Software Circle Share Discussion Threads

[stewolf] 15/9/2010 08:14

A promising company that it seems has lost it's way. The 8p proposal, if agreed and finalised, is better than them just shutting up shop in the UK and waving two fingers in the air to us AIM shareholders without a by-your-leave, but a disappointing outcome to my investment here.

Not lovingly attached though, as per the oft given advice regarding investing in a company, so I'll take the 'like it or lump it' offer and move on.

Enjoyed this thread . . don't get many like this!

GLTA.

[stewjames] 14/9/2010 21:19

"no, it would buy them time, time to get cash flow positive again"

Look at the numbers. They won't need the cash unless things get worse, in which case the business will have failed and all the cash will be doing is prolonging the death throes.

Looks to me like the majority shareholders are taking the opportunity to get full control and freedom from the costs and restrictions of a stockmarket listing, using surplus cash in the coffers to do so.

[boadicea] 14/9/2010 15:20

Agree it's difficult to follow the logic.
However, it's worth noting that the loss is not all negative cash flow. As they point out, one of the contributory factors is the high write-off of capitalised software development costs - a non-cash-flow item.

[the_doctor] 14/9/2010 14:56

'Well, yes, but in that instance the cash pile would just allow them to prolong the agony.'

no, it would buy them time, time to get cash flow positive again

You dont find most loss-making companies buying back shares.

It's all odd IMO.

[muxdapanza] 14/9/2010 14:39

How long will we need to wait to get the 8p on the bid, any ideas anyone.

[stewjames] 14/9/2010 14:36

Well, yes, but in that instance the cash pile would just allow them to prolong the agony.

If they pay out the full 4.3M, they'll still have around 2M left, plus 3M in investments (a property deal IIRC...excuse my laziness not checking - I'm not a holder). That's enough to give them time to turn around current operating losses. If those losses get worse...well, all they miss out on is drawing a couple years of wages. Meanwhile, there's significant upside for them if they can turn it around (another IIRC...management hold a substantial stake)

[the_doctor] 14/9/2010 14:30

That's what I was after, thanks

It's a very odd move. Or is it dual-listed?

They'll be screwed if they buy back shares then still find trading difficult and continue to burn cash

[stewjames] 14/9/2010 14:26

anyone know what the value of shares on AIM is?
I'm assuming it's not the full listing, since they'd not be able to afford to buy the whole lot back

Not quite what you were asking, perhaps, but from the announcement:

As shareholders holding about 69.1% of the issued
share capital of the Company have indicated that they would provide irrevocable
undertakings not to accept the Tender Offer, the Board have calculated that a
maximum of about GBP4.30m would payable under the Tender Offer

[the_doctor] 14/9/2010 14:25

'How could you possibly trust them enough to hold without a listing?'

yes, but then, why would they want to buy back the shares??

[stewjames] 14/9/2010 14:23

Difficult to refuse, I would say.

Think I'd go with "stupid" instead of "difficult". How could you possibly trust them enough to hold without a listing?

[the_doctor] 14/9/2010 13:44

the_doctor - 28 Jul'10 - 08:41 - 585 of 610 edit
Does nobody have an explanation for cash being materially below the year end figure when they should have been making cash and the speculation loss was supposedly only $3.8m



So, there's the answer - they were making a loss
It also seems likely to me that they were speculating in order to offset operating losses?


anyone know what the value of shares on AIM is?
I'm assuming it's not the full listing, since they'd not be able to afford to buy the whole lot back

I find it odd that they're trying to buy back the AIM shares when they dont have much cash and are currently loss-making.


'Difficult to refuse, I would say'

Almost seems like it has all been set up to encourage people to give up their shares!?

[boadicea] 14/9/2010 13:33

Interims issued at 13:00 and just posted on advfn.



Don't be fooled by today's jump.
The trading results are abysmal compared to py with the exchange casino losses on top.

The rise is due to the company's proposal to buy in AIM stock at 8p and cancel the listing. Difficult to refuse, I would say.

It gets easier to understand why China cos wallow on such low valuations.

[tonydev] 19/8/2010 00:06

I think you probably have;-)

[cheeky13] 18/8/2010 17:09

bought another 20000 shares hopefully i`ve done the right thing.

[stewolf] 13/8/2010 15:32

All quiet on the western front here. Been nigh on a month now since the update, wonder when they'll have anything to say to us. Still holding.

[watchout2] 29/7/2010 10:14

Sell 75k at 5p or buy 5k at 5.5p

Quite clear there is more stock available at 5.5p mid price judging
by the 2 buys today.

[zangdook] 28/7/2010 14:51

On 7/4/09 he bought 750k, increasing his holding to 5.7m (RNS 14/4/09) and since then there has been no notification.

It looks as though the website may be mistaken.

[gazza102] 28/7/2010 14:46

I was always on the understanding that he had about 5.5m shares

[zangdook] 28/7/2010 14:38

Think it might be this guy.



No pun intended.

Edit: Honorary Lecturer in Actuarial Science at the University of Kent.

[zangdook] 28/7/2010 14:36

According to the website, on 14 April 2010 Guy Thomas had 13,100,000 shares. Today we're told that yesterday he increased from 5,700,000 to 8,237,602 but we were never told (or have I missed it?) that he'd decreased from 13.1m to 5.7m.

[watchout2] 28/7/2010 14:32

Actually...i dont think it is Kiop, different holder but seen
that name on Cltv holdings.

[watchout2] 28/7/2010 14:31

I know that name !

Check out Cltv and the thread, think it's the poster Kiop !

[zangdook] 28/7/2010 14:30

And there's the answer. Guy Thomas, who he?

[zangdook] 28/7/2010 11:30

I wonder if this 5.6 million includes off-market disposals, or if it includes sales from before the news on the 9th. Otherwise pretty much every trade since then would have to have been Polar selling, unless there are delayed trades yet to show.

[ducatiman] 28/7/2010 11:20

polar capital tech trust, used to be henderson I believe.