focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
@contarian123 - It appears you may have a case of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Not in the legal profession and not English but awe know already that facts will not get in the way of your suppositions.
"Equanimity" - your command of the English language is impeccable. Patronised CaneToad like a true Englishman. Do tell us what part of the legal profession space you occupy?
@CaneToad, as HumpyDumpy said well done for concluding this is not the right stock for you and moving on. Given how wobbly you have been on this one for a while now, I am sure you will gain equanimity from the decision.
Well done CaneToad for having the bottle to bail out at this point. Lots of folk would cling on in hope, and that often proves to be a poor call. Who knows, this may come back a little, and I hope for those who have lost here that it does, but there are obviously better and more stable investments elsewhere, particularly with all the uncertainty we have at the moment.
@erratum, looking back over your posts, it's crystal clear that you are some sought of insider. In contrast to me: a genuine investor in many companies. Nobody that has been here for a substantial amount of time, with a substantial investment would defend the Ince management. They have destroyed the value of the shares on every possible time scale. 75% down from the most recent high. That is due to sheer incompetence, arrogance and disrespect for shareholders.
I worked in the broking business for decades. I am not a lawyer, but I know the business they are in. There is absolutely no logic to the acquisition or to their justification for it. At best, they have halved the value of Arden. Clearly, this deal is about more, but I have no plans on sticking around for more of this nonsense. when insolvency is a real option here.
Good luck.
@erratum, you're absolutely right. I have no knowledge about the legal profession. How many investors have qualifications in each area in which they invest? What a ridiculous statement.
You have no idea what you're talking about, making comments about how others research a share.
'I am more than a bit curious on what basis you underwrote your purchase of Ince shares' ? what sought of gobblygook are you talking about and what business is it of yours to know how people are investing? I invest in an ISA/SIPP, like most UK investors.
@canetoad - Forgive me for the bluntness but it clear you know very little about the legal profession and specifically Ince and its key practice areas, it is also clear that you did not do very much research before investing. I am more than a bit curious on what basis you underwrote your purchase of Ince shares ?
@Contrarian123 - You are most welcome to your opinions/speculations, they are of course wrong but you are most welcome to them.
Maybe erratum can join them lol. I am sure he already works for them in some sort of capacity. Pure speculation on my part of course
"The article in Rollonfriday on 6 May (link provided by tshaw2 below) was already disconcerting, but some of the comments - apparently from former Ince employees - are even more so."
Those comments on RollOnFriday, Facebook, Google and 'Review Solicitor' paint a terrible story. I wish I'd come across that material before investing here. When *all* reviews are terrible, there is something wrong with the company. It seems that the CEO has no idea how to fix it or is totally out of touch. Perhaps he should step aside for somebody else.
How the heck will they attract new staff?
I don't want to re-type what I have already written but the key points around revenue generation (fundraising being a function of NOMAD status not the other way round), reputation, staff retention are all absolutely material to its NOMAD status. A GCSE business student being given a case study which explained what a NOMAD did and was given the last annual report of Arden would know that loss of NOMAD is a total contradiction of the Board's view as laid out in their 11th April RNS. It is disingenuous at best and deceit at worst.
Completion of the Acquisition will therefore mean that following the Change of Control, Arden will no longer be able to provide Nominated Adviser services. Although this is a significant change, the Board of Ince believes that Arden's reputation is primarily built around its ability to raise money for its clients and provide other broking and advisory services, and therefore the loss of its Nominated Adviser licence should not materially impact Arden's brand and ability to engage new clients nor its ability to provide fund raising and corporate broking services. The strategic rationale for the Acquisition as set out in the Scheme Document and announcement of 26 October 2021, which focuses on expanding the Enlarged Group's client base and deal flow, fundamentally remains the same.
I am not following your thought thread here.
If it was the board had not consider the possibility of the loss of Nomad status prior to April 6th, clearly that is not the case as among other things it was a condition precedent for closing and it was also a risk factor in the scheme document. If it is something else you are going to need to be a bit more explicit to help me understand the change you are seeing.
The article in Rollonfriday on 6 May (link provided by tshaw2 below) was already disconcerting, but some of the comments - apparently from former Ince employees - are even more so.
I said that on the information we have we do not know who the letter was addressed to. The prefix Mr is universal for male identifying humans. I have said Adrian and John were present. You subsequently said that it is addressed to Biles and by extension he was present. I am saying, on the basis of that, I am delighted you concur that he was present.
I believe that the pontification around crude behaviour at a dinner in Cardiff is an inferior priority for discussion than shareholder destruction born out of poor quality judgement (crude behaviour in a restaurant is of course consistent with that). I believe that there is a case to be answered for in the disingenuous language in the RNS as I laid out this morning.
It should be asking you if you are in agreement that it addressed to Mr. Biles .... just 5 mins ago you were telling me it was not.
@tshaw2 .... would you like to tell me what took place and who did what and when as I don't know and clearly you do ?
Would you also like to refer to the follow up tweet from the owner where he says on reflection he overreacted and perhaps you might also like to acknowledge that Mr. Biles's retirement was announced before the newspaper coverage and that he did not resign over the "incident" as you appear to be suggesting.
You are in agreement, that the letter addressed to 'Mr Biles' relates to the dinner that he 'chose' for 'his' dinner. It could not be clearer, that whomever it was addressed to was a participant that evening (as would be a natural function of the addressed being the subject matter of the email). The letter though does not absolve him of any responsibility of the behaviour as you have twice suggested. It merely says 'your group'.
sorry I thought I did not need to fill in all the details .... Try Mr Biles
Mr does not relate to anyone more specifically than a man. Every man at that table would warrant such a prefix.
try Mr.
ettarum, the letter was not addressed to Adrian nor John? The first letter after the word Dear shows an M. It didn't absolve anyone.
@tshaw2 ..... are you certain this is what happened ?
A little fact checking would tell you that the emailed announcement of Mr J Biles retirement went out to staff before 9.30 am on the morning after the restaurant incident (is it possible it was a retirement party ?) and long before the tweet made it in to the newspapers. The letter which was tweeted out was addressed to Mr. J Biles and explicitly absolves him of the behaviour that was objected to. I do think people on this board need to be very careful about stating as fact things that they are guessing or supposing, especially when tied to named individuals.
"Cardiff is principally a back office location for the group and a very limited amount of legal work is done from there. Final point John Biles did not resign he retired, he is 83 years old."
I don't care what type of office it is. I want to see excellence everywhere. It's bad optics to have those reviews come up in multiple places. It can't help the brand.
Regarding John Biles, I don't know the real story, hence my caution in saying that he 'supposedly' resigned 'according to ... rollonfridays'.
Thanks for clarifying the situation with a takeover.
Whatever qualities one might draw from Michael Fabricant and his headpiece, the point is simply that you don't resign / not show up when there's a question as to who the guilty party is.
Roll on Friday ..... lol, retracted tweets from Michael Fabricant of all people. Lots of hard facts there then.