We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wallgate | WGT | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.625 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.625 | 0.625 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 07/8/2005 01:19 by cwem Starsiva6 - I think that the 3.3 billion shares in WGT you referred to earlier was the number of shares before the recent 1 for 100 consolidation. That means that there are now around 33 million shares which, at Friday's mid-price of 36.5 pence, gives a market cap of £12 million for wigmore/Speymill Group,or probably a bit more if you add in the recent equity issues.Oneforthemoney - sorry i didn't reply before, been on internet-free holiday. I asssume that the name change will come in soon, given wigmores press release on Friday. Checked with my broker about the new ticker - no news yet but they assured me that as soon as they knew, they'd e-mail me. Until then, WGT seems to work, but not on the Motley Fool site. Anyone - I'd be interested in who the major share holders are in Wigmore / Speymill. Any info much appreciated, thanks. |
Posted at 06/8/2005 00:43 by 4johnb I keep seeing all these references to the previous performance of WGT. People should realise that this is a totally new company. Just read the announcements and you will note that the whole board has changed and the business itself looks as if it will soon bear no resemblance to the previous regime. I am not saying the shares are a buy at this price, after such a great run, but I also think its a bit short sighted to continue to be negative because of the past performance of a management team that is long gone. I think that the only way to figure this one out is to follow the news carefully, and judge only on the results, not on speculation. Till they publish their next results, or announce a tangible deal to follow up the latest German real estate management deal, we should all be cautious |
Posted at 03/9/2004 13:39 by on_targetz Okay, assuming that the Directors and staff of the respective Op Co's within WGT decided to put their money where their mouth was, would you invest in WGT stock or raise capital for a MBO......me thinks the latter, therefore what price could WGT expect for the respective parts, forget FNPM, Blanchards may be worth a few £££'s, BUT depends upon the value of work in hand (read=losses), okay it has some assets (yard/plant etc), but how what is the realisable/cash value after borrowings discharged. Speymill has very few assets (rented accom??/no yard), very little in the way of plant (transport mostly leased??), if the rumours are true it has financial skeletons in the closet. On balance WGT would not get a lot for the break up of the Group, alternatively individuals within the respective Op Co's would be in a better position to start up again - cherry pick the profitable live contracts, by having Clients assign the projects to a new venture whilst turning their backs on old/current liabilities. Mark my words, the days of WGT are limited,.... on the other hand.... ....the King is dead,.......long live the King.... |
Posted at 02/9/2004 14:54 by tiredoldbroker Just one more point. The most recent Burnbrae loan agreement would raise £500K, convertible into ordinary shares at 100 per 11p nominal, plus warrants for 50% of the number of shares issued, also exercisable at 0.11p.Thats 454,545,454 shares for the loan and 227,272,727 shares on the warrants. Which would bring the total number of WGT shares issued or to be issued to 3.7 billion. Given that Topchat believes the share price is going to 4p (well, he says he believes that, I don't think anyone is that stupid), perhaps he can explain how and why WGT would justify a market value of £148m - which is what a 4p share price would mean. WGT has carried out the most audacious dilution of shareholder value I can ever remember seeing. What I mean by that is (in very round numbers), from just over 200m shares in issue before they revealed their problems, priced at around 2.5p to value the company at say £5m, they have gone on to issue or promise to issue another 3.5 billion shares at barely 0.1p, to raise £3.5m. Lets say WGT was worth £5m, and that the cash raised isn't all being wasted on stemming losses, and that the combined value of WGT plus cash is £8.5m. The problem is that, divided between 3.7 billion shares, that works out to a value per share of 0.22p. That's if you think WGT was worth its pre-crisis price (I didn't think it was) and that the cash raised won't go on trading losses and fees to bankers, brokers and consultants (which I think it will). There is no way, given the massive number of shares being issued, that small shareholders will ever see their money back. The shares might be worth 0.2p, but that's on an optimistic view. |
Posted at 06/8/2004 11:54 by tiredoldbroker Sagem, I couldn't help but break into a laugh when I read your post "all that I said in the past seems to have been correct".You're the person who was saying how cheap WGT were at 3p, weren't you ? Aren't you down about 95% on your original investment ? As far as announcing new contracts is concerned, the last set of accounts said that in 2003, turnover from "continuing activities" (i.e. WGT excluding Blanchards) was £18.43m and when Blanchards was purchased, its annual turnover was running at £6.7m. SO adding them up, WGT should be announcing £1m of new contracts every fortnight, just to be standing still. But they don't. They've made one announcement of new contracts in about 4 months. The logical conclusion is that many potential customers have decided not to give any work to WGT, because nothing screws up a project like your contractor going bust half way through, or the subbies walking off because they haven't been paid. If WGT's customers have lost confidence in WGT's ability to efficiently complete any work awarded to them, they'll just give the work to another company. Oh, and a nasty in the tail which I should have mentioned before. I bet the guys who sold Blanchards to WGT are feeling angry and ripped off right now. They took a lot of the purchase price in shares which in 12 months have lost 95% of their value. But the purchase terms included a deferred cash payment to the vendors of up to £340,000. If I was them, I'd be scrabbling to recover whatever value I could from the original deal - like instructing solicitors to make sure that the full £340,000 was extracted, in cash, ASAP. I don't think WGT can find that money right now. Still, they might just agree to issue a further 340 million shares at 0.1p to the vendors, for them to sell in the market. A drop in the ocean with all the other stock WGT has agreed to issue. |
Posted at 20/7/2004 23:20 by tiredoldbroker Blavod, I think you need to reassess what you describe as an Institution when you claim Institutions are buying WGT shares.As an old City hand (though I looked after private investors), I can tell you that an Institution is a big reputable multi-million (or nowadays, multi-billion) pound investor with a big investment portfolio. Someone like the Prudential, or Fidelity, or the Isis/F&C/Friends Provident group. What they usually have in common is that they are aggregating and managing money on behalf of a lot of small investors, whether as unit trust or investment trust managers or insurance companies with premiums to invest from folks who have bought their life policies etc. No such people are investing in WGT. An outfit like Global Investment Ltd is not an Institution. It's a nameplate for one man, Stephen Dean. If I invest through a company I might own in the Channel Islands, it isn't an Institution, it's me hiding behind a limited liability incorporation which only exists for my benefit and my tax planning. Even if I call my company Great Global Institutional Investors United Amalgamated Consolidated Corporation, it's not an Institution, it's me trying to sound big. Likewise, Burnbrae is not an Institution. It's a company owned by one businessman and exists for his benefit. Square Mile is not an institution, it's the private business of two wealthy businessmen. The latest name on the list, Guardian Capital Ventures Limited, is so far from being an Institution that if you search using its name on Google, it doesn't find a single reference. It's probably another front for just one person. Evolution Beeson Gregory is not buying shares in WGT because it's an investment institution, it's getting shares on the cheap in its role as a financier and position-taker , and flogging them on the next minute at a quick profit. As a market maker, EVBG is also in a privileged position where it can sell WGT shares which don't yet exist, taking a short position on their trading book, then convert a chunk of loan into shares which then get listed and which EVBG can deliver to close its short position. So all WGT's shareholders' register has to show right now is some individuals taking a punt. Some of them may be hoping to recoup their investment by getting work done by WGT for other companies they own at "helpful" prices. Others may be hoping to extract "management" fees for "advice". There are all sorts of reasons we don't know, but the fact is, none of them have suggested that they have a plan to help WGT shareholders recoup the 90% or more they've lost so far. |
Posted at 08/7/2004 14:34 by tiredoldbroker I assume that everyone interested in WGT has already combed through these new proposals announced on 7.7.04, and compared them with the previous scheme published on 4.6.04. Just in case any of you haven't, here are the salient points.The previous package gave WGT financing of up to £3.13m, at the expense of issuing 3.32 billion shares, diluting the holders of the 231.7m WGT shares in issue before the deal to a bare 6.5% of the eventual increased share capital. Under the new scheme, Evolution Beeson Gregory still subscribe £0.7m in loan notes, to give them an eventual 700 million WGT shares (1000 shares per £1). That hasn't changed. Strangely, there is no mention in the latest announcement of the Directors of WGT subscribing £30,000 on the same terms, but lets assume they will. Square Mile ends up being compensated for not going ahead with the financing it was going to offer, and is given the right to subscribe for 200 million shares at 0.01p (10,000 per £1), 100 million shares at 0.11p (909 per £1) and 45 million shares at 0.1p (1,000 per £1). The new investor, Burnbrae, will provide an immediate £0.3m convertible into WGT shares at 0.11p (909 per £1) and will subscribe a further £0.4m by 20.12.04 for shares also at 0.11p and will underwrite a £0.7m share issue at an unspecified price (but let's work on the basis of 0.11p again). As a sweetener, Burnbrae gets warrants to subscribe for 132 million shares at 0.11p and 292 million more shares at 0.12p (833 shares per £1). So let's see what all this does to raise cash for WGT, and what it means in new shares being issued. Under the "old" scheme, it would have issued 3.32 billion new shares and received, over time, cash of £3.13m. Under the new scheme, WGT will issue just over 2.77 billion new shares and receive, over time, £2.8m. So about 550m fewer shares will be issued, but WGT will have a lower cash inflow, by £330,000. The only real impact on previous WGT shareholders is that instead of being reduced to 6.5% of the fully diluted shares to be issued, they will hold about 7.7%, but this hardly seems to be a major improvement, given that the smaller cash sum must increase the risks of a secondary failure. I would also point out that, with 2,771,600,000 shares to be issued at an average of barely 0.1p, it is hard to see why the market should continue to value WGT's shares at 0.35p to 0.45p. EVBG, Square Mile and Burnbrae will be only too happy to keep tapping WGT for shares at 0.12p or less which they can sell at 3 times the price look at the announcements, EVBG have started to do that already. I don't think anyone would honestly believe that WGT is now worth as much as 0.4p per share, or just over £12m, on the basis of having had promises of £2.8m it implies that WGT "pre crisis" was worth £9.2m, and that everything is as good now as it was 3 months ago when in fact, the intrinsic value of their only decent business, Blanchards, has been seriously impaired by the events of recent months. So my view is that WGT will slowly drift down in price, and that there are 3 massive potential sellers who need to keep trickling stock onto the market to realise gains on their parts of the refinancing. Not an optimistic picture. |
Posted at 10/6/2004 18:12 by tiredoldbroker ejudge (and everyone else) thanks for your comments. I've read through the refinancing proposals, and the terms are as follows:Because of the number of shares to be issued, and the price at which they'll be issued, WGT has to call an EGM. Also, because a company can't legally issue shares below their nominal value (1p for WGT at present), they have to reorganise their issued share capital, writing down the nominal value to 0.01p. The resulting Deferred shares of 0.99p will be utterly valueless. Ahead of the meeting, Evolution Beeson Gregory (EVBG) will lend WGT £500,000. If the shareholders vote the proposals down, EVBG gets its money back, together with a fee of £125,000. If the proposals are passed, EVBG will lend another £200,000 and the WGT directors £30,000; the total £730,000 is convertible into shares at the equivalent of 0.1p (i.e. 1,000 per £1 of loan), resulting in 730 million new shares being issued. This alone will swamp the existing issued share capital of about 231.7m shares. Square Mile will then make upto £1.5m available to WGT as a sort of rolling subscription for shares, which will be issued at 0.1p (1,000 per £1, again), which over time would mean another 1.5 BILLION shares being issued. And yes, in return, 10% of any money Square Mile puts in will immediately be returned to Square Mile as "commission". There are 3 further benefits for Square Mile, in return for providing the finance: they get 45 million new WGT shares at 0.01p (10,000 per £1), at a total cost of just £4,500; a 3 year warrant to subscribe for another 45m shares at 0.1p; and a 2 year warrant to subscribe for another BILLION shares at 0.1p. So Square Mile could end up with a total of 2.59 billion shares in WGT. Both EVBG and Square Mile have said that they will not at any time hold shares amounting to more than 29.9% of the total. But all this means is that neither of them will have to bid for WGT, and along the way they can convert part of their financing into shares and sell them on. This is why I take the view that the real value of WGT shares cannot be more than a fraction above 0.1p. Against 231m shares now in issue, the refinancing could see another 3,320 million shares issued at 0.1p or less. So existing WGT shareholders will end up owning just over 6.5% of the enlarged share capital. There will be so many new shares issued that even if WGT prospers, 93.5% of any recovery in value will attach to the new shares. So whatever price you bought WGT at, you'll never see your money back. But the alternative is that, if shareholders vote no to the proposals, they'll have the Receivers in before you can blink. So they have you over the proverbial barrel. |
Posted at 10/6/2004 13:36 by tiredoldbroker Dear Mr Watson Mitchell,Since you clearly don't understand why you should apologise for your role in the Wigmore debacle, I will try to explain it to you. Your website, and your personal publicity over the years, say that you have 40 years experience as a stockbroker, financial journalist and tipster. That "Few tipsters can match [your] knowledge about the world of AIM, OFEX and fully-listed small caps. And few have [your] extensive range of top City contacts established during almost 40 years of successful analysis and trading". You clearly like it to be thought that you are in constant touch with important City figures and the most capable analysts and pundits, and that you have unparallelled access to company directors, which private investors on their own can't achieve. So you have all this experience, and the most astute contacts. When you use those claims as your "unique selling point", you have to perform up to the expectations which you have chosen to raise. I don't think you have done that. Now, I don't expect this to mean that you never pick any losers. Nobody has a 100% track record. But it should mean that you have learned a few things over the years, know the questions to ask, and can pick over the dry bones of a Report & Accounts - and that, as a result, you should be able to identify anything shaky and quiz the company management about it. It's also clear that, from time to time, you've read the WGT Bulletin Boards, so you know that I, and others from time to time, have been critical of WGT. This wasn't a company which no-one had ever voiced criticisms of, and I can give you a list of things which I think should have raised serious doubts in your mind about the wisdom of recommending WGT: 1. WGT was associated with Artisan and Stephen Dean, and I think I'm right in saying that private investors have usually done badly over the last few years if they invested in any Stephen Dean satellite - you may dismiss this as "guilt by association", but in my days in the City, the pedigree of a company was something you thought carefully about. Why didn't it bother you ? 2. Speymill was bought from Artisan - and anyone who has been knocking around the City for a few years should have learned that, when businesses are shunted about between associated parties, it usually ends up costing the private investor a packet. It didn't work for long when Jim Slater tried doing it, and none of his imitators since have really done any better. This should have rung alarm bells. But you seemed to be totally unconcerned about it. Why, given your years of experience ? Weren't you aware that this can be a warning sign to investors ? 3. The WGT management had already put the FNPM business into liquidation once and transferred the assets to another WGT subsidiary - this "phoenix" procedure is generally frowned on, usually not done by reputable companies, and again, should have raised serious doubts in your mind. Why didn't it ? 4. Speymill apparently made less money under WGT's ownership than it had done prior to being acquired - but as a SQC Research note of December 2002 suggested, Speymill plus FNPM should have been 2+2=5 with the benefits of cross-selling services and eliminating overheads. You don't ever seem to have been worried that in fact, 2+2 made rather less than 0, or that overheads don't seem to have been chopped, or that any benefits arose from common ownership. You just blithely went on recommending the shares. Why ? 5. The WGT management kept on issuing vast amounts of shares, and got their friends at Artisan off a potential hook by reducing the conversion price of a loan note Artisan held. This was all against the interests of WGT shareholders, and caused massive dilution of the equity. This again, in City terms, is usually seem as a warning sign. You didn't seem at all concerned. Why not ? 6. Even on your (i.e. SQC's) forecasts of £600,000 pre tax, WGT was looking fully-priced in p/e terms below 3p, given the nature of the business and the low p/e's which the market usually assigns to such businesses, which have no long-term contracts and the possibility of turnover simply drying up. Yet you continued to recommend the stock, claiming to see substantial upside. Why ? What made you think that WGT could command a premium rating ? 7. Two Finance Directors in succession and the boss of Speymill left in a relatively short space of time. Even if the last FD really did leave on health grounds (and I'm assuming 'health' meant more than that every time he had to look at the management accounts he threw up and was getting an ulcer), haven't upheavals like this always been a very bad sign, and shouldn't someone who boasts of his years of experience have read this for what it was ? Shouldn't you be more alert to this sort of thing than the private investors who, when they pay for your tips, are relying on you to pick up on things like this, and warn them ? Yet you didn't seem worried. Why not ? 8. The briefest analysis of the last figures showed that, under WGT's ownership, Speymill had shown no growth in turnover. Shouldn't this have worried you, given that you were recommending WGT as a growth situation ? 9. Other people have posted on here that, at the time of the last results, they looked at the figures, did their sums and got out because they could see that banking arrangements looked exposed. I suspect that WGT has been on a financial tightrope, without proper long-term banking facilities, for quite some time - and maybe this was why they needed the Artisan loan note converted. But shouldn't your analysis of the figures have raised a question in your mind ? Shouldn't you have followed this up, and grilled the Chairman, given that you'd been recommending the stock ? 10. Finally, you made it clear that you were talking to Peter Hewitt of WGT, and I'll assume that, as an experienced City person, you were asking some testing questions, not just having a damn good lunch and writing down what he told you. So how come you didn't seem to pick up on just how shaky the finances were ? Did you ask ? Did they lie to you ? Or didn't they know what the situation was at their own company ? As you posted earlier on this thread, "That it had hassles with its finances is not my fault". I'll accept that. But you claim all this experience, all these contacts. You said you were talking to the Chairman. You were associated with a "research note" from SQC. You kept recommending the stock. Yet you appear to have failed to pick up on some major warning signs, and to have completely missed the fragile financial state of the company, in all your conversations and analysis. THAT is what your fault is. That is why you should apologise, in the fullest terms, to anyone who paid for your advice and followed it. Oh, and one last question. Did you, or SQC Research, or any website, or other business in which you personally have a financial interest, ever take a fee from Wigmore Group or any of its directors for writing a and recommending WGT ? |
Posted at 28/5/2004 23:09 by tiredoldbroker I still don't see where the optimism about this company has been coming from. The figures I quote below are from WGT's own website, and the official documents issued by the company in the past.Speymill was bought by WGT in March 2002. In the year to 31 March 2001, Speymill had turnover of £16.3m and made a profit before tax of 690K. The acquisition was paid for by an offer of WGT shares at 3p. In the year to 31 Dec 2003, Speymill had turnover "in excess of £17m" and excluding the 290K contribution made by Blanchards since its purchase in July 2003, the WGT companies (Speymill and FNPM) made a loss before tax of 592K. Immediately before suspension, you could have bought the shares for 1.8p. So where is the evidence of growth in turnover, or profits ? It looks to me as if, after 2 1/2 years of ownership by WGT, Speymill's turnover had grown by about 5% (i.e. less than inflation over the same period). So where have all the posts claiming WGT was winning new contracts come from ? They don't seem factual. Has FNPM been making such huge losses, on barely £1m of turnover, that all of Speymill's profits have been eaten up ? Or wasn't Speymill such a reliable profit source after all ? Remember what these figures mean - after 2 1/2 years as part of WGT, Speymill plus FNPM had swung from a 690K profit to a 592K loss - a turn for the worse of almost £1.3m per annum. The boss of Speymill quits, followed rapidly by the group Finance Director. The share price slumps 11% immediately before the shares are suspended. The company announces it will make another announcement on an imaginary day of the week (there is no Wednesday 5th June 2004). It simply doesn't look competent or successful. I suspect that it may mean that, for the second time, the FNPM business will be dumped into liquidation by the parent company, and for the umpteenth time, the market may be flooded with new shares in WGT at below the previous price. |
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
