Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@Dorfan I agree with much of your logic, but... there is always a "but." Your breakdown overlooks a critical structural indicator: the "excess" insolvency wave. While you correctly identify that unemployment is being masked by inactivity, we are witnessing a massive, cleared backlog of failed businesses that is fundamentally changing how the market operates.

Comparing current annual insolvency rates to the 2017–2019 pre-pandemic baseline reveals an "excess" of roughly 12,700 business failures per year. This is not normal market churn; it is the release of a multi-year backlog of firms that were artificially kept alive during the pandemic via state support.

This trend is visible in the physical contraction of the high street. Bank branch closures, including Lloyds, supermarket retrenchments, and the reduction of footprints by multi-retailers and post offices are not random events they are a defensive "lean service" reaction. Businesses are stripping out high-overhead physical infrastructure because the cost of maintaining a presence, combined with the rising "entry price" of labour (taxes and wages), is no longer viable.

This has a direct multiplier effect on employment not captured by headline redundancy figures. As you pointed out, we aren't seeing classic mass layoffs; we are seeing "managed attrition" and footprint shrinkage. When a bank branch or retail unit closes, it permanently displaces staff, but those roles are rarely being refilled due to the fiscal ceiling imposed by our near 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

The question is, what can we do to reverse the trend? It is easy to blame the rise of people on benefits, but where do they go if they lose their job through no fault of their own? Bills still need to be paid.

The solution isn't just "getting people back to work" it’s fixing the fiscal trap. Until the government addresses the prohibitive cost of employment (the "Jobs Tax") and the regulatory overhead that makes business expansion unviable, the "hiring freeze" will continue. We have a structural mismatch where the cost of labour exceeds the economic value of the role, and until that equation is corrected, the hollowing out of the workforce will remain our reality.

The announcement makes no reference to cash payments, contract value, revenue projections, funding amounts, or any financial considerations. Everything mentioned is structural, strategic, or operational rather than financial. The partnership is framed around capabilities, access, support, and infrastructure not money. Just more fluff.

@Gandernee There is a significant difference between 'inbound interest' and committed long-term investment. The placing RNS made much of this interest, yet a placing of this scale involving over 33% of the total issued share capital would legally require any participant crossing the 3% threshold to file a TR-1 notification. Since no such notifications followed, the 'institutional' support was either fragmented into sub-3% holdings to avoid disclosure (which, given the market cap, would not be commercially viable for an institutional investor and would constitute a mere 'rounding error') or was entirely transient. If these were truly 'high-quality' long-term institutional investors, where are the disclosures?

Part two Is Consolidation the solution?

The forum poster’s claim that "no amount of consolidation is going to solve that problem" is a specific interpretation of a company's growth strategy.

The Argument for "No": If the company's underlying business model, revenue, or market position is structurally weak, share consolidation, mergers or acquisitions may simply be "adding or subtracting zeroes" without improving the fundamental value or the quality of the company. If the company remains illiquid and lacks a compelling investment narrative, it will likely remain "institutional unfriendly" regardless of its size.

The Argument for "Yes": Consolidation is a standard way for smaller companies to hit the "scale threshold" required by institutional investors. By merging to reach a market cap of, for example, £200 million+, a company can move from "micro-cap" to "small-cap," potentially gaining access to a wider pool of capital, index inclusion, and increased analyst coverage.

Summary: Your assessment—that this is a hurdle rather than an impossible barrier—is supported by market mechanics. Whether consolidation fixes the problem depends entirely on whether the resulting entity is a high-quality, liquid, and fundamentally sound business, or simply a larger or smaller version of a sub-optimal one. The forum poster is highlighting the fact that institutional investors are looking for liquidity and quality, not just a higher market cap number.

@Punter1234 this is what AI says about my claim and we all know you like using AI.

Factcheck the claim quote "Why institutional friendly? Institutional investors usually avoid companies with a market cap under £100 million. Right now, the market cap is £12.5 million, so there’s a lot of work to be done, and no amount of consolidation is going to solve that problem."

Part one Institutional Investments:

The assertion that institutional investors largely avoid companies with a market capitalisation under £100 million is generally accurate in the context of mainstream institutional mandates, though it is a rule of thumb rather than a hard regulatory prohibition.

Why Institutional Investors Shy Away from Micro-caps

The £100 million threshold is a common "soft" floor for several structural and practical reasons:

Liquidity Constraints: This is the most significant factor. Institutional funds often manage hundreds of millions or billions of pounds. If a fund takes a position in a company with a £12.5 million market cap, they risk becoming a "forced holder"—unable to exit their position without causing significant price impact or "slippage." They generally require a minimum daily trading volume to ensure they can enter or exit a position without distorting the stock price.

Mandate Restrictions: Many institutional mandates have strict investment guidelines that define a "universe" of eligible stocks. These often exclude companies below a certain size to ensure the portfolio remains diversified and "investable."

Analyst Coverage (The "Research Gap"): As noted in professional investment literature, small and micro-cap stocks receive significantly less coverage from high-quality equity research analysts. Institutional investors rely on this research to perform due diligence. Without it, the cost of the internal research required to justify an investment in a £12.5 million company is often prohibitively expensive relative to the potential return.

Compliance and Costs: The regulatory and operational costs of managing small-cap positions can be disproportionately high compared to the position size.

"@Eightyeight88 You regularly talk about me patronising people, specifically you, whilst in the same sentence doing likewise. I think I've mentioned this before: I treat others the way I am treated. If you do not like being patronised, you know what you need to do; otherwise, you will continue to receive exactly what you give. Respect is earned it isn't given freely.

@troublesome 208,600 of all types including repurposing other buildings ie barn conversions etc or if specifically new builds the figure falls to 170,390

That is up by almost 40,000 homes compared with the same period last year and is the highest level since records began, dating back to 1996...

If you look at the relative figures, the trend is even more pronounced. In 1996, the relative figure worked out at approximately 1,000 households per 100,000, compared to 2026, where the figure is 1,350 per 100,000 households. This shift illustrates the impact of 30 years of sustained economic and social pressures, including three recessions and over a decade and a half of austerity and austerity under other names, which have collectively contributed to deeper structural detachment from the labour market.

Regarding your claim: 'More than 2.6 million homes contain economically inactive working-age adults':

This is a misinterpretation of the data. The '2.6 million' figure is a widely reported ONS statistic representing the total number of people—not households—of working age who are economically inactive due to long-term ill health.

When you consider that there are approximately 29 million households in the UK, conflating individual counts (the 2.6 million people) with household units creates an entirely misleading picture of the scale. You can find the ONS Labour Market Overview here, which clarifies the distinction between individual inactivity and household-level data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2026

By conflating these figures, one ignores the broader 12.2 million economically inactive post work age individuals, many of whom represent a significant, often hidden, burden on other household members. It is easy to conflate these statistics to fulfil an agenda, particularly when government policy increasingly relies on households to care for the sick, elderly and infirm at home rather than through formal NHS or local authority rehabilitation and community care facilities.

More to the point, though, is how this can be changed. Do we cut off benefits and make people destitute? Reopen the workhouse? In many areas, there is simply no employment available for people to take on, and if individuals are seriously ill, how would they work anyway?

You've given me another promotion; at this rate, I'll be a general by week's end. There was only one Falklands hero in our regiment, and he was awarded the VC posthumously.

Why institutional friendly? Institutional investors usually avoid companies with a market cap under £100 million. Right now, the market cap is £12.5 million, so there’s a lot of work to be done, and no amount of consolidation is going to solve that problem.

Didn't NatWest do that for a couple of years then change their mind and opt for banking hubs instead.

@Eightyeight88 Now that I’ve retired, I’ve streamlined my accounts to a UK current account with Santander for everyday bills and spending, a multicurrency account with Dukascopy for when I’m abroad, two stocks and shares ISAs one with HL and the other with T212 an Invest account, a CFD account, a SIPP, and a cash ISA with T212, a Coutts fixed-rate savings account and a Coutts fixed rate ISA. Oh yes, and a paypal account for shopping online. The big question, of course, is why that’s a problem for you.

I’ve been on the LSE all day since it’s raining, and I don’t enjoy gardening in wet weather. I also watched a film, spent a couple of hours tidying my studio, and did some research on Marvell Technology, Kioxia Holdings, and CC Japan Income and Growth Trust. All go here. What have you been doing apart from rioting in Southampton and disregarding the wishes of Henry Nowak’s parents after feeling upset yesterday evening over events?

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion on the timing of company communications, it is worth noting that a share suspension does not pause a company's regulatory obligations. Under UK MAR, a company is still required to disclose any price-sensitive information as soon as it arises, regardless of its trading status. Failing to do so would risk significant regulatory censure from the FCA, as the duty to keep the market informed is ongoing and not contingent on the suspension being lifted

With my Santander banking app, if I lose my card and get a replacement, it shows me the master PIN in the app, and I can change it there if I want. When replacing an expired card, the PIN stays the same you just use the new card as normal, and during the first transaction, you enter your usual PIN and you’re all set. With my other accounts I use virtual cards so it doesn't matter.

I agree that branches are disappearing too quickly. Some generations have grown up with technology or been surrounded by it throughout their adult lives, but there are still older people who can’t quite get to grips with it and prefer to sort things out face-to-face, with someone to guide them.

I bank with Santander in the UK and have a multicurrency account with Dukascopy Bank, using their apps happily for years. I had a Starling account for a while, but frequent app glitches and getting locked out put me off. My brother uses Starling for his business and says it’s improved, though he’s still been locked out twice in the past year, which isn’t ideal for running a business. For me, once bitten, twice shy. Its rare I carry cash and the last time I visited a branch was pre 2016 and that was to use their cashpoint inside the bank because it was raining.

Some of the data is known the important bits are missing and until we know that commerciality is still an unknown.

The question is, can you use your stockbroking account over the counter at your local bank? If not, it’s unlikely you’d make a special trip to the bank just to use their stockbroking service assuming they even offer one.

Zag, you tell some posters to wait for an RNS for accurate information and ignore the fluff, yet also claim you have all the info needed to judge based on RNS, conversations, and so on. So which is it do we ignore the fluff or factor it in when assessing the company’s trajectory? RNS carries legal weight; everything else is just fluff, as you’ve said. Yesterday you were telling people you were unhappy with the current situation, and today you’re saying you’re happy with it, even though nothing has changed in the past 24 hours. It seems you’re unsure of what you want, what you believe, and what information should be considered useful versus useless.

"AI generated but interesting. If you don't like AI well don't read it just don't whine those who contribute F all!"

Now that's irony for you. When I post AI content, I'm accused of not using my own brain, but when you use it, suddenly it's acceptable. The hypocrisy is deafening.🤣

"LTIwas correct your arithmetic is poor 2029 is not several. Year's away..sort your AI out...gl speak tomorrow maybe"

Regarding the timeline we are currently in 2026 and the next scheduled general election is in 2029. That is a three-year interval, which by any standard definition qualifies as 'several years.'. My arithmetic is fine.