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.
From my experience, where you find bad stuff, look hard and there's usually quite a lot more bad stuff Was he really intending to pay the money back? Or did he just get caught? The Companies Act of 2006 made unauthorised loans illegal - prior to that, execs caught stealing could claim it was 'just a loan' and get off scott free in many cases. I hope the legal review of this has some real teeth otherwise it will be more of the same. Shareholders would be right to be furious; MYT (shareholders) pays high rates of interest for its loans so that this guy can just help himself. Shareholders need to be sure that the whole operation is not full of rot. At the moment there is no such assurance. I suspect the worst. I am glad that I sold a few weeks back and I would urge shareholders to make some noise about this rotten business. The share price has rightly plunged but I would not consider buying until this mess is comprehensively sorted out. Get the police involved and make sure the right people have been shown the door. GLA
...and if the company pays this guy off in any way you will know that the problem has not been dealt with. Mark my words.
I agree with your posts 4kandles. The worrying point is not so much the loan itself, which is being dealt with, but is there anything else. I had long suspected he ruled the company with an iron rod and this confirms it. I had always drawn comfort that, as the largest shareholder his interests were aligned with the other shareholders. The problem is he is the company. The non execs have done a good job - so often toothless.
Agreed - surprised the SP has held up, but these shares were already trading at bargain basement levels. An 'unauthorised loan' is theft by another name. Will struggle to raise new money or rollover existing loans with a crook at the helm. Trouble is that he is the main driver of the Company. Need to find a new heavyweight CEO if the Company is to survive.
Few points 1. The CFO needs to go, if he cannot say no to the CEO in these circumstances he is weak and lacks integrity 2. Would expect expenses to have been abused, not just by the CEO but by the whole management team 3. Anyone potentially lender providing loans will have upped their rates with a massive risk premium 4. These type of people just need to go to jail, using a company as a personal piggy bank 5. Amazing reading the chairmans statement and corporates govn in the investor segment of their website. Unfortunately have a few quid in here for my SIPP.
I agree with the negative sentiment here regarding the 'loan', but unless anyone is a mind reader, we will never know whether it was intensional theft or not. The market sentiment, as reflected by the share price, is surprisingly indifferent and would suggest that either shareholders believe it was a loan or don't care it was theft. Either reaction is surprising to me.