Member Info for Seifert

I said it was my final post buy as you asked a question, I feel obliged to try and answer it. - Essentially, it comes down to this: there is NO OTHER OPTION ON THE TABLE. IT is a take it or leave it offer and, as the creditors will call in their loans, it can only result in default and hence administration for the company. The other statements in the RNS are simply euphemisms for the fact that the company will be de-listed, and its stock apportioned in the ration 80-20 (4 to 1) in favour of the creditors. The current shareholders are offered a token 1p. As you can ascertain, everyone is taking this, because it is that or nothing. No shares in any newly formed company. This is going private. Take it or leave it. - Now, this is my final post here. I wish you good luck in the future. And while I always encourage hope, I also am cynical enough to counsel caution because when it comes to money, no one is going to play fair, as recent events in the markets should have revealed to all and sundry.

You will need to estimate and price-in the politicking conducted by the fraudsters who oversaw the Lehman debacle and the sub-prime mess - yep! the very same characters. They will try and squeeze every inch out, and it is up the Standard Chartered really to expose the rampant hypocrisy, just as Barclay's did with the Libor affair. These guys knew what was going on. Of course they do. They always know. It's crass deception to claim otherwise.

This is the whole problem with shares and financial services, you get rewarded for being a crook across the board. Still stay out until shares collapse to 980p where they belong.

It has always been the case that money has no identity, religion, or colour. And that politicians, corrupted to the core, should start flailing their arms about over the machinations and skulduggery of banks, when all the while agencies like the CIA, the NSA, and MI6 etc know what rackets are afoot, to blame a bank for funneling cash from A to B from whatever source, is total hogwash. Every bank is a crooked entity. Every government is a crooked entity. So what's new here? There is nothing, to my mind, more sickening than the moralizing mob.

From the buy-sell log (if this is an accurate reflection of the market in this stock) It seems as if most investors have given up, and just cashing in their shares, On that note, this is my final post. I hope investors make up their losses elsewhere. The very best of luck. - Seifert.

Thanks for that link. Not only is it very revealing, but sickening for every shareholder to read.

It's creditors (the banks) would force it into administration by creating a default scenario and bankrupting it. Essentially, the banks hold all the cards,and the management really did nothing to counter their position. In the end, management and creditors (by all appearances) decided on this outcome in their (the management and banks) best interest, giving a really egregious 1p token to shareholders per share. Just imagine, you have 10K invested, and you get back 100 quid! Soon or later, this company will recover because its civil engineering and service side is embedded in the public domain. and that will only grow in time. Shareholders have every justification for feeling they are being cheated out of a long term prospect.

How can this possibly be going up? This company is about to be fined for corruption. The banks fall, so why not this? There is something definitely fishy going on here. My buy in price 990 pence. Then it is a good investment. Until then, avoid.

Well, if management and the lenders were to do the right and honourable thing, the former would not get this prized 20 percent, and the latter would not have an asset which, when the recovery takes hold, they will be able to sell to a Private Equity firm for a tidy profit. - This practice is quite simple, really. It's called 'mugging the shareholders.' Because, let's face it, if a donkey were in Mr Rumbles shoes, and goats were the BOD, Mouchel would be the at same place in 5 years time that it would be with all these guys rubbing their hands with rapturous glee.

Foolish. Because this matter is now a done deal.

I was commenting rhetorically - in the sense that he managed his own interests well. (We all know and can see his efforts vis-a-vis shareholders). As a man, indeed, as head of a BOD with deep vested interests in doing a deal that guarantees them 20 percent against a penny (and zero percent) for long suffering shareholders, he and his BOD have proved themselves exemplary corporate raiders with the evident complicity of the banks, the FSA, and every other scoundrel who purports to represent and defend the best interests of stakeholders.

If I had shares, I would insists at the AGM that I be allowed to retain them, as if the BOD are taking 20 percent, this speaks volumes that there is future value here. That Mr. Rumbles and his board were conducting negotiations and 'restructuring' the company is a compromised and cynical affair, because they are doing so expressly with their own vested interests in mind (20 percent) and surely under the rules this is illegal, (it is certainly immoral) and tantamount to a raid on the (future potential and) assets of the company. If there was nothing here to be had, the BOD would not stick around and take a 20 percent stake. There must be something there, and this is a tidy retirement package for the entire BOD at the expense of shareholders.

Actually, when you look at the outcomes, the BOD and Mr Rumbles cannot be accused of mismanagement, but rampant opportunism in securing for themselves 20 percent of the (new) company. Clearly, they MUST believe there is a future here, or else why would they want 20 percent of nothing. It has become indicative of the manifest and blatant corruption that has spread from the banks outward. Everyone wants a piece of the (corrupt) pie at our and society's expense. - Oh, but I forget myself here, did not Ms Thatcher remark that 'Society does not exist'? Clearly not, since its values and well-being is of no concern to governments and commerce alike. - Disgraceful and repugnant greed is all I can say.

Shareholders have been well and truly snookered. - This is a horrendous example for attracting retail investors in to equity markets. The government must seriously and comprehensively reform company structures in order that BODs provide shareholders with greater transparency. The best we can do is learn from this grim debacle.

So management end up with 20 percent of the news shares to be issued. This can't be right?! Here is the relevant section from the FT. "The deal would still leave Mouchel £60m in the red but place the group, which provides payroll services and highway maintenance for local authorities, in a position to continue trading and safeguard the jobs of 8,000 employees. Under the terms of the agreement, Mouchel investors would receive a 1p per share special dividend from the lenders – 45 per cent of Tuesday’s closing price of 2.2p. New shares would be issued in Mouchel, with the lenders owning 80 per cent, and management holding the remaining 20 per cent." - If I was a shareholder, I would feel I was being blatantly swindled.

I expected the worse, but this outcome is still a shock. I agree with an earlier post that Mr. Rumbles main criterion is saving the business. That means, hopefully, jobs will be preserved. Shareholders naturally gutted at this. Management, especially previous management, have a great deal to answer for, and their heads should be put squarely on the block, and the appropriate implement applied thereon.

The iceberg scenario is in no-one's interest, and I sincerely hope none are in sight, or even the possibility of it.

A 20 percent spread is a bit inhibiting to investors and speculators alike. Until the financial position of Mouchel is clarified, most people would need an exit strategy, and a smaller spread would be central to this. I say this because to get people interested in trading the share, they need to be enticed. The management, unfortunately, on whom the burden naturally falls, have not been accommodative in that respects, and thus people must look elsewhere.

What alternative would you put in place if you were in Mr Rumbles' shoes? I take your point that, through his comments on constrained shareholder value, that he is lowering expectations, to put it euphemistically. Outside the prospect of growth (and really we need the public sector to kick start this process) then all I can see as viable options is to try and hold out for the upturn, which will come, eventually, or try and find a buyer for all, or part of Mouchel Group. It is otherwise very depressing to watch good companies flounder. Mouchel had all the right cards. But the player, it seems, was not up to the job. There is no schadenfreude here. This is/was a good company. Everything really ought to be done to save it, and get it back on its feet.

It is instances like this that make me weary of what these boards actually record. It is not only confidence in banks that has been tarnished, but across the financial sector as a whole.