Member Info for Theanalyzer

DPP map shows new store in Bydgoszcz so store 31 and ninth city The rollout continues.

Besso had strong performance which bodes well for sale. Some other interesting business which are growing. BPM produce nice clear set of accounts with good website and links to investee companies - puts most of their peer sized companies to shame. Like strategy of selling Brocour and R&Q holdings as former wasn't growing or core and later is not a broker either. Nice steady growth plus dividend.

Donmac101 looks like I was correct in my view that Gable was a dog. The major subsidiary is now in administration. Gable Holdings will be suspended tomorrow morning uk time so it won't have any value as a listed shell. In any case it is probably insolvent because it borrowed £6m via loan notes and invested this into insurance subsidiary and it won't be seeing that money again. Am I surprised no - it has been apparent for a long time for anyone who understands property and casualty insurance that was going to end badly.

Stock suspended with net asset value of 0.5 pence per share doesn't look good.

On fx revenue and most operational costs will be be Zloty based. Plc costs eg directors fees, AIM compliance costs will be mostly GBP. Strengthing of Zloty will translate into more pounds. This may mean higher sterling losses in short term as they roll out stores as Zloty costs exceed Zloty revenues but also higher sterling translated revenue and over time profits reflected in sterling share price. So in medium term good news in my view.

DPP web site shows new store in new city Bialystok which is store 30 and 8th city so roll out continues. Up from 23 stores at year end in 4 cities. So 30% growth in store numbers in under 10 months.

Will Gable find a new NOMAD before Thursday I doubt it.

Not often on AIM where pricing is at such a small discount to trade price and then rises post placing. The Board are clearly comfortable that model will work across wider scale. I did some quick research looking at top 30 major Polish cities and I got to 81 stores using population density of 100,000 people per store so store target in number terms does look a massive stretch. Interestingly DOM has a much lower population per store number which it is using to drive further growth. I was hoping for a short term drop so I could accumulate more shares but happy to hold modest 12,000 effectively free shares having already recouped more than holding cost.

Why don't I like Gable - simple not much to like in its performance.

Lets ignore the loss of £2.3m reducing net assets to only £674,000 a tiny change in value of gross assets of £202 m or gross liabilities of £201m and its insolvent. IMO Gable is going to nil it's just a matter of time before the administrators get called in. NAV now 0.5 p per share.

Donmac You are sadly very wrong and clearly don't understand how the insurance industry works. If you read the accounts note 3 - you will see that Gable holds millions of pounds for such previously incurred claims as far back as 2008. The previous insurer is liable for claims incurred when the policy was inforce. Gable specialized in liability claims where there is often a long delay between notification of claims and settlement of claims. It will still be settling claims ten years from now if it hasn't run out of cash first

Just to clarify it is the assets that are left after settling claims and expenses of running off the business, if any, that will be available for distribution. If Gable's current estimate is too low by a few percent of premiums then it is nil. My best guess is that will be nil. The CFO hasn't exactly covered himself in glory with his past forecasting. If you do get some money it won't be for a number of years once regulator is satisfied that Gable has an appropriate level of solvency again.

It means regulator is restricting group access to insurance company assets because insurer is short of required solvency margin Given Insurer held majority of groups cash and investments this will place other gable entities such as the listed holding company under cash flow strain

In theory you could trade via a matched bargain basis if you can find a buyer but with no updated financial position how would you fix a price? So a nil in reality as GAH trundles on to insolvency.

A delisting doesn't automatically result in a total loss of value just a reduction in liquidity of ability to buy and sell shares. I think that Gable will stumble along for a bit longer before its declares insolvency.

Some strong performance underlying solid numbers Good client retention Increasing market share High net promoter score Dominating in new pension market drawdown business New ventures in peer to peer lending and cash deposits to come

Further growth in Uk, Ireland Prospects of first results of German JV New franchise roll outs in Norway and Sweden Dividend and share buy backs show strong cash generation. A strong hold for me after recent top up.

I note that last year the interims were published on 10 Sept. The deadline is 30 Sept. So not long until an update on six months trading performance and other developments. Given the recent director resignations, I am not expecting good news.

I am not an ex Gable employee. I know the history of Gable pretty well and wasn't surprised that it blew up only how long it kept show on the road. By the way premiums cumulatively haven't exceeded claims which is why Gable has incurred cumulative losses.

DShox How can you claim underwriting was profitable when Gable booked reserves at external actuaries best estimate not a margin over best estimate like most insurers do (look at Beazley if you want proof) then Gable ends with a cumulative net loss since inception in the balance sheet? Hardly support for profitable underwriting. If you look at loss development table in note 3 you also see a pattern of consistent under reserving in prior years. There is a reason why Gable wasn't rated - I suspect it wouldn't have met rating agency criteria on grounds of quantity of capital and quality of risk management and it looks like they called it correct. It wasn't nicknamed "Gamble" by members of the London broking community for no reason.