd, a specialist equity trading systems provider and at Collins Stewart plc, including acting as Chairman of its Remuneration Committee........... Page 5: "PLUS Derivatives Exchange (PLUS-DX) PLUS-DX is a newly formed company that is currently awaiting regulatory approval. Under the management of Clive Connors, PLUS-DX is expected to begin trading in Q2 this year, offering short to medium term interest rate hedging instruments. PLUS-DX will offer centrally cleared trading in the USD interest rate swap index series (FTSE MTIRS). As previously announced PLUS-DX has key agreements in place with the FTSE Group, the global index provider, and LCH.Clearnet Ltd, the leading independent clearing house." Page 34: "PLUS Derivatives Exchange Limited (PLUS-DX). PLUS-DX was formed in 2010 and 80% of the share capital was purchased by PLUS Markets Group plc in December 2010. PLUS-DX was dormant at 31 December 2010." In summary: 1) The link between Vardey and Pipeline Financial Ltd is shown. 2) Clive Connors is designated as the "management" of DX. 3) The 80% stake in DX is disclosed but there is no mention of who owns the other 20%. In 2011: Page 50: "PLUS Derivatives Exchange Ltd By way of background, on 2 December 2010 the Company had entered into an agreement with Pipeline Capital Inc ("Pipeline") ("Shareholders' Agreement). The Shareholders' Agreement purported to govern the operation of PLUS-DX and also dealt with the subscription by the Group and Pipeline of shares in PLUS-DX. In late 2011 the Financial Services Authority required the capitalisation of PLUS-DX as a stand alone entity with its own financial resources. On 19 December 2011 the Shareholders' Agreement with Pipeline terminated owing to PLUS-DX being unable to repay its loan from the Group company, and terminated the employment of PLUS-DX's Managing Director." Page 46: "In 2010, the gross investment in PLUS-DX was £80 and in 2011, this investment is written down to £Nil to reflect the operating loss in the subsidiary." Page 46: "Other debtors in the Company includes an intercompany loan of £2.62 million (2010 £3.36 million)owed by PLUS SX and £0.43 million (2010 - £nil) owed by PLUS-DX, in respect of which a 100% provisions have been made by the Company in the current year." In summary: 1) The shareholders agreement with Pipeline Capital Inc is clearly "2010 information" yet was included in the 2011 accounts. 2) It appears DX burned £430k in 2011. I've also had a read through all the RNS' from late 2010 to the date the accounts were published in June 2012. Now why do I feel the above is relevant? Well until the 2011 accounts were published in June 2012 shareholders had no idea of the shareholders agreement between Pipeline Capital Inc and PMK/ DX as it appears to never have been mentioned. I might have missed it somewhere but I can't find it mentioned anywhere. Why not? I think it's relevant information, should have been disclosed but question why it was only disclosed 18 months after the agreement was made. Was this intentional? Is the answer that disclosing this at an earlier date would have casted doubt over Vardey being "Independent"? I can't exactly remember all the links between the various "Pipelines" as I covered it weeks ago. But there are links there for sure such as MTIRS in historic screenshots here taken from the Pipeline Financial LLC website: This one is from October 2010 when Vardey was at PMK: At the foot of the page it states "MTIRS is a service mark owned by pipeline capital......." In summary a non executive director is appointed "independently" for their experience/knowledge 1) Is appointed to offer unbiased advice. 2) Does not have a material or pecuniary relationship with company or related persons, except sitting fees. 3) Does not have a conflict of interest. They should also not sit on the boards of directly competing businesses. 4) Is not related to promoters or the senior management. (I don't know if this means blood relation or related party) 5) Is not a partner or executive of the auditors/lawyers/con 6) Is not a supplier, service provider or customer of the company. Was Vardey "Independent"? It doesn't look like it to me. (EDIT) - cc Hamish Harris |
Posted at 20/3/2013 08:39 by harry f OTI read over all the RNS' from mid 2011 until the sale recently, they look worse every time I read them. Just look at it this way, if you had a house worth £200k, didn't have the money to pay for the mortgage then you'd make strides to resolve the situation while you still had "going concern" status and manoeuvrability. You wouldn't wait for the money to run out and then take steps, as the sale price would be greatly diminished i.e through auction or repossession. Now the only way you would do nothing is if you were certain that from somewhere you could resolve your predicament. Potential "Rabbit's out of the hat" are obviously no good to you, guaranteed revenue is necessary. In PMK's case to forfeit going concern status on the possibility DX or TS would generate revenue in a short space of time when they never had is just reckless. Like Bruce Rowan said at the EGM last year... something along the lines of: "Why would you wait until the last minute to sell, it makes no sense". Quite right. PMK however isn't just like the house above however, it's a bit more complex than that and going concern status far more valuable. In Q3 2009 when Amara invested, what was the situation? Well the year end accounts show net assets at £11m. At the time it was burning £8m a year and the placing to inject £5m was made at the end of Q3 lets say for arguments sake. So reconciling it back at the time Amara invested the company had around £8m net assets and was burning £8m a year cash. However the placing price of 7.5p indicated a company valuation of approx. £29m, indicating non balance sheet assets (mainly the RIE) of circa £20m. Personally I'd argue it was valued higher, more like the £29m company valuation after all Amara knew their cash had all but gone when they invested. Run the clock forward to Q3 2011 and I think things look even better imo. Approx £3m net assets but the cashburn is now only £2m a year. I must have asked 20+ people this question, i.e. "which looks better? Q3 2009 or Q3 2011". The answers are all the same "On a going concern basis Q3 2011". As you can see key to valuation is the intangible off balance sheet RIE value, whether you place the value of this at £20m or closer to £30m there's no getting away from the fact this is where most value lies. Now if what the PMK board said was true and it was not possible to secure funding what they should have done is acted in shareholder interests and put the group up for sale Q2/ Q3 2011, it's just common sense. You wouldn't take the risk to "impair" the value of the RIE with it being so significant. Then Icap could have come along in October/ November time, offered the £1 and all shareholders could have rejected it. Now we can see why this wasn't done, history and the actions of the board tells us they had other things on their mind. When the TS-Icap contract materialised it was clearly treated as a private contract between related parties and as their own property. This wasn't their property, it was the company's but they didn't treat it as such. Forget the headline £1 or the extra £500k, the transaction to sell SX was essentially: Sale of SX proceeds to company = Undisclosed contract via TS between related party and Icap. ...and that's the equation, and quite clearly they treated this as their own personal contract. Imo it's largely irrelevant what terms this was made on and what % went to shareholders. ......i'll carry on with another post shortly.... |
Posted at 15/11/2012 20:53 by squirrel888 pjw,Your research shows clearly to me that there must have been leaks from within PMK AND ICAP and who knows who else too. This has been a flimsy affair if ever there was one. Heads must roll - not just the departed BoD but every single person who KNEW there was a deal to be done - how ever far in to the future they knew about it. If Chapman met with Theret then how do we know who else knew people inside ICAP or for that matter other "brokers". WHO inside PMK's businesses knew people outside of PMK that had knowledge of what PMK were nurturing by way of their TS platform, because I believe that in business this is called "corporate espionage" - to spill the beans on what your own company is doing OUTSIDE the company is an offence that is rewarded with instant dismissal. However - anyone who has taken part in such acts should be outed, afterall, they are hardly safe employees wherever they go - are they? Add to that the various vultures circling and taking advantage and perhaps they will have a bad meal and suffer terrible indigestion. That way we will know what they are about too. "Show me your friends and I will show you who you are" It's an old Greek proverb I believe but it is in the bible "Whoever walks with wise people will be wise, but whoever associates with fools will suffer" Now we need to ascertain who the fools are - for they are not welcome guests in the new house. Bruce seems to be wise - and AD seem to walk closely with him, I like the fact they are still around and so I stick too. The rest I have a huge ? over. Harry - just to be clear - I checked the new bathroom this morning - the new toilet is one of those fancy ones that does a double flush, to ensure all debris, dirt and stench is well and truly flushed away. I wanted to make sure our new house has one in the main bathroom, the ensuite and the downstairs. I think you see where I am coming from. Now - we need to put new floor boards in with the best wood that has been treated with the best ointments to ensure we let no bugs in ever again. I think we will need to order new paint after next week. As for your final - does it really matter 0.20, 0.18, 0.17, 0.15?? Because if you or anyone else are playing with tiny amounts like that - you are neither wise nor men of means. AND indeed will fall foul. |
Posted at 15/11/2012 07:51 by squirrel888 Morning Harry,Thanks for the feedback. You mention CT and that is why I don't trust Simon Chapman - he met with that snake behind closed doors - I know we've been told it was to lobby for his votes but what else was discussed in that meeting? I smell a rat - sorry if you don't agree. He also seems to know Richard Jennings quite well and even knows what position he had in PMK. Richard was desperate to buy shares off anyone just before voting, so again, it appeared it was to procure the votes in our favour. However - ownership of shares does not equate to everything as it might seem. I am still looking in to the loaning out shares, taking that facility off shore and bagging the whole proceeds as a tax free transaction and if major shareholders have done that it is a great dis-service to the PIs (of which I am one). Sorry if you dont like my line of research but I will get to the bottom of it in the end Harry. Harry you must do whatever research you see fit. The thing about sleep Harry is if one has a clear consience then one CAN sleep. More is bothering you that is for sure, perhaps you will share that when you can.......or perhaps you know deep down that many more wrongs have been done here with regards to PMK. When the new SFO Head is appointed then I think that will be the time to put together a case for PMK. Mind you, it's funny how these head honchos keep bailing out don't you think. Maybe the heat is getting too much. I see that separately and finally Corzine in America is getting the blame for the collapse of M F Global. Not the same as PMK, but nonetheless he was culpable and Congress says so. He should go to Jail for a long time, he can compare notes with Madoff. Let's see what happens here in London shall we? PMK is no ordinary case - it was an exchange on the LSE and it housed many other companies. We were offered funding to keep it going - the open AD letter says so. What on earth were the BoD thinking to refuse such funding? I want to know why we did not accept that funding Harry. It was ours to have and we could have kept PMK going, we could have developed TS further too. It is plain as day. |
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
