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.
@Canetoad .... a takeover could be blocked if either 25% (under a scheme of arrangement) or 10% (traditional takeover) of shareholders voted against the deal. Given the fractured nature of the shareholder register it would be very difficult for a management led buy out to pick the company up cheaply. In terms of the highest price in the previous 12 months this would only apply if the Biles concert party had bought shares and were involved in any takeover. That said I do not recall any of them having purchased shares in the last 12 months.
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.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/feature-content/exclusive-ince-boss-john-biles-resigns-after-restaurant-allegations#:~:text=John%20Biles%2C%20Ince's%20head%20of,the%20misbehaving%20party%20as%20Biles.
Adrian Biles and Father were at the table. The father stepped down not long after daily mail article. See here. There is no doubt that Adrian + Father were at the dinner. This is not hearsay. This has been confirmed by insiders. You do not step down from a company immediately after an incident if you are innocent because else you will be misidentified as being guilty. You do not stay in a company immediately after an incident if you are advised by the board that your position is untenable. The 'optics' of a stepdown, such as his, is an effort by the board to 'put to bed' the story. Even if the individual and incident are not named together, it implicitly does the PR work for you, all things being equal.
Michael Fabricant attempted to articulate this dynamic in a, now retracted, tweet last week.
You will read from the RNS today that a "significant change has occurred" re Arden takeover. There is something more sinister than just the disingenuous suggestion around revenue. The messaging of the RNS suggests that the loss of NOMAD status was not considered by the board before April. The FT wrote on this in October, two days after the announcement.
Whereas on the 11th of April, Ince took an altogether different view, despite being in knowledge of the same facts. My very basic analysis, which has secured consensus acceptance on this message board with regards to significant loss of sticky revenue, staff retention and reputation is at total odds with the disingenuous statement from the 11th of April. How can it be remotely compatible with their statutory obligations to publish honest, truthful and comprehensive messaging around the material impact of the acquisition? The idea the board only 'considered' the impact, five months later after the FT article is indicative of either a disingenuous RNS or a board more fit to run a communal bath than a PLC.
One more point: Arden Partners are so proud of their staff turnover vis a vis the findings that I have published, they have removed the team page altogether from their website.
**** TODAYS RNS
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.
Reviews for Cardiff office:
Facebook: 1*
Review Solicitors: 1*
Google Reviews: 1.5*
These reviews matter. This needs to be fixed.
@contraian123 .... you are incorrect in your belief about who I am and I am not sure I have ever asked you or anyone to believe what I say but you opinion is well noted.
My biggest concern here is that the partners take it private. Unless I'm mistaken, all they need to offer is the highest price in the previous 12m. If the share price hangs around at these levels long enough, it becomes a significant risk. I'm tempted to buy more at this level, but I'm not going to. It's too dangerous at the moment. There could be real damage done to the brand through the restaurant incident.
I am not impressed to see the Gordon Dadds, Cardiff has a 1* rating on 'review solicitors' (based on 6 client reviews). And there is clearly some element of truth to this restaurant episode, given that John Biles supposedly has resigned - according to the legal site rollonfriday.com. As a public company, they should be concentrating on getting a 5* client rating rather than spending £1,000 on dinner.
Financially, I think there's value here *if* they can stop the constant bad press and keep an even keel.
Spot on the difference is the deferred consideration and most of that will roll of in the second half of this financial year. In effect this is a conditional liability that will only become payable in the event that certain levels of revenue are billed and collected by the pre merger Ince partners.
erratum - you keep saying you have a bid. I vaguely remember your bullish statements in the past. I believe you are an insider so don't really believe what you are saying
I have debt at around 18m in my notes. Interest cover on the debt was around 10x so I'm not particularly worried that the business goes bust.
Perhaps the other chunk of money you're thinking of is the deferred consideration? This isn't debt in the traditional sense, as it is only payable under certain conditions. There's an explainer note on this here: https://www.capitalaccessgroup.co.uk/research-portal#/portal/capital-access-group/research/23_2021051710364967558
" despite IFRS requiring an estimate be included on the balance sheet as a liability of a fixed size, it is almost entirely contingent upon the revenue and cash collection of the purchased businesses. In other words, if the purchased businesses don’t meet revenue estimates set at the point of acquisition, deferred consideration is not payable on the shortfall"
My issue is the estimates, from the RNS it does state “the final trading results for the year to March 2022 will be behind expectations”. Very vague with no indications, so it could be a small miss or a loss.
Estimates from the 1 broker for 2022 are eps of 8.05 and 11.3 and 13.4 for subsequent years. From sharepad. So yes the price looks attractive at the moment if you believe the estimates. But on a forward pe of 2 and the management comments in the RNS I am sceptical. At this price I then concerned about the debt amount of approx 30 million ? Is that right
Well said JmcJ you are right it is Cheap as chips ..... for all the puerile negative sentiment on the board no one is selling. I have a bid in the market and I am not getting filled which is a bit frustrating.
I agree with the general sentiment, but my God the share price is attractive...just can't bring myself to sell at these levels. There's a decent operating business under there somewhere, we just need to hope that management don't destroy it
Pure mismanagement across all fronts. Debacle of an acquisition which goes against common logic. They had plenty of chances to pull out yet they persevered. Makes me think they have a hidden agenda. Completely washing off their hands of the cyber attack calling it effectively bad luck as if luck has anything to do with it. Shipping rates are at all time highs yet they manage a loss. Either they have a plan to take this to the ground and take it private or truly they are amateurs.
What a bunch of total amateurs
This post by erratum pretty much confirms my suspicions that he/she is an insider trying to defend the indefensible
Pure arrogance and shameful behaviour by management, and now this awful trading update....
The market will take notice....
Having said that, attractive buying price is on its way for recovery to follow in due course...IMHO.
And the 1k meals on the company whilst abusing staff.. you can’t make this stuff up it’s disgraceful
Does anyone have a contact email address for Adrian? I would like to email him re his 500k bonus
No doubt we will see the obligatory share options appear as the dust settles at all-time lows.
Absolutely!
Rewarding these Goons for failure has to stop!
And hand back his £500k on his way out of the door. Scandalous..
Agreed.
Complete sh*t show.
Another spectacular failure .. time for Adrian to go
@Salmon33, it seems to me that the word "significant" and now from your latest the derivative "insignificant" does not mean what you think it means. Why not pick up the phone to CEO or one of the NEDs and find out what is really going on rather than guess here on the LSE board ?
In your latest you say "whatever the rights and wrongs", one would think that the rights and wrongs of the matter are crucially important in this issue. As it stands today this is not even a case of "he said, she said" .... it is currently only a case of "he said". In the modern world of trail by twitter the Ince board is doing exactly the right thing.
Once we get an update from the company on how they are doing, which is now long overdue, we will be discussing how good or how bad their results and as you well know, ultimately, that is all that matters. In the big picture this is an utter irrelevance and if you believed it were not you would have sold or be in the process of selling your shares. Current trading volumes would suggest that is not the case.
@damofarl, well noted that you will not take on any of the specific comments. Here are a couple more based on your latest, that you might wish to consider when you move on from analysing Daily Mirror headlines.
1) There is no evidence it was a works do we only know that 2 Ince employees were in attendance and neither have been personally accused of the alleged behaviour.
2) It is entirely normal for the independent directors to launch an investigation when their company is linked to negative press. This is PR 101. Don't explain, don't complain, investigate.
3) Once again you have no evidence that anyone from Ince acted with anything other than the highest social standards.
4) It is asinine that you think this will have any impact on the the level of business done by Ince (whatever that level maybe). The whole incident is already in the dustbin of history having been used to wrap last weeks fish dinner.