Telephonetics Share Discussion Threads

[rascalhardin] 18/3/2009 07:21

2t/John,

Let me think...WTV is a specialist in the field of investor relations. They make most of their money from webcasting company results to the shareholders of much larger companies and by giving them IR advice. Sadly I cannot recommend them as Mike Neville was once Chairman.

While Neville was Chairman of WTV, he disposed of a Swedish subsidiary called Kamera to some anonymous "high profile investors". When disposed of, Kamera was sold for thousands, however three years later, the anonymous investors sold the company for millions, thereby making a nice little earner at the expense of WTV shareholders. The current management of WTV, who like Neville have a very poor record of failed companies, have refused to provide shareholders with the names of these investors.

So no, I cannot say I recommend WTV. Due in part to Mike Neville's input, they are now delisted and their shares are virtually untradeable. WTV has zero credibility as everyone knows that they are the worst hypocrites imaginable when it comes to shareholder accountability. A glance at the accounts of their subsidiaries shows that they have not been drafted with the object of keeping investors informed.

Indeed, it is virtually impossible to disentangle the various figures shown in the accounts. WTV Directors refuse to answer reasonable questions about these accounts, as do the Auditors, a company called Brewin Dolphin. Isn't it Brewin Dolphin who have issued a "buy" broker's note for tph? Reminds me of the days when they issued lots of "buy" notes for WTV. Sadly this did not prevent the share price falling, then when the company diluted the shares and delisted from AIM, WTV shares became virtually worthless. That is brokers for you, I suppose! Makes you look at the current "buy" recommendation for TPH from Brewin Dolphin in a different light though.

In view of the numerous subsidiaries which WTV has, it makes you wonder if TPH has any subsidiaries that can be sold off by Neville? If so, you can be sure, based upon Neville's record, that TPH investors will not benefit. Some anonymous investors could, though!

As stated earlier, Neville does not have that many TPH shares compared to the other Directors.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 23:24

John not sure anyone is good at investor relationships at the moment! Not much good news about nowadays and if a business manages to survive this downturn and banking crisis then that is geat news and probably a good business IMHO. Lest we forget all markets and the majority of shares are down over 60% and some major companies that have been around for a long time are fighting to stay afloat so whats going on in Small Caps was always going to be worse. I have seen some listed companies use Financial Dynamics but not sure how anyone can be good at communciating bad news. As we have just seen on here its a case of shoot the messanger at the moment instead of listening to the message!

[2trying] 17/3/2009 23:04

Interesting stuff .

It would appear that TPH do not seem very good at investor relationships .

Could anyone recommend a company that could help , say one that is a specialist
in that field ?

Doesn't have to be a quoted company . though obviously their own
liquidity would be of paramount importance , as such would be essential to
their credibility and , naturally , encourage the small investor .

If that company had a connection with this Neville character I seem to
have heard mention of - well clearly the price of TPH would rocket .

LBO - I welcome your opinion .

John

[lbo] 17/3/2009 22:39

Sadly I have seen little "facts" and I again suggest its your who is acting emotionally otherwise you would not be worrying about "postage" and only making specific allegations and warnings to so called shareholders only on a bulletin board when over 60% of the company is held by certain large shareholders who are all in black and white at the top of the thread or from the TPH website. And yet again QUID PRO QUO, by your own admission you have no attachment, interest or knowledge of Telephonetics and you seem very anxious to attack Mike Neville and anything associated wit him. If anything I am being objective and trying to see both sides. Lets get some perspective and calm down! I have repeatedly wished you well on you endeavours and even suggested if you are serious to take it up in writing with the large shareholders in Telephonetics, yet you have continually brushed this aside and only resorted to trying to focus some of your misdirected anger on me. I think you are loosing focus in what you are trying to achieve and just because you don't like some fella in the pub does not mean you should blow up the whole pub!

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 22:08

Only facts presented. The emotion comes from your posts. You seem to be very attached to this company and very anxious to defend Mike Neville.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 21:52

You are starting to repeat yourself and this conversation is going nowhere!

Can I ask do you really believe you warning on here is achieving anything but making you look like a disgruntled emotional shareholder? Why don't you warn the real shareholders in writing and make your accusations formal (a few pence in postage should not be a problem if you are serious). I am also glad you have supposedly taken other more formal action and as I said if a case is to be answered then present the facts and the let the appropiate people deal with it. I never have and never will object to justice being done. Its interesting you say you are "critical" of Neville but have reported only the Company. Why has Neville not been reported specifically? Anyway if you or anyone can show any specific evidence of illegal behaviour by Neville then I think everyone will listen but innuendo and accusations with no factual evidence against Neville will not help any case you may or may not have. I have seen a similar case recently were a Chairman at a Bank was not aware of certain transactions signed off by certain members of the board. Anyway most of the Board resigned but the Chairman stayed on. And this was a bank!

You seem very angry and I genuinely do hope you find some closure.

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 21:35

There are a large number of shareholders, myself included, who are taking our case elsewhere. Minmet investors, for instance, are highly critical of Neville and have reported the company, of which Neville is Chairman, to the Serious Fraud Office.

I feel it is only fair to warn TPH investors, who may not have been fully informed of Mike Neville's history on this thread, of the other side of the story to the one you have presented.

They should know about the FULL history of the person who is currently Chairman, however you appear to object to this. Hopefully, the major shareholders will read this thread.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 21:32

I did not object but I did question why you were doing it. Again if you have a legitimate case against Neville then why are you posting on here? Surely, your time would be better served seeking justice in the appropiate manner and process? And if it is indeed to warn shareholders then why are you wasting your time on here and not writing letters to all the major shareholders and see what they have to say. I don't know if you have any legitimate case. Sadly, I suspect you don't so you have to resort to this! Also, I never said you had to be a shareholder to post but I did say this is the Telephonetics thread, not the Mike Neville thread. Also just because a Labour chancellor steered the UK into recession does not mean the UK does not have a a lot going for it. Should we all give up on the UK now that he is Prime Minister!

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 21:18

I only post about Mike Neville on boards where he is a Director. As far as I am aware, there is no law against this, yet you appear to object. On topic, which is more than the banks are.

It is not a requirement to own shares in a company to post on a bulletin board.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 21:14

I have not edited anything, yet if you think I have or need to then what can I say! Except, I am not the one posting on many different threads the same thing about Mike Neville when if there was case to answer to then why would you have to do that?

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 21:09

Lol! Which bits haven't I read? The ones you edited? And there is no emotion in your posts?

Thanks for the advice but this is a legitimate place to discuss Mike Neville. He is Chairman of Telephonetics

[lbo] 17/3/2009 21:04

You did not even read what I said! I suggest you try and take the emotion out of you thinking as its clouding your judgement. As for informing Telephonetics shareholders then yet again you seem to be not thinking clearly as posting the same thing on here over and over only makes you look a bit disturbed. So if you have a serious and bona fida case (maybe you do maybe you don't) then why not take it up in the appropiate manner. May I suggest writing to the real shareholders listed above and not waste your time on here and see how they respond to you.

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 21:03

Mike Neville is the chairman of Telephonetics, is he not? He is not chairman of any banks, yet you keep talking about the banks. I admit to not knowing enough about Mike Neville's methods when I invested in WTV. I know a lot more now, though, and am intent upon keeping TPH investors fully informed.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 20:57

Sorry, I thought this was the Telephonetics thread! I did not know I had stumbled upon the Mike Neville thread.

But its ok to try and divert everything about Telephonetics to just Mike Neville.

QUID PRO QUO

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 20:52

LBO,

No detail about Mike Neville in your defence, I notice! Attempted diversion of attention to the banks.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 20:49

Again I know many companies that are suspended but sadly it does not mean we can all march over to the directors houses and hang them! As for "defense"....I am yet to hear any defence from the Banks and the Governments who presided over bigger breachs of regulations then Directors of high risk small cap companies but I for one will not be trying to invoke civil riots as I suspect I may end up being the one being charged with illegal behaviour. The best we can hope for is we all learn from our mistakes and hope stricter rules and regulations are put in place down the road and perhaps that means no AIM market at all.

And yet again may I suggest that if you have a legitimate case (ie "money gone elsewhere) then you chase it up in the legitimate manner with the appropiate authorties otherwise you just come across as a disguntled shareholder with a personal grudge who perhaps did not understand the risks of what they were investing in? Maybe something the whole world was guilty of in recent times! We were all blinded by greed and the quick buck...both directors and shareholders IMHO. So I am defending nobody and blaming everyone equally.

Anyway good luck to you but always remember if someone gives you a tip for 100-1 shot and says its a sure thing then something is wrong!

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 20:43

LBO,

Mike Neville is currently Chairman of Minmet and is presiding over a situation where the shares are suspended. Despite numerous breaches of regulations, no defence has been offered which to my mind amounts to an admission of guilt by the company.

Minmet had loads of money at one stage, but it appears to have gone elsewhere. The shareholders of Minmet are very unhappy at Mike Neville, as are the shareholders of WTV.

I find it very interesting that you spend your spare time ardently defending Mike Neville when everyone else is very angry with him.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 20:39

Well considering I am typing and not spelling then I admit I am not proficient at typing. So thanks for pointing that out and I know where to come if I need a secretary!

As for Mike Neville. I know enough to know that he just Chairman of TPH. I also know many companies were I don't have much time for the Chairman or what he/she is paid but yet I still like the business and once its surviving at the moment then why make more problems for the time being. I also think that the main shareholders who set up the Telephonetitics business back in 1993 are the guys to back and if they see any problems with Neville then I am sure they would deal with it. They have a lot more to loose then anyone around here with their major shareholdings. As for Minmet, we have had the discussion on here already and I suggest you go back and read what was said as its much of the same! I would also suggest you read the censure document again and who if any person and at what periods they were censured. As far I read Mr Neville was not "presiding" over minmet at all times and he was not named specifically which is strange if its such an open and shut case in your eyes.

Anyway, I always believe there are two sides to every story and I hope you find some closure on this but I doubt you will find it here on the Telephonetics thread. And nobody likes to loose hard earned money but if people were not willing to loose it then they should not be investing it, never mind in high risk small cap. companies. This was of course easy to forget in a boom when it was even easy to make money in the shares of even in loss making companies! Talk about bubbles and stupidity.

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 20:23

LBO,

You really haven't researched Mike Neville very much, have you? Have a look at the Minmet (MNT) board to see how much Neville has been paid for presiding over numerous breaches of Stock Exchange regulations.

Yes, I am a disgruntled shareholder. Neville has left lots of disgruntled shareholders in his wake and we know quite a lot about his methods now. We do not like to see others lose their hard earned money in the same way, so we warn others. As I am doing now. Despite your posts, I will continue to do so. I am not making any accusations that I cannot prove.

You are clearly also on a mission!

P.S. Inherent is not spelt like that.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 20:19

Sounds like many small cap. companies to me! Sadly nothing illegal with failure in the business world and I am yet to meet any Director of Small caps. with more survivors then failures. Its the inherant risk reward profile of small companies. As for Salaries!. Nobody cared in the boom who was paid what (You only have to look at the renumeration in the Banks to see that) but I agree now is different and I can't see any Directors being paid much for running companies that are not performing or are loss making. But again sadly being overpaid or just paid to be a bad Director is not illegal. Definately stupid but not illegal! As for selling assets that someone else then sells on for a bigger profit is not illegal either. If you sold your house to a guy and then he sold it on down the road for a profit then whats illegal about that? Now if you have proof of something illegal then my advice is forward it to the relevant authorities, Boards and Directors. But making accusations and being a self appointed judge and jury of illegality only weakens any potential case you have and will just result in people writing you off as a disgruntled shareholder. And trust me there are lots more cases of disgruntled shareholders at the moment then real cases of Directors breaking any laws!

Good luck to you on your mission

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 20:04

LBO,

He definately can afford to buy shares. He has had a number of Directorships at various companies. Sadly for the shareholders, almost all of the companies have failed to thrive in one way or another. Dissolved, suspended from AIM (MINMET),delisted from AIM (WTV). Mike Neville, however, has always made money from his Directorships.

He is a specialist in mergers, acquisitions and disposals. When Mike Neville was Chairman of WTV, the company disposed of a Swedish subsidiary called "Kamera" for thousands of pounds to some anonymous "high profile investors". Three years later, the company was sold by these "high profile investors" for millions. Not organic growth. Just undervalued at disposal, IMHO.

Neville is currently Chairman of Minmet which has been reported to the Serious Fraud Office by shareholders following the alleged diversion of money elsewhere. Minmet shares are currently suspended and the company Directors have been severely censured by the Stock Exchange authorities. Although this was months ago, no explanation or rebuttal has been offered by Neville or any other Director.

Telephonetics shareholders, you are warned!

[lbo] 17/3/2009 19:58

He probably can't afford any shares. Not many can at the moment. I also doubt he is the first or the last of Directors not buying shares at the moment but sadly thats not illegal. And I would love to see authorities catching up to anyone who is behaving in an illegal manner so lets indeed hope justice is done to all who act illegally!

[rascalhardin] 17/3/2009 17:37

I think Mike Neville would have rather more than 150,000 shares if he thought they were going to go up. Anyway, if there is any justice, he will have other things to worry about soon. Looks like the authorities may be slowly catching up with him.

[lbo] 17/3/2009 13:49

Also beware Tom Hunter and the Reuben brothers



And wait for it! Beware Warren Buffet!

[lbo] 17/3/2009 13:40

Also beware Donald Trump and many more!

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0330/076-up-in-
smoke.html





Donald Trump, we estimate, has seen nearly half of his net worth disappear. His casino company is in bankruptcy--again