Member Info for OsullivanB

It isn't sale. It is a rearrangement of the shareholder's shares between him, his wife and an entity she controls. He and his wife/her entity between them have exactly the total number of shares of which he was hitherto the sole owner. In short, it's irrelevant to the market price (which is not to say it won't affect it if others also misunderstand the RNS.

PE Ratio (f) 16.8 PEG Ratio (f) 2.87 If this share price is to increase, how far do we think these numbers can realistically be stretched?

6.8p per share

What is meant by this in today's RNS?

2015 total directors' remuneration £742,322.

50% down. 100% down - 0p.

It was his pension fund that sold the shares n(to existing institutional investors). Given that he is 69, the timing is perhaps understandable.

The history of this company has been such as to cause me from time to time to wonder whether the directors have all their marbles.

Benchmark is not now presenting at Equity Development tonight. It has been replaced by Porvair. No explanation has been given.

It is per Acute NHS Trust.

According to Small Company Sharewatch a typical five-year contract has an upfront licence payment of £650,000, a further payment of £650,000 for implementation/handholding, plus £130,000 a year maintenance. It says that's a total of £1.8m so perhaps there's a small discount in there somewhere.

The family directors' sales today reduce their interest to about 50%, so imo the only implication of the sales is that the shares may become a little less illiquid.

This share is very illiquid. When I last looked into it closely the family owned 55% and institutions 42%, leaving a public free float of only 3%. I bought on the profits warning without difficulty, but that was an unusual time with doubtless some heading for the door,

I assume it is tangible net worth - heavily negative in RM.'s csae, but that didn't put me off investing recently.

Money for old rope is a good colloquialism, but a poor investment strategy.

What is bad about the results?

I don't see that the exceptional item is material to the investment decision. It is not exceptional expenditure and has no implications for the profitability or cash flow of CMS, the first of which is a little disappointing but ok and the second of which is at least ok. It is the recognition through the p/l that CMS overpaid for an acquisition ten or so years ago. The initial response may be modified as time passes - now down only 6.56%.

Tipped by Simon Thompson in Investors Chornicle two days ago.

Thanks, CM

The VAT issue is the only thing keeping me from buying this share. Is there any indication of how big the hit might be if HMRC is right? Or how much the lawyers' fees might be in dealing with the issue? They are unlikely to be recoverable win or lose.