Member Info for hxulcolrdoh

I’m still asking myself why there was capital destruction of roughly £420m - 46% at PFG during 2022.

Possible options that have crossed my mind are

a) The underlying performance of the company has been poor. The fall has been commensurate and correctly reflects true value. However I would have expected profit warnings in this scenario. There have been none.

b) The CEO’s ‘get up an go’ has ‘got up an left’ and he is content to back peddle/bluff his way through to retirement. Meanwhile he is not that interested and isn’t going to stress about the share price.

c) Perhaps perversely senior managers are incentivised to seek share price weakness ? For example last year as part of RSP remuneration Malcom Le May and Neeraj Kapur where awarded 211,944 + 116,881 shares respectively with aim of aligning their interests with those of other shareholders. The amounts represented 100% and 75% of base salary based on a share price of 336.8p.

If this exercise was repeated this year and based on the YE price of 191.2p they’d receive 373,430 + 205,935 shares – ie a 76% increase!, ie share price weakness = greater rewards! Could it be that in the accumulation phase of of acquiring shares that they are expected to own, share price weakness benefits senior management? I’d like to think that there are mechanisms in the remuneration arrangements to discourage this. However I’m also a big believer in ‘unintended consequences’ and have lost track of the number of times that the ‘obvious’ thing to do was the wrong one.

d) Something else ? The Bazza effect :) ?

Where is it ?

Eagerly awaiting next disappointment.

I’d like to think that if we got the presentation of 2022 finals at the end of March and PFG were still languishing at current levels then larger shareholders would ask the question WHY ?

WHY ? Is a question I keep asking myself.

It is not a response any market guidance. None has been shared. Nobody knows what the company targets are. If there is some inner circle group who have been given information not available to other market participants then this would be illegal. Other companies will engage analysts to enlighten the market about the opportunities for their company, providing links on their website tagged with appropriate disclosures / warnings / caveat emptor etc . If Numis or Barclays do anything for PFG I can’t find it.

It is not a response to any deviation from the plan as nobody knows what the plan is and the only RNS announcements have been the obligatory minimum.

It is not a response to any badly received shareholder engagment. There has been none. The CMD that was mentioned with the July interim's never happened. In September there was what I thought was a start ( https://panmure.com/insights/meet-the-ceo-malcolm-le-may/ ) but apparently one swallow does not make a Spring.

I’m still trying to work out the WHY? At present I feel that there is some conflict of interest between what is best for the corporate entity versus what senior management feel is best for them personally.

For context : in 2022 the FTSE 350 opened @4228.67 and closed @4147.11 (2% drop).

Meanwhile PFG fell by a shocking 46%.

Yes a long way to go Barrieprov.

I see deadline extended again to March 31.

I was going to ask 'which March' - but see it is marked as 2023.

It is a pity that the swan/phoenix has for so long been encumbered by a dead albatross in the form of current management around its neck.

Congratulations to MLM and the team for either a) failing to deliver or b) delivering and failing to communicate the message. I'm not sure which.

The market clearly voted with its feet. Let's hope 2023 is better.

Think you are right GR.

In managements ideal world they would jettison some cash in the form of dividends leaving nothing but a company pulling down the shutters. Then they’d hopefully sit on their proverbial ****s (rhymes with mole) spinning out the rundown process until at least the end of 2025.

So I think today's development is CA telling management that that plan doesn’t work for them.

Whatever happens their time is up. Either they can land a buyer and exit with some dignity or CA will in receive some funds in the short term via the dividend and start sprucing up the shop again with a view to protecting what remains.

Where does CA machinations leave it w.r.t. it stated objective ( as reported by the board )?

"Crystal Amber Fund Limited, which holds 28.9 per cent. of the Company's shares and is the Company's largest shareholder, has indicated to the Board its desire to monetise the value of its shareholding."

More snouts in the trough.

Rest assured that all monies raised / generated will always be thrown in the trough.

Anybody who ignore the extensive history and thinks NCCL is an investable company is an imbecile.

G1lo - on the back of your comments I did Google OF and I see what you mean about not being able to do simple. Generally not just at SLE his ‘structured finance’ thing seems to be to move money around in some sort of ‘now you see it now you don't’ shell game. He must be a nightmare to work with. If and when you struck a deal with him it would only mark the start of the litigation phase.

In the last eight years when the company and its share price have flat lined he has managed to trouser circa $14m in remuneration selling hope / tomorrows jam. Gift of the blarney and all that. I’m not convinced his personal ideal outcome is other than to be permanently in situ being paid to either pursue deals that never conclude or fight litigation.

Maybe I’m still under the influence of recently watching ‘War Dogs’. Plot summary : when everybody was winning one character in the proceedings was prepared to torpedo everything unless he won it all.

Actually Daisy the two companies seem remarkably similar.

£xxx millions raised to launch money spinning coal projects. Years/decades later no sign of any operational coal projects and ((£xxx - £x) millions have transferred to a few delusional chumps how hold the £x million and still think they are sitting
on a ten bagger.

Puts me in mind of the old grifter maxim - if you don't know who the patsy is - you are it.

It is certainly very confusing.

Officially the suspension was to formulate the terms of a reverse takeover of Petronas assets.

Officially the Petronas reverse takeover / share purchase agreement / reason for the suspension been been terminated.

Therefore should SAVE not now be un suspended or new rational/explanation given for a continued suspension?

The sun doesn't get over the horizon for long in this part of the world at this time of year. Not that I have seen it for days anyway through the freezing fog that sits in the absence of wind.

The sun doesn't get over the horizon for long in this part of the world at this time of year - but I haven't seen it for days anyway through the freezing fog that sits in the absence of wind.

Results presentation - worth a view. Value proposition pitched @ 41 min.

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/tharisa-plc/register-investor

Probably I have posted on the board before.

I'll put it another way - if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck then maybe it is a ....?

Should the market be looking at its teeth?

Thanks CEJ1!

What are the pro's and con's of a share capital reduction ?

Is it required to facilitate increased dividend payouts ?

Does it affect the value of the company to a potential purchaser ?