Member Info for rnlcat

Is anyone able to offer any comment on Lone Star Private equity who increased their holding to 6.5% after the disposal announcement?

What people can do is make sure they do vote against the proposal. Who knows, perhaps Phoenix or Schroders will also vote against. The company sits at an inflexion point where we are reviewing year end ‘26. This year will be the first clean set of figures since inception and the first positive consistent newsflow in 4 years. Visibility today is recurring revenues this year of at least £5m (company wording 3 months ago. They must have sight otherwise they could not have reported ‘in line’ on 20 Jan). There is no debt and a known small amount of legacy policy holders approaching expiry. Blink has gone from zero to £5m recurring revenue in quick succession, near doubling year on year. The problem has been all this has been lost in everything else, along with an out of kilter cost base. That’s also now disappearing. This is a very attractive imbedded pure tech play with growing recurring revenues in a growth market. Make sure you vote against and hope that Phoenix do the same.

I can see why Kelly and the board have a swagger, the short

term workstream culminating in no choice fundraise has seen a quick price response to allotment and purchases of shares. However, I can’t help but feel the announcements are already sounding the same as his predecessor. In a nutshell, they had 8m in the bank on arrival. Cost base cut to 22m today. Raised 30m, only 16m left by Christmas. Revenue run rate 8m per annum. The latest trading update reads like a David Richard’s re hash. Cash flow break even end of ‘24 (has anyone actually seen the plan to ascertain how this will happen)? I doubt it, anymore than the advisers have seen it before signing off. In simple terms, had the offering been a must have then it wouldn’t be part of this business by now. The only time a 10m plus order was received it turned out to be fraudulent. Management must think a real one will come along and, I’d hope they have something they can genuinely show to prove it. Without it they will run out of cash Q3 latest. They can only avoid this by raising 50m to give them a proper run rate. They can only raise that if they genuinely can show tangible deal flow to underpin it. If they don’t have that tangible in hand contract then they are just guessing. More than that they would be being reckless and would be better off raising 50m and giving it to google or Amazon to see how they get on with high level tech in an AI world.

I trust the management are banging the door down at fellow Leeds based company Jet2 to discuss insurance software Blink. Never will there be a better time. Operators should price software into their seat price with a three way relationship between service supplier and insurer. It enables them to add value and differentiate from competitors and makes it an easy sell to customers to use them rather than competition. This week has shown another example of when travel chaos ensues, how pleased we would be as customers to know exactly what can be done with a simple couple of steps. Knowing we don’t have to chase and speak to anyone. Instead, everything is taken care of and giving us the chance to relax rather than panic. It’s a simple sell and needs to be integrated into an offering rather than an add on when you go click through your purchase. If they can’t get traction now then they never will.

I empathise with Hillpark comments of 15 May.

It seems ludicrous that quoted companies are happy to remunerate so highly in front of any recognisable targets. Where is the incentive to perform r exceed? Simon Pyper has no track record worthy of note and yet was appointed on a significant front loaded remuneration package. Indeed, two of the non execs are investment banking background which I can only assume clouds their vision when considering director pay levels and voting. I am disappointed that the Chairman who has been in a private equity role is also happy to see the board costs overwhelm the businesses current position. Surely he has witnessed private companies with high achieving entrepreneurs be rewarded relative to their personal risks. Too often in plc world it seems individuals are are remunerated in a way that is risk free and is never aligned to the shareholders they represent. Being the ceo of a plc is a privilege that is too often abused. This company has an overweight board cost adding little or no value and zero personal investment risk. Not too long ago the previous management, who themselves congratulated each other at retirement were seeking to off load Blink as they were too stupid to see its value. This management can at least see that a business with high level IP, embedded into a customer base creating a strong and growing recurring revenue stream is the way to a significant rating. However, they did not invent or launch Blink and are being paid a fortune to oversee its possibility of success. It’s ludicrous that the boards cost base dwarfs that of the revenue stream for Blink when none of them have any matching risk or shown any direction as to how Blink will break into the market. They actually run the risk of Blink being an ‘also ran’ with major end customer bases using alternative but inferior offerings. What happens then? They retire after three years having overseen a further long term under achieving business. As it stands I also note that Pyper remains a director of two other companies. Why is the question and one that the two largest shareholders should do something about. The ceo should be concentrating on this business for which he has ultimate responsibility and yet along with his board have offered nothing.

CPP could be so much more but is stuck in a value trap with a board happy to take the cash and be answerable to no one. Shameful.