Plus Markets Group Share Discussion Threads

[old thumper] 02/5/2013 15:32

A walk today is probably the best thing to do.

However after a quick look through the horror's (sorry read the results) the Finals was a chance to put behind to past but they haven't, as per below. So after 12 month's (Bruce,AD,Hamish,Strong and Lenigas) they must have had time to decide to forget the past, yes or no, but it's still in play so i take it as a NO. And let's remind the people who've been hurt are the biggest holders not the small fry like us. If however they hope time will ease the pain that's just weak mangement and IMO and I've had enough of that in the past.

"The Company's new Board of Directors will continue to investigate the payments made in relation to the formal sale process and wind-down of the Company and payments made to the executives to ensure that, where possible, an appropriate recovery of funds for the benefit of the Company and its shareholders will be sought. The new Board of Directors continue to investigate the role of the Non-Executive Directors in relation to the SX Disposal.

In addition, the new Board of Directors are continuing its review of the terms of the disposal of PLUS-TS."

[harry f] 02/5/2013 14:26

I'll have a look in detail at the above next week, I've been out and about etc in the last few days after my spring clean on Tuesday.

Just caught the results, my alert thingy ain't working. I just skim read them at this stage, will have a deeper dig probably next week. While cash is lower than I expected, I assume due to higher than anticipated cleaning up costs, I don't see the reduction as being material in the grand scheme of things.

My impression at this stage is the results are more notable for what they don't say (or potentially could have done) rather than for what they do.

Still no reassurance/ closure for the other side that I can see, NT et al won't be happy, and unlikely to change their behaviour.

Off out for a walk, have a good weekend pjw and OT.

[old thumper] 02/5/2013 05:33

I see the "Guru's" don't always win,



But we all learn from our mistakes.

[old thumper] 01/5/2013 08:03

harry,

I see Nordic Energy PLC (Bruce's Starvest has 42.4%) has picked up a licence in the North Sea, no doubt this is what Polemos are looking for.

[harry f] 30/4/2013 08:30

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.

[old thumper] 30/4/2013 08:14

Harry,

"FINANCIALS
• Gross profit of £1.09 million (2011: £1.06 million).
• Pre-tax group loss of £7.71 million (2011: £3.91 million), mainly attributable to the loss on disposal of the Gulf of Mexico (£4.7m) and the Malta (£1.8m) assets."

Net (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (447) (3,260)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 484 3,744
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 37 484


Anyone can lose money. I will admit I didn't read though all of it, only the highlights and a 5yr chart of the share price And the cash is getting a bit low. Didn't show me anything to get excited about.

[harry f] 30/4/2013 08:04

OT

What part of the LGO results were you not impressed with?

[old thumper] 30/4/2013 07:09

pjw,
Sorry to hear you're off, although I can understand why. I remember when the "USOP" type's invaded Plus's III site, however they disappear given time.
As for Polemos I can't say I was too impressed by Lenigas in the Leni Gas&Oil results yesterday,



However all the oils and miners have been hit in recent years, its worth reading Bruce's comments in Starvest's half year results.



Like him I'm happy to wait and on that basis I'm gradually picking them up whilst no one else wants them. I like things out of fashion, including my clothes :-)

[harry f] 29/4/2013 18:30

Barchart is now covering it too:

[harry f] 29/4/2013 18:18

Imo just looking at the movement there's still a buyer around here today.

I think Friday from 10.14-13.33 was the sign, 10m or so sells offset by 1m buys and with a few buys later they were moving the share price up again. Didn't look right to me. They looked to be taking what they could at up to 0.37.

This morning the early attempt at a tree shake dropping the bid to 0.33 didn't work and on the back of around 3mill buys it's up at 0.4, and their trying to get stock at 0.38/ 0.39. What happened to all the stock they bagged on Friday? Where did it go?

Admittedly the mm's can delay trades, etc but even bearing that in mind it looks to me like there is still a buyer. One who is probably more than happy with all those that sold at sub 0.38 today.

The mm's played it right though, in the end flushing out loads of selling. Job well done.

[harry f] 29/4/2013 10:19

I don't know what to say. Been great having you around, you've been an invaluable source of information on this board.

I thought for a minute that LDX had obtained FSA approval, just searched around though and can't find it.

Best of luck pjw, we're all going to miss you I'm sure. I certainly am.

[pjw1956] 29/4/2013 09:57

Thanks harry, fading away from here. I've also fallen out of love with Advfn.

London Derivatives Exchange Ltd (LDX)

London Derivatives Exchange (LDX) will be an FSA regulated trading venue focused on the hosting of innovative products transferring OTC derivatives to a CCP cleared exchange model. Unlike several other exchange responses to these regulatory evolutions (consequences of MiFID II, Basel III, Dodd Frank and EMIR), LDX aims to bring products onto exchange that are as close as possible to the OTC market.

LDX is applying an innovative new method to the development of futures contracts (in conjunction with its partner company GDI), which addresses several issues surrounding the current batch of OTC futures contracts. We believe that it is simple to understand, easy to manage, reflects the underlying physical market, and easy to trade. The LDX-traded contracts also enable institutions to access these market segments at a drastically reduced cost to balance sheet, margining and internal back office resources.

The products developed for and traded on LDX will also be used on the GMEX Exchanges. By using LDX as our lead into clients and trading proven products, we will be able to leverage these relationships into trading the same style of product denominated in the emerging market currencies or asset classes.

We will be announcing more on our product development in the near future, with details of which contracts will be first to trade. Please contact us for more details.

http://www.gmex-group.com/ldx/

Best of luck harry, Old Thumper, and squirrel its been a pleasure.

[harry f] 29/4/2013 07:37

A few bits of news:

TRG markets filed a voluntary dissolution request on 3rd April.

Misra ventures filed their first accounts, looks healthy, lol. https://www.duedil.com/company/07678306/misra-ventures-limited/financials

GMEX and associated companies look to be installed at 16 Martins le Grand.


I thought one of the pages said they were awaiting FSA authorisation, seems to have gone now. Can't find the company(s) on the FSA list however and the people are still inactive.


For what its worth there looks to be one or more buyers here at the moment. Doesn't make any difference to me but it might to others.

[old thumper] 09/4/2013 10:25

harry,

Interesting post.

Let's see what Lenigas say's about the next moves once he's got settled in the job.

[harry f] 09/4/2013 09:23

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."

[old thumper] 09/4/2013 07:10

So sad but I'll get over it :-))

[pjw1956] 08/4/2013 20:47

Thanks, Harry

[harry f] 08/4/2013 11:49

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.

[harry f] 28/3/2013 10:07

I didn't think much of their previous guidance on 7th Feb of £280m-£305m revenue. I appreciate they have to manage market expectations but it still doesn't look right to me.

Their a big business with a large spread and the "shocks" good or bad will never massively impact things as they would in a smaller company with fewer revenue streams. Income, expenses, exchange rate differences, etc will all even themselves out in such a large company.

On 7th Feb I'd expect they knew 9 if not 10 months results, this is on an average revenue of circa £23m-£25m a month, added to that they said Jan was "improved", and set the range.

So with the range I expect something as follows:

Low end £280m: Feb and March continue the downward trend, i.e. Jan was just a one off.

High end £305m: Feb and March continue the "improved" trend shown in January.

But as it turned out they seem to have hit around the midpoint of the range. Feb was largely "improved", while March was described as "The increased activity levels seen in January and February have not continued at the same rate in March." Yet they now say they'll hit £280m.

I don't know if they could ever hit £305m even if Feb and March were both improved, just looks too high to me. It's adding £25m revenue to a business with average monthly revenue around this level in a comparatively short space of time.

I think what was set on 7th Feb should have been something around £270m-£295m, £270m - £290m or similar. i.e. with a midpoint around £280m/ £282.5m rather than the £292.5m stated.

[old thumper] 28/3/2013 04:40

Oh dear :-))



I'll live with it!

[harry f] 27/3/2013 09:13

Just a few final things before the Easter break.


Recent company changes.

Plus Derivatives Exchange changed it's name to Lotce Ltd.

Fth Investments has reappointed most of it's directors back that it lost at year end, I count 10 returning but I don't think R Misra and Lackey are back. Suppose they must have found some chairs after all? One more thing is it says there's a change to registered office but still looks like the previous one to me, might be a delay on the site and like the rest it's moved to St Martins Le Grand?


Digressing onto platforms, as I've mentioned recently these are significant, one just needs to take a look at the Forum website under the "Solutions" section where "platforms" appear to be almost their entire product offering. I'm sure people will agree upon acquisition of TS it was more than helpful that the previous platform impairment charges had not been reversed by our previous BoD, effectively valuing them as assets with £Nil value.

It may have caught people's attention that Icap have issued a trading statement earlier today which overall reads poorly, impacting the share price. Their quoted solution to the problems they are facing appear to be as follows:

"Our cost savings programme has delivered as we had forecast. ICAP today is a more efficient organisation than a year ago. We also continue to invest in new platforms, products and services which I believe will drive our growth over the next two years."

So they see clearly platform investment/ development as being very important too.


I just wonder how this "invest in new platforms" will occur? In house organically or through acquisition?

Nothing would surprise me.

[harry f] 26/3/2013 08:33

You enjoy your break pjw, wrap up warm and have a great time.

Smith seemed to do a lot, including......

"Nicholas Smith (Chairman)
Malcolm Basing
Details of the work of the Remuneration Committee are set out in the Directors' Report on Remuneration. Upon Malcolm Basing becoming Interim Chairman on 10 November 2011, Nicholas Smith took over the role of Chairman of the Remuneration Committee."

Seems to be the man who would probably rubber stamp the £423k payoffs? so openly condemned by many including Stephen Hazell-Smith:

"But investors have condemned the payout, including Stephen Hazell-Smith, chairman of the company until 2010. He says that the clauses were inserted into the contracts to reward the executives for an anticipated sale of the company to Turquoise in 2007, when Plus had a market value of nearly £90m.

"You know full well you are taking advantage of a clause that was not designed for these circumstances," he wrote to the two executives earlier this month."

Source: FT article by Simon Mundy 17th June 2012


Extracts from the same article dovetail nicely into the discussion I was having with OT yesterday.

"The rebel shareholders say that the nominal valuation of Plus-TS is unjustified, and argue the deal will benefit the Plus board's former colleagues at Forum, which was incorporated on May 31. Plus valued the platform at £4m when it was seeking investment last autumn, arguing that Plus-TS could make annual profits of £12m through hosting trading facilities for investment banks.

The company says that the reduced valuation is primarily because Forum will not be able to benefit from Plus's exchange licence, and would have to spend time and money obtaining its own if it wanted to host trading facilities on the platform."

£4m eh? and valued at £Nil in the balance sheet. Like I said nice work if you can get it. Were they REALLY seeking investment? LOL. What a farce. The last thing they ever wanted was investment.

Like I keep saying with the car and key and phone and contract analogies, had they kept them together it would certainly have been in shareholder interests, so why didn't they?


3DR comes as no surprise to me, I've always thought the same. The investment strategy as it is for PLMO is merely one of a number of options available, far from being set in stone and subject to change at anytime, even now their not restricted on following the new strategy. One thing with 3DR which I don't anticipate with PLMO is the necessity to raise funds which I think looks very likely. They have something around 40% of our cash balance (£600k vs £1.5m) and have higher costs.

[pjw1956] 26/3/2013 07:06

Taking an early Easter break now, happy Easter harry, Old Thumper squirrel and all

Senior Independent Director

Mr Nicholas Smith is the Senior Independent Director. His tasks include being available to shareholders if they have concerns, which contact through the normal channels of Chairman, Chief Executive or Chief Financial Officer has failed to resolve, and chairing the Nomination Committee when it is considering succession to the role of chairman. He also meets with the Non-Executive Directors at least once a year to appraise the Chairman's performance. He also deputises for the Chairman.



3D Resources PLC