Work Service Share Discussion Threads

[smithie6] 23/8/2014 13:17

if other people and not just me are also concerned about the level of costs...

are people willing to each send an e-mail to the company with a copy to the company adviser

asking that the annual report gives a break down of what the costs are rather than just a total and everything is kept secret from us


with a few messages to the co. adviser then I think the co. would have little choice but to do it.

(or we also get an e-mail address for the auditor...and copy him with the request as well)

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 19:15

bit more digging...

---

Hartim
strange...
had 26 staff in Auz co. but turnover was less than 3M
while around 50 staff were working in UK linked to turnover of around 25M !!


noting that nett profit margin in UK was around 3%...ie. small....
I think that gross profit has been given in some account as around 13%....before paying wages...

26 staff in Auz for turnover of less than 3M
doesnt add up

if Auz. staff had similar turnover per person to those in UK then turnover for 26 ppl would be around 12M and not 3M
Doesnt make sense ...to me anyway.
I guess it must be that they were delivering by truck to shops....whereas UK staff more involved with shipping a container load and they dont have to travel with the container...so the same person can work on another order/delivery whereas the truck driver cant)

(if .also 13% gross profit then only just over 300k gross profit...to pay 26 workers..and lease costs and office costs etc etc...)

How could anyone (Mr Aird & Mr Gibson....and agreed by E.Beale and the WESP chairmans son L.Marshall) have wanted to buy a co. with only 3M turnover that employed 26 staff !!..and with high fixed lease costs...higher than 300k I recall..so if pay the lease costs then no gross profit left to pay wages perhaps...hence administration...
seems too obvious to have failed due to that

We never got told why it went wrong....we are after all only the company owners !

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 18:49

having a Western day !

---

annual reports

2012
NAV 72p
mid mkt price 42.5p
59% of NAV


2013
NAV 82p
Mid mkt price 52p (63% of NAV)


today
NAV is 112p
mid mkt price is 59p


NAV up 30p from last yr while share mid price is up only 7p....

(63% of NAV would give a mid market price of

....71p

...12p higher

I reckon that with hardly any shares being traded the mid price could/will move up by 12p ...soon...
----

bit unfair imo for anyone that does not have enough shares to make it worth the effort to calculate their own NAV value....since they might not know the current NAV....since the co. wont tell the mkt !!....so they might sell their shares thinking they are not going anywhere....not knowing the NAV is around 112p...

co. should imo report the NAV now and again...at least monthly


:-)

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 16:24

oh
+ 18.4p increase in NAV to today since Dec 31st

is excellent

and + 18.4p wrt a share price at Dec 31st of ... around 57p mid price according to ISDX at that time..with 93p NAV (which most of us knew since we do our own calcs)

is a very significant % ...not far below 50%...

(increase in NAV in next 6 months is unlikely to be so high...very difficult...but the discount to NAV could well reduce....bringing the share price up over time...fingers crossed)
----

nuts imo that mid price is now up 2p from then ...while the NAV is up 18.4p imo !
(60% of 18p NAV increase would be 11p....minus 2p increase thats happened...
gives 9p...so imo the mid price should be 9p higher...59+9= 68p..if value at same discount to NAV)

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 15:37

oh...and value of NBI per 1 share of Western is...imo...62p....same as buy price for WESP shares

(around 18M WESP shares and it owns 1.875 NBI shares according to last relevant WESP-NBI RNS reporting sale of some NBI shares)

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 15:34

and current 62p to buy is 56% of my current calculated NAV


far too large a discount to NAV imho
so I expect the discount to NAV to reduce....

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 15:33

NAV reporting !

(I was going to do report every X period of time........but ...forgot...)

1) method A

Using absolute values of each holding.

NAV = 111.7p


2) Method B
Calculating the increase in value of holdings compared with stated value in last accounts to get a value for change in total NAV. And then adding that change in NAV to the stated NAV in the last accounts....to get a new NAV.

93p + 18.4p

111.4p


So...imo I am happy that the NAV is 111-112p to a high degree of confidence...

but happy if anyone reckons their value is different and that I have got it wrong !!


(values used
NBI 598p
and sale of some shares included in calcs. 570k in value....should dbl check no other sales in period....
SWL 95p
CRE 110p

Blue chip portfolio. unchanged from last accounts.
Value of Hartim/assocaites. unchanged from last accounts.

-----

All part of the service !!

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 12:46

If LFI made an offer for WESP....cash or LFI shares or cash + shares

can LFI vote the shares it owns in WESP
or since it is making the offer it is not allowed to vote those shares ?

They would need 50.1 % of voters to vote yes or 75% ?
of voters or of actual shares of WESP ? (so non votes would act against them)
----

btw with WH Lamb Ltd votes LFI has over 50% of WESP votes imo

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 12:40

merging LFI and WESP

"if" Hartim is valuable in the end....

then Western shareholders would not want to merge with LFI....since WESP shareholders would then own less of Hartim...

while the Marshalls would be keen to merge since they would then own a bigger part of Hartim...and gain more if it rose in value...
(they dont own any WESP shares....only LFI shares (40% ?)....which has around 40-44% of WESP)

say 40% of 40% of 50%
so the Marshalls own 8% of Hartim imo

If they owned 40% of Western and not of LFI then they would own 20% of Hartim imo. ...just over dbl their current 8%


if Hartim was valuable then WESP shareholders might not want to let anyone else (LFI) get their hands on any part of it !

unless LFI could offer some tasty pie in return...which at present I cant think what that might be...
although if ISDX was to dissapear...and shareholders were told...
going to be forced to de-list since moving to AIM would be too expensive...
or merge with LFI...
perhaps WESP would then take that offer...
Id be happy to be de-listed...and have matched trades...since that is almost what the situation is anyway....
to be honest...around 20 people own the co. I think....and normally do not trade one share imo....the rest of holders own almost nothing...

----

LFI

heavily invested in blue chips and FIF

blue chip fund...where all the divi goes to pay the wages of the fund manager and the Marshalls.....completely pointless imo !
(if anyone wants to give me their money to run a blue chip fund where all the divis are used to pay my wages and expenses for running it..and you get none of the divis (your divi being generated by selling assets...your own assets...its the LFI way !)...please let me know !)

FIF
if the rainfall is too high or too low then the price of wheat changes....and the FIF shareprice
margin on sales is tiny. high amounts of capital needed for expensive machines and factories.
high use of gas...exposed to gas price changes
large number of workers. massive part of costs.
one small mistake and you quickly gobble up any cash built up from that tiny margin.
competition is intense.
supermarkets nail the suppliers on price and of course compete them on price
they had an egg problem I think X years back....sp crash.
they had a factory burn down
not the type of investment I like

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 11:11

the discount for WESP shares....while Athelney Trust shares trade at almost 0% discount to NAV

insane imo.

(Athelney over priced...and WESP under priced
Western discount to NAV is bigger than it should be imo...
hopefully in coming months it will reduce
currently around 50% of NAV while historically 60-65% of NAV has been common)

----

btw LFI went to almost 0 % discount wrt to NAV ....
some insider trading imo in advance of the news of the property being sold...
and producing a secret 2M into the accounts..

(accounts must be true and fair....
AIM/LSE shame it dont happen !)

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 11:09

Coolen
"First 2 marks were a "put-through", but odd that it put the shares better at 57-62p. Then out came a small seller at 58p. Those were the trades on Monday."


imo not quite right

splitting hairs...

the "put-through", (sold and bought back...so a move from one account to another)
actually happened "after" the share price rise.
...the sale before buy back is shown at around 57p....whereas the price to sell had been at 53p (53-58p buy/sell)


imo the MM moved the share price up after seeing the share price rise at NBI

but personally I am not sure if MMs are strictly allowed to move prices unless there is a trade...I dont know...I guess so...they do after good or bad news I guess...

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 11:03

one of the best posts we have had on this msg. brd I think !!!

Coolen
"Discount to nav would be looking attractive were it not for their skill in finding new banana skins to slip on."

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 11:00

"Marshall's chum entrepreneur Gyllenhamer "

not been doing well over last yr imo......

I monitor...and various investments not performing...
C21 being one....SWL has stopped paying a divi as we know...
and SWL has been one of his best performers

The Gyll. strategy is not a good one imo.
(buying a struggling business where there are assets to back up the sp
once you have sold some assets you still have a struggling business...which is difficult to turn around long term...often struggling due to overriding reasons..

NBI going X6 shows what a growing co. can do....investing in a "good" co. is better long term...

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 11:00

"Marshall's chum entrepreneur Gyllenhamer "

not been doing well over last yr imo......

I monitor...and various investments not performing...
C21 being one....SWL has stopped paying a divi as we know...
and SWL has been one of his best performers

The Gyll. strategy is not a good one imo.
(buying a struggling business where there are assets to back up the sp
once you have sold some assets you still have a struggling business...which is difficult to turn around long term...often struggling due to overiding reasons..

NBI going X6 shows what a growing co. with good profit margin can do.

[smithie6] 22/8/2014 10:44

nice to see some posters and some discussion of ....

- "our" company !!


even though we sadly dont have control of it..

----


"It does seem a nonsense to run 2 similar plcs at double the cost.

Russman
20 Aug'14 - 22:56 - 316 of 317 0 0

a)would mean the Marshall empire take a pay cut"



One reason imo is so that there is more income to pay the costs of the City Road offices and staff....
who I assume also do work for the Marshall family investments....
and cos. privately owned by the Marshalls....
from same offices....

since they would not (could not) want to pay for London offices from their own much lower income...
and they get access to City Road professional staff with knowledge about tax rules, loopholes etc....and ideas about blue chip investments....since City road is running a few blue chip portfolios anyway (which has been or is a waste of time imo....for shareholders....)
...whereas to use or access such prof. staff in London on a per consultation basis would cost an arm and a leg...which at family level they wouldnt want to pay...

----
btw

Sleeping partner at LFI and at Western is imo the same....
WH Lamb Ltd...

just happen to hold key number of votes that take the Marshalls to a smidge over 50%.

Casuality ?
Not imho.

[coolen] 21/8/2014 00:02

I like your Leeds Assets thinking !

LDSG is giving the lack of finding a suitable acquisition as the reason for not paying a dividend.

[russman] 20/8/2014 22:56

a)would mean the Marshall empire take a pay cut but if Finsbury Food leaves the nest, they might not have a choice.
b) the Swede could use LDSG to asset strip the LFI/WSE combo; but that is not very friendly.
The Bod are getting on, it is time they were put out to grass.

[coolen] 19/8/2014 22:06

As oft been aired previously, the obvious routes to re-rating are either:

a) WSEL to merge with sister company, LFI, and thus regain its Stock Exhange quote and save a bundle on duplicated costs; or

b) Marshall's chum entrepreneur Gyllenhamer to take WSEL as his UK investment vehicle and leave Marshall to run LFI.

It does seem a nonsense to run 2 similar plcs at double the cost.

[russman] 19/8/2014 19:23

There has always been potential but we are waiting for a catalyst in order to extract the value.