Member Info for Pip56

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the Agreement (RNS 05 Jun 20) but it seems to require both groups to stay within 10-20% ownership of total shares in issue. Below 10% and they lose the representative NED. Above 20% and all bets are off - the agreement is broken and their position is considered hostile.

Babbington's background is predominantly legal. I agree she doesn't seem to have the preparation for chairing a multimillion pound infrastructure company but who knows?

If a big construction/infrastructure company, or even Bayford, take over Fulcrum would the utility design/build/operate licenses also transfer? I can understand Bayford's interest.

As I write I note they have just picked up another 25,000 shares. Now at 14.7% and the SP is responding. Is something afoot?

Not sure that Bayford are so much 'backing it' as 'buying it' - slowly and surely they are continuing to build their position. I have never understood the relationship between 'Bayford Group' and 'Harwood Capital LLP' but they both have NEDs on the board and they have both been active in building positions. Neither Bayford or Harwood refer to each other on their respective websites but both are subject to the Relationship Agreement described in the RNS of 05 Jun 20.

I had forgotten the RNS and have read it again. The Relationship Agreement was predicated on Holder stepping down and the introduction of new NEDs one of whom would become chairman. This has all now happened so we really should be seeing a more focussed business in the coming months.

Seen - 19 Oct, reported as a Fulcrum News item.

Is the CFO a member of the Board of Directors? Looking at the Fulcrum 'who we are' page she is not mentioned. Gutteridge stands out as the only survivor of the 2020 changes. His attempt to jump ship has been delayed so I expect he will be next.

As I said before, and rather prematurely, it will be good for all this navel gazing to cease so that the BoD can focus on the business. Hopefully with a return of the dividend later in the year.

FULCRUM has suffered a chaotic year in the boardroom (see below). The 2019 delays in reporting followed by the 2020 Harwood raid have resulted in a significant transfer of responsibility. Its like watching Games of Thrones! There is one more move to come. The appointment of Pattison as CFO was described as temporary/interim so one assumes a replacement has yet to be found. Dugdale now has the CEO seat after coming up from COO(gas). He has two strong horses to run - Installing infrastructure to support the EV revolution (for which there are two new appointments) and installing infrastructure to support the emerging hydrogen revolution in heavy and commercial industry.

9 May 19 – Hazel Griffiths leaves CFO after accounts delayed
20 Jun 19 – Darren Harris appointed as CFO (external appointment)
1 Oct 19 – Martin Harrison leaves CEO
1 Oct 19 – Phil Holder (Chairman) steps in to cover CEO (internal move)
29 Jan 20 – Darren Harris (CFO) appointed as CEO (internal move)
29 Jan 20 – Phil Holder returns to Chairman
29 Jan 20 – Terry Dugdale (COO gas) promoted to Group COO (internal move)
21 Feb 20 – Ian Pattison appointed as Interim CFO (external appointment)
8 Apr 20 – Jennifer Babington appointed as NED (external appointment)
9 Apr 20 – Harwood Makes a move on FULCRUM
30 Apr 20 – Wayne Hayes retires as Non Exec Director
12 Jun 20 – Jonathon Turner & Jeremy Brade appointed as NED representing Harwood’s interests.
6 Oct 20 – Stephen Gutteridge steps down as NED
10 Dec 20 – Phil Holder leaves as Chairman
10 Dec 20 - Jennifer Babington moves from NED to Chairman (Internal move)
10 Dec 20 – Stephen Gutteridge withdraws intent to leave
6 Jan 20 – Darren Harris leaves as CEO
6 Jan 20 – Terry Dugdale promoted from COO to CEO (Internal move)

Biffa look as though they have weathered the storm from earlier this year but the current restrictions will be a concern, particularly for collections from the hospitality sector. I am not sure if the dividend will return in the spring as it may be too early. If it does, even at a reduced level, I would expect the sp to respond. I also anticipate further expansion/market consolidation as smaller waste businesses get into difficulty.

As you say, a steady and solid company that seems to have a good ethical foundation.

I thought this was interesting. Gresham House Strategic took a position in FCRM and they talk about the process that led to that decision in this article. It looks quite robust but they invested right at the bottom and have made a 164% return on that since March 2020. However they qualify that with - "we have ca 35% in businesses like Van Elle, Fulcrum Utility Services, Flowtech Fluidpower and Ted Baker, which were on their knees at the height of the crisis but in most cases are recovering well".

The whole article here: https://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/gresham-house-strategic-focus-is-on-strategic-public-equity-investment-2618861/

Nothing new here. Most of this content is already on the FCRM web site. Phil Holder is bound to say the company is well positioned and that the future is bright. Best of luck to him.

I would be much happier if the positive rhetoric was supported by evidence and facts. A regular news feed on new contracts won/successfully completed would help. Talking about supporting the UK Net Zero Future is all well and good but what, where, when and how would be better.

The board room shuffles are, hopefully, coming to a conclusion. Time for the navel gazing to cease and perhaps time for a new PR company to be appointed who will get a grip of how FCRM presents itself to the outside world and its shareholders.

Which year ... 2021? Certainly not 2020. Stuck in the doldrums and drifting.

jl - Forgive me, perhaps the term 'double account' was a bit clumsy.

Using the example that I gave with the order book you can see that in Dec 19 it stood at £62m. By March 20 it had grown to £68m, an increase of new orders amounting to £6m in that 6 month period. This most recent interim report, covering the period March to September 20, declares that new orders have gone up by 9.4% and that they now stand at £68.5m. Clearly this is misleading. During the Interim Reporting Period new orders have increased from £68m to £68.5m.

I acknowledge that the order book has increased by 9.4% since Sep 19 but 9% of that occurred in the previous reporting period. That growth has been booked and already counted in the EOY report. It seems pretty disingenuous to go back, count it again and declare "This reflects the ongoing and successful delivery of our sales growth strategy" - It's true for last year but not for today or the last 6 months.

It's not the only place. The interim reporting period closed on 30 Sep, effectively closing the book on that date. Despite this the report emphasises the recent receipts from ESP (30 Nov) and a whole list of post 30 Sep contractual activities. From the perspective of 30 Sep these are forward looking statements and should be described as such. I can't recall ever seeing an interim report that specifically states activities past the reporting date other than in generic terms "trading/receipts are good/better than expected" type thing.

All that said Raxfactor is quite right. It is what it is and we should just hope that they can move forward. I am in no position to step away as I bought in heavily in 2018 (+50p territory) and remain submerged and frustrated by the various board changes.

What I am saying is that the report has been written to present a different picture than actually exists.

For example in the final 2020 report earlier this year the company declared an order book of £68m. In this interim report (6 months from Mar to Sep 20) they declare an order book of £68.5m, however they then look back to Sep 19 to make the comparison and declare a 9.4% increase - a true statement comparing like with like but at best misleading. The increase in orders took place in the second half of the last reporting period - from £62m to £68m. In this first half of the FY, which the report is supposed to be about, the order book has barely moved.

My impression is that they are double accounting to present a rosier picture and this is a thread running right through the report. Apropos the market.... the report has not had any effect, it remains flat and will stay that way until FULCRUM come up with something substantial.

I can see that £27m is due from ESP. However to deliver this they are borrowing £10m on a revolving credit facility (RCF). As it reads they are borrowing money to fund the assets they are then selling on to ESP. The money from ESP is paying off the RCF. What is not clear, at all, is the margin of profit from this activity. The £27m due is not 'new money', it is money they are spending to get back... or at least that is what it looks like and I am happy to be shown incorrect.

Revenue is the same at £19.5m but unlike last year there is a £1m loss (EBITDA) and a loss of £2.4m before tax. Earning per share are substantially down. Net cash is half it was last year and that is despite receipts from ESP that were supposed to fund future dividends.

50% of the significant contract wins have occurred after 30 Sep and are forward looking. Strip these out to look at contract activity in the actual reporting period and it is derisory. Similarly the recent receipt of £4.7m on 30 Nov from ESP sits outside the reporting period and is in effect a forward looking statement, it has no place here in this report. This smoke and mirrors.

Finally the outlook is full of hyperbole regarding government policy, the wider social change and likely development. It is low on fact with regard to Fulcrum's actual engagement. The company has certainly held its ground, but I find it difficult to see anything positive in this report.

Holder since early 2018 and really hoping to see a recovery over the next 12 months from a company that has the credentials, the experience and the right geographic location (Sheffield - ITM) to really play a part in delivering the new infrastructure..

Interim Results posted this morning and are completely underwhelming.

The company seems to be struggling to demonstrate that it is actually doing anything other than selling gas assets.... for which it is borrowing money to buy first? There is emphasis on the order book but the majority of reported deals are actually outside of the reporting period. If these are removed it looks like the company have been sat on their hands for 6 months, which they may well have been given the situation.

No interim dividend but the suggestion of jam tomorrow yet again.