[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Work Service S.a. LSE:WSE London Ordinary Share PLWRKSR00019 ORD BR PLN0.10
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 55.00 10.00 100.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 0.0 0.1 0.4 137.5 10

Work Service Share Discussion Threads

Showing 676 to 697 of 1275 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  39  38  37  36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
09/10/2013
20:39
I think they could only do this through eliminating the holding company and putting a new one on top of Tudor Rose International Limited. The audit qualification in Hartim will have to work it's way through which will take another 2 years, so would cause difficulties on a listing.
topvest
09/10/2013
16:19
...the trail of mishaps behind the directors of Western/LFI over the years is quite worrying ...one wonders if they would do better spinning a coin to make their decisions ! the controlling director being in that postion just due to birth rather than merit.....not good imo....and the results agree --- Hartim has written off X millions. Do you think there is any chance that the final write off will be a lower amount ? eg. if an end customer pays for goods delivered....would Hartim get any of that money ...normally, contracts say that goods remain the legal property of the supplier until paid for ?...or must the money first go to pay redundancy packages ?? who gets first call on money, people who have not been paid for goods, people who have lent money to the co. or workers wages and workers redundancy packages ? Since Aird and Gibson are also directors of the bust co. .....will they be receiving any redundancy package payments ?!! ------ imo now would be - a good time and - logical time to float Hartim....sell say 10% ...and the cash raised can pay off a chunk of the nett current liabilities nett current liabilities position is not too pretty at present.....and imo it would be logical to rectify that asap. it now has a number of years of accounts that can be shown/used
smithie6
07/10/2013
20:59
Yes, it was an unbelievably bad situation. There is no point stewing over the past though. What is done is done. I think the lease must have been resolved as there is no mention of a contingent liability anymore. Yes, they certainly did invest way too much in the Australian business. Nevertheless, hopefully they are now back to where they should be (albeit 3/4 years behind where they would have been if they hadn't messed-up). There will be some more exceptional costs to come, but hopefully they can start moving ahead again and stick to just growing their UK business which is really quite valuable. I suppose I'm heartened by the fact that it could be worse - the business could have gone bust! That doesn't appear to be likely, albeit no more accidents can be tolerated. The lease and the Australian debacle is quite enough!
topvest
06/10/2013
16:41
Is it Smithie6 now?
topvest
04/10/2013
21:32
Poster "callumross" claimed to chat to the company. But that was in the days that "MarkT" used to post every 24 hours with daily views on WSE. MarkT was a prolific poster and critic of WSE - has anyone a clue as to why he should have stopped commenting ?
coolen
04/10/2013
14:49
my mistake perhaps it was "Countryman" or similar posting name that I had in mind...
smithie6
02/10/2013
19:22
Smithie6 - I do not have any contacts with the company. Indeed I do not have any contacts with any of my investments. Much better that way. You do not need to meet company management to be a successful investor. I think Warren Buffet has proved that!
topvest
02/10/2013
08:04
Topvest you have.... I think ..contacts with the co. can you get them to explain what was the plan for turning around Auz. co. and why/how it did not work not as a witch hunt...but as normal info for shareholders....it is our money... in my view they should only have taken over Auz. co. if they had letters or faxes of interest from sources of more turnover for the co. it was clear in the old accounts that the fixed costs could not be supported by existing turnover....
smithie6
02/10/2013
08:01
2 bad results for LFI/WESP in last year.. MWB into administration and Auz subsid. of Hartim into administration continuing the track record of similar events Sanctuary Group (D . Marshall was a director) Doctors Direct (Mr Beale was a director there ...as he is at Hartim and David Marshall)
smithie6
02/10/2013
08:00
"The Marshall's do invest in some good businesses, but they are always conflicted by their directors' fees - they never have the guts to sell when they should - e.g. MWB. " agree with you on that one imho WSE/LFI would perform better by being a normal inv. fund... such as Artemis or Blackrock and NOT sit on bods.....and be free to buy or sell when they want... the policy of sitting on bods is good for the Marshalls personal income and return on their investment cash.....but has shown over 15-20 years ...not ..to be good for shareholders...
smithie6
01/10/2013
20:28
It will be interesting to see what happens to WSE. I would assume that ISDX will close down in the next year or so. No companies are joining + many leaving and so there is a major question mark on how WSE shares will be traded. I suspect that might well trigger a LFI merger bid at some point as Marshall will be well into retirement age by then. That is the only really sensible way forward. The Marshall's do invest in some good businesses, but they are always conflicted by their directors' fees - they never have the guts to sell when they should - e.g. MWB. I always thought MWB was an over leveraged loss making business and I was proven correct, but they could have sold out fully for a great return.
topvest
30/9/2013
22:07
Well as I recall... neither Marshall snr nor junior......are identified as having a degree.... or professional qualification....not even accountancy ....or investment management.... surprising imo most people in top finance jobs in the city have accountancy qualification and/or invstmnt mgmt qual. as well
smithie6
30/9/2013
22:04
so ...loss from Auz was 2.8M wow !! bit surprised that the other main shareholder would have gone for the deal if he had not thought it was workable.....unless he pushed a little by the Marshalls.....who maybe thought they could themselves put some more turnover through the Auz. co. ....(cakes from certain UK mfr, etc) the other main shareholder in Hartim is perhaps not very happy at the moment... since his cash investment is now at risk of X due to this new debt...
smithie6
30/9/2013
21:55
"2 steps forward (Northbridge and Creston) and 2 steps backwards (Swallowfield and Hartim)" been the history for last 15-20 years if the Marshalls did not have controlling votes..... they would have been removed many years ago as the investment manager imo.
smithie6
30/9/2013
21:53
"topvest 28 Sep'13 - 08:39 - 122 of 131 0 0 Results out - 2 steps forward (Northbridge and Creston) and 2 steps backwards (Swallowfield and Hartim) as ever with shareholders being rewarded by an increase in the dividend. Hartim results are a MAJOR disappointment and have resulted in an almost total loss following the Australian business being wound up at a £3m cost. What a disaster." as usual ...shareholders in the dark... what was the plan for turning around the Auz. business.....and why did it not take place/work ? (if they were going to use the existing del. vehicles..and staff....clearly they needed a large step increase in turnover to get closer to break even....one assumes they had that CONTRACTED ....BEFORE ...they made the acquisition.... looks like not (I posted I think....that the numbers of the acquisition were very bad....had massive opeating costs relative to turnover... the Marshalls should know about distribution.....and a Marshall on Hartim board...and he is an FD at another co...... so....how they decided to make the acquisition ...as workable....as FIXABLE....and then it screwed up and losts a lot of cash.....Id like to know how/why ---- So looks like sale of some NBI shares....might have been to shore up the accounts....and to generate cash to be able to pay increased divi ...to stop shareholder REVOLT !!
smithie6
29/9/2013
19:51
It won't happen in my view as Gyllenhammer only moves into situations where he can get a substantial stake (i.e 20-30%) and there is no chance of that here.
topvest
29/9/2013
18:55
Any ideas as to whether entrepreneur Mr Gyllenhammar might get involved in WSE, given that WSE does seem a touch accident prone and Gyllenhammar did link up with the Marshalls to force the changes at Swallowfield ? In fact, what triggered that tie-up between them ?
coolen
29/9/2013
15:46
Yes, poor disclosure, but 82p is what I calculated. NBI now a lot higher though and Hartim at net book value which is way undervalued even despite mishaps of the last 2 years. Particularly, given their Australian foray is over. Hartim potential - say £1m operating profit of UK company @ P/E of 10 on a sale = £10m less net current liabilities of £3m = £7m / 2 = £3.5m /18m shares = 20p. So 50p ish is still cheap, IF management to get their act together...a big IF!
topvest
29/9/2013
13:50
nav at end june about 82.7p but higher at close on friday cause of nbi. Lots hidden in results all investments put together under one number in balance sheet and not by segment/ each investment.
rolo7
29/9/2013
13:29
Am I correct in thinking that the prelims did not disclose an nav per share, despite references to a "net asset value" in the notes -or have I missed it ?
coolen
29/9/2013
13:05
nbi share price is up by nearly £1 since end of june, so current nav about 2million£ more.
rolo7
28/9/2013
15:31
Yes TopVest, "We" not "it" ! You also appear correct in implying that something must have been known earlier than this and should have been announced. WSE interims on Feb 28th 2013 stated that Hartim's loss for the full year to Dec 2012 was estimated to be a mere £1,000. If WSE had no further estimates to impart to its members, the disaster must have occurred solely in the following 13 weeks, ie. between 1st March and WSE's own 30 June year-end. Most unlikely ! At the end of February 2013, did WSE have knowledge of hefty losses and remain silent, referring merely to the de minimis loss of £1,000, or were they ignorant of the facts, despite being on the board ?
coolen
Chat Pages: Latest  39  38  37  36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
WSE
Work Servi..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211127 17:25:23