Stanley Gibbons Share Discussion Threads

[isis] 23/4/2004 22:31

So why would all the Directors sell their shares so cheaply? and the CEO probably holds less than most of you!

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 22:31

Re Mr Hall (CEO), he's 33 years old, has been in Stanley Gibbons since the days of Flying Flowers in 1999, was paid 82K gross last year (inclusive of 11K bonus) and has 'other' business interests. Cashing in his options? Good for him, he deserves every penny.

Theres no problem with profit taking. I'm sure we all do it so why not the directors? The share has quadrupled in past year, but that is behind us. Going forwards, on Seymour Pierce forecasts (who have never underestimated to date), and keeping a 'historic' PE of 20, the price will be 144p in 2 years.

Personally I think a PE of 20 for a company with the growth history and prospects of SGI, in a niche market, is still cheap.

But if you don't like it, you don't need to buy it.

[kael] 23/4/2004 22:29

Isis would you care to discuss the reasons for MSSL, Framlington AND the Forum family office taking up substansial shareholdings? Buying at the top, dont make me laugh.

[isis] 23/4/2004 22:24

xdavid - a professional investor selling at the top.

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 22:23

Re Mr Licht, check back on the posts, he sold to another institution and he's a professional investor.

[isis] 23/4/2004 22:21

Even this blokes sold he's not even a Director, this smacks of a concerted distribution top on this scale:-

Stanley Gibbons Group Limited
08 April 2004


The Stanley Gibbons Group Limited
('Stanley Gibbons' or 'the Company')

Holding in Company


The Company has today been informed that Mr Leonard Licht has sold his entire
holding of 790,000 ordinary shares in the Company and no longer has an interest
in the Company.

[isis] 23/4/2004 22:17

Kael - sorry but the Directors have sold major chunks of their holdings at the top. The CEO only holds 20k shares - this is the CEO who is obviously not over keen on holding the stock, which you think will double.
The Chairman has sold 60% of his holding also at the top, which was actually bought with shareholders money & the non-execs have done similar. They may have placed some with Institutions, but the board are not very keen in doubling their money again are they?

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 22:14

They sold their options. Slightly different, I would say. Basically a bonus for the good work (resulting in a quadrupling of share price in 12 months). Their salaries in the past 4 or 5 years have been well restrained as part of overall cost cutting. It also cleared (almost) all options prior to the big institutional buying...

The chairman has sold the majority of his 30% holding to institutions. This is a good sign as it puts more power into the hands of general shareholders rather than directors. Directors with too much power in terms of shareholding can act as a depressant on the price, as the company is basically 'theirs'. This move is positive at this stage of SGIs relatively short life in the market.

[kael] 23/4/2004 22:12

Wrong again Isis, the majority of the shares have actually been moved to institutional shareholders.

[isis] 23/4/2004 21:59

kael - if these are such good value, how come the directors have dumped nearly all their shares.

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 21:59

As rivaldo pointed out, it's questionable whether they would be allowed to carry the results of an internal revaluation onto the books (particularly unaudited interims). I would expect the external one to be transfered.

I'll email Mr Purkis and ask him what the procedure is. He's very quick replying so I'll probably be able to post response Monday evening.

[kael] 23/4/2004 21:49

xdavid, thanks for clearing that up. Will their be any change to the books? I would have thought that the revaluation reserve will increase, on the reassessment to the reference collection?

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 21:35

What does the price of an individual share have to do with anything? Doesn't matter whether it's 65p or 65 pound per share, it's the proportion of earnings that it buys you that's important. JKX is a good cash rich share, round-a-bout 1.7 NTAV/Share but doesn't touch SGI in terms of PE, earnings growth and dividend. And that's before even mentioning the PRVD windfall...
And "for fun" ? Personally, I don't call a minimal risk probability of doubling your money in two years, 'fun'... This aint no bluesky, "take a fun bet" company.

[mryesyes] 23/4/2004 21:15

I bought some of these when they were communitie.com for 15p it was the only dot.com I bought just for fun, I really prefer shares like BAT and Barratt Developments but you know even a mealy 1000 shares in bdev would now set you back £6500. Still I think JKX Oil & Gas is a better bet than this short term for fun

[xdavid] 23/4/2004 20:52

Hi Hectorp,

There is confusion regarding the two 'types' of stock...
The 'general' stock (stuff for sale) is the 4M value (in accounts) which Mr. Hall reckons (in his opinion) is worth 16M if he sold it all now. This does not get 'revalued' and does not form part of the 1.4M Tangible Fixed Assets noted in the accounts.

The stock which does get revalued is the 'reference collection' (£479K at Dec 03) which is down as such in the accounts (Note 9 - tangible Fixed Assets). In theory this stock is not for sale, only for 'reference'. Hence the 50% immediate mark down allowance for "handling" and annual depreciation thereafter. It is only this reference collection, which forms part of the tangible fixed assets, which is getting internally revalued in June this year and externally revalued in 2006.

[kael] 23/4/2004 20:28

Hectorp, that 16mil is the market value MH attributed to the stock they own. In the reports the value of this stock has to be at book cost. Of course it would be nice if accounts were allowed to reflect the real value in the stock, but accountng conventions dont allow this. So in esscene SGI has a large amount of unrealised value in its stock.

With regards to external valuations, they are carried out every five years. Stanley Gibbons conducts an internal assessment in the third of those five so 2006 is the next date for an external assessment.

[hectorp] 23/4/2004 18:10

xdavid.. I notice many people saying that the stock vaqlue could be 16m.. but how can it be independently assessed when the company is itself a key market maker in stamps? Valuation surely has to be conducted by 3rd parties ?
PS I missed out on the rise but I'm looking for an addition to Pension Fund, this MIGHT fit the bill. ( 10 year view). Been watching for weeks.

[rivaldo] 23/4/2004 16:23

Yards, read my earlier post - although it seems I'm only getting £20k a week? How's a poor Brazilian supposed to live on that? Jewel encrusted thongs don't come cheap y'know.

Another 100k shares gone through at 74p, but the small down tick seems only due to the widening of the spread. Could be there's been a number of buybacks today?

[rivaldo] 23/4/2004 15:42

Kael, probably have to wait till Monday for an RNS to find out. Thx for the article - love the bits about pre-sale estimates being eclipsed etc.

Also, have a look at the chart at the top - if the 50 day SMA doesn't predict a bounce upwards from here then I'm a Dutchman.

[kael] 23/4/2004 15:37

A 75K definite sell, if that 100K was also a sell then you would think that the mm's would have deopped a tick or two? maybe that 100K is a buyback?

[apcx] 23/4/2004 13:42

Kael: Agreed

[kael] 23/4/2004 13:40

apcx they aren't cheap on historical earnings, but they are in terms of prospective earnings.

[kael] 23/4/2004 13:39

Possiblility it is a buyback, but I am curious as to whether it is that Institution with 1mil (framlington I think) selling for a bit of profit - they're the ones that didn't say they would hold for 2 years from what I remember.