Member Info for TheTrotsky

Wouldn't be their first.

Below is a list of their subsidiaries (including their place of business and % ownership), excluding any wholly owned investment holding subsidiaries, as at 31 March 2025:

United Glass Group UK 73.8%

Integrum Care Group UK 50.0%

Creo-tech Industrial Group Canada 99.9%

Intec Business Solutions UK 100%

MQL (formerly Miriad Products) UK 49.9%

Trimite Global Coatings UK 100%

Just voted against the re-election of Imogen and her entire mob. Would recommend that other PIs follow suit.

May not change anything but I have at least put by "money" where my mouth is and registered my total dissatisfaction, both with their performance to date and their laughable LTIP awards!

Chelsea, Averaging down doesn't actually change the profit/(loss) that you made on your original investment, despite what you seem to think. As I say, the real question is not whether averaging down might recoup some of your original losses. The real question is whether it's a good use of money that you might have invested elsewhere in the meantime. Eg. over the last 3 months, if you'd been fortuitous enough to invest your additional money when the share price hit 38.5p in mid-October, you'd now be sitting on a c30% gain on your additional investment. Alternatively, if you'd invested your additional money into SSIT, for example, on the same date, you'd now be sitting on a c33% gain (as I've said before, I don't own SSIT, but it's share I've been watching). I accept that a c30% gain from mid-October isn't bad but you can't always be guaranteed to pick the bottom and if you'd invested back in mid-May when the share price had recovered back to 62.4p you'd now be sitting on a c25% loss. I'm not saying that I'd never "average down" per se, I'd certainly consider investing more (if I had the money) if I thought (rightly or wrongly) that Mr Market had got it (badly) wrong but thus far I've seen nothing from Imogen and her executive team to suggest that Mr Market has actually got it wrong. I wouldn't disparage her engineering skills but I do seriously question her capability as a CEO (and, before you suggest it again, that view has absolutley nothing to do with her gender). I only remain invested in the hope that OMG can eventually be turned around (if not by Imogen then A N Other).

Zanab, Ditching CARD to buy TPT on 12 December isn't looking so clever at the moment. It would seem that Mr Market thinks that TPT is the only retailer that will be affected by falling retail sales! Balderdash. TPT's share price has underperformed for a number of years and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that its largest shareholder has played some part in that; they have a vested interest in seeing to it that the current management aren't perceived to be succeeding so that they can reap all of the financial benefit for themselves, which has been their aim all along. If the profitabilty can be sustained (I think it can) then the current dividend yield is starting to look very attractive (I would have at least 3p pencilled in for FY26).

Lionheart, I wasn't suggesting that the change of accounting date was another "ruse" on Imogen's part; I was just saying that it makes direct comparatives YoY more difficult which, if the results don't improve, could suit Imogen if push comes to shove.

Changing the year end from 30 September to 31 December is not irrational albeit it will, in all likelihood, increase PLC costs (listed companies have tight year end reporting deadlines and audit firms charge more for work undertaken between January and March because they are resourse constrained; 31 December is the most popular year end). From a cost perspective, 30 June would have been a better year end to choose.

The change of KPIs this year wasn't irrationale either but some of the restated prior year KPIs look incorrect (most alternate KPIs aren't actually audited and aren't lifted directly from the accounting records; for want of a better description, most alternate KPIs are calculated by managemnt on the back of a piece of paper before being manually input into the accounting disclosures). This might sound like sour grapes on my part but if you actually go back through the last three year accounts you will note that there have been more than a few changes to prior year KPI disclosures (putting right prior year miscalulations). They have history.

Lionheart, Nice try, but although the FY25 dividend may be paid in FY26 it's still declared based on the FY25 profits. Of course, if profits can be maintained or increased, there is some rationale in your argument that the EPS might improve in FY26, given the reduction in the number of shares in FY25, but, in the last three years, profits have been declining at such a rate that they haven't been unable to buy enough shares to increase EPS YoY. We'll just have to see whether they've turned the corner in FY26. I genuinely hope they have but, based on her past performance, I wouldn't put anything past Imogen. She's been blowing smoke in Chelsea's eyes for the last 3 years and he's been lapping it up.

Chelsea, The results have been dire for the last two years so pray do tell when have you actually been right? Don't let the actual figures concern you. Keep up the delusion.

Hot off the press. My prediction for 2026. Imogen will look to sell Vicon and go all in on her pet project, smart manufacturing. Base on current sales/profits, I'd be surprised if Vicon would realise as much as Yotta but, hey-ho, at least there would be enough cash to pay for all those lovely non-performance LTIPs.

Lionheart, Adjusted EPS and DPS are exactly what they say they are. The number of shares in issue at any given time are irrelevant. If you are earning less than 3p per share in issue and paying 3.25p per share in issue, the dividend isn't covered. Also, the cash pile is currently contributing to part of that EPS (investment income) and, as it dwindles, new investments not only need to make up for that lost EPS but still also need to broach that existing EPS shortfall.

The cash pile has been dwindling at a rate of £13-£14m per annum over the last 3 years. Stopping share buy backs may help preserve the cash pile but, assuming that the buy backs have been helping to support the already lowly share price (that, in theory, is what they are supposed to do) then there may be opportunities for Chelsea (and you) to average down even further sub-40p.

Also, as I've said previously, they still have plans to make further acquisitions and a couple more IVS/Sempre sized additions (which may or may not be earnings enhancing from outset) will not only make a dent in that cash pile but will also increase their working capital requirements (funds for capital expenditure, inventory debtors/creditors etc.), which will mean that even more cash will likely need to be retained in the business to meet normal day to day costs and reduce still further the surplus cash available to distribute. I, unlike you, am not working under the illusion that all of the current cash pile is surplus to requirements within the business (I'd imagine that they'd want to keep a minimum of £10m for prudence).

The underlying problem you have is that adjusted earnings (not per share you'll note) have actually been falling faster than they've been buying back shares, so until H2 2025, adjusted EPS had been falling at an alarming rate despite the buy backs.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. The closure of the loss making NZ business looks to have helped in H2 2025 (it remains to be seen whether the potentially lost MC sales in NZ can be made up elsewhere) and, if they don't mess around with the KPIs again (they've been changing and/or restating prior year KPIs repeatedly for the last few years), we should hopefully have a much better understanding of how the business is performing in H1 2026. E.g. whether the increased order book at the end of 2025 feeds through into better comparative MC sales (H1 2025 was a disaster). Also, we should have the first meaningful comparatives for the SM business (I'd like to see at least a 10% LfL increase).

The only cloud on the horizon, from my perspective, is the change of accounting date. Based on Imogen's past record, that'll give her plenty of new opportunities to massage the figures if there hasn't been a meaningful improvement in the operating businesses. She's got to try and justify those new LTIPs somehow ;-)

Every dog has its day. I'm still a long-term holder and any sustainable long-term improvement in the share price is ultimately going to be underpinned by an improvemnt in the fundamentals (even if that means that we might forced to change the CEO/CFO to achieve that objective). That doesn't mean that in the intervening period there won't be rises/falls in anticipation/disappointment.

Also, as I've said before, we will need to see a signfiicant improvement in the operating fundamentals if the dividend is to be sustained. Neither of the FY24 or FY25 dividends were covered by adjusted basic EPS. The continued ability to pay a dividend will inevitably be impacted by falling interest rates and declining net cash (it's clear that OMG currently expects to acquire more SM businesses if the opportunities arise and/or continue to invest in the SM businesses, which will inevitably reduce the surplus cash in the business YoY) unless operating returns improve significantly.

OMG generated adjusted basic EPS of c1.43p in H2 FY25 on an adjusted PBT of c£3.1m; so it needs to start generating an adjusted PBT of c£3.53m+ each half year to cover the existing dividend. The rundown/closure of the NZ business does appear to have helped in H2 FY25. Hopefully the operating performance in H1 FY26 will be comparable to H2 FY25 subject to PLC. When I analsyed last year's figures all of the PLC costs seemed to arise in H1 which is clearly wrong; as I've said before I think some of their adjusted comparables are wrong, which wouldn't be the first time. Doesn't change the fundamentals; it just means that they've botched the standalone disclosures (the KPIs don't generally form part of the audited accounting records and, like much of narrative in the accounts, can be subject to errors if not properly sense checked).

Finally, as an aside, I found this (unrelated) podcast quite interesting: HTtps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNf4nHE6fw

I have to confess to having a holding in Pebble Systems (one of the shares under discussion) but I was actually more interested in Onward Opportunities. It's a relatively small trust (c£43m) that specialises in active investment in UK small caps. It's not a trust that I've heard of before but I liked what its lead fund manager, Laurence Hulse, had to say during the podcast. The trust was listed on 30 March 2023 and its share value has only increased by c35% since listing (not stellar) but it does seem to have quite a few interesting irons in the fire that may now be starting to come to fruition. Not a recommendation but people might want to check it out (I don't personally have any money to invest at the moment but I have added it to my watchlist) particularly if they want to get a more diversified exposure to potential UK small cap growth shares. Merry Xmas.

Tesla isn't fully vertically integrated; it doesn't produce all of its components and it doesn't manaufactures any of the microchips used in its vehicles (it may design some of its own chips but it currently outsources their manufacture to the likes of Samsung and TSMC). Tesla may have ideas about entering the chip manufacturing space but, unless it plans to compete directly with the likes of Nvidia, Samsung and TSMC in the open market, bringing the manufacturing in-house is likely to prove shortsighted (Nvidia, Samsung and TSMC not only benefit from economies of scale they also benefit from having a diverse customer base which drives innovations and opportunities for cross-selling).

I think Musk would be making a mistake if he tried to buy FTC. FTC's strength lies in its diverse customer portfolio and we're already seeing the benefits that brings for cross-selling products/ideas initially developed to meet specific needs in one sector into others e.g. plastic encapsulation. Musk would risk losing the goose that lays the golden egg e.g. given Musk's controversial politics, I'm not sure that Tesla/SpaceX would want, or would necessarily be approved, to sell microchips into the defence sector. Having an interest in FTC butallowing it to grow, develop and innovate outside of direct Tesla/SpaceX control has a lot more merits.

Personally, as I've said before, I think BAE Systems, which already has a significant presence in the communications, defence and space sectors, would make a much better fit for FTC if it ever went on the chopping block and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if BAE Systems doesn't already have FTC in its sights. FTC would be a highly complimentary acquisition for BAE Systems.

It was a very interesting interview. Onward Opps seems to be a bit of a dark horse. It's rare to find an active investor in the UK small caps market that's done its due diligence and looks to help businesses with their strategies to maximise shareholder value. I was really impressed with Laurence Hulse; not your typical looking investment manager (he looked a bit unkempt and didn't seem to have the usual plum in the mouth).

I ended up listening to most of the podcast and think Onward Opps might offer some good exposure to some exciting small capital Opps. Its share price performance since it listed hasn't been stellar but it invests for the medium/long term and its investment strategy might start to beat fruit over the next few years (there maybe a lot of pent up value in the fund that's yet to come to fruition). The only downside is that UK small caps don't tend to be followed by other institutional investors and is therefore a lot more reliant on PIs to generate investment returns (so, frustratingly, they tend to trade at lower multiples than many of their larger peers both here and, say, the US).

I was interested to hear what he had to say about Angling Direct (ANG). I used to hold and lost a small packet (got in too early) but the investment rationale was, IMHO, on the money (albeit that he forgot to mention the exciting opportunity in Europe that's now starting to come to fruition despite Brexit and the additional difficulties that's caused UK retailers wanting to expand into EU markets). I ended up selling because ANG was unloved but still think it's a diamond in the rough.

Finally, if you didn't listen to the whole podcast you might have missed that Hulse tipped Pebble for 2026 too. His previous 2024 and 2025 tips both did exceptionally well, so hopefully there may be some real upside yet to come from Pebble in the new year and the prospect that it might start paying a dividend to boot. GLA

Chelsea11, your investment philosophy and mine diverge. IMHO if I had another, say, £10k to invest I wouldn't be looking to average down to simply try and recoup my previous losses but looking at where I could get the best return on my £10k. OMG does have promise but, at the moment, I don't see Imogen and her team delivering on that potential and, as such, I think I can better returns elsewhere.

Motion capture is a mess and there aren't any signs of a turnaround yet. The last RNS was ambiguous; the order book does appear to have improved but we don't know whether it's a material improvement and we are none the wiser about the BoD's expectations for the current financial year. Saying that current trading meets the BoD's expectations doesn't really tell us anything.

As regards, smart manufacturing we are building a presence but I still think that annual LfL growth is likely to be fairly prosaic (5-10% per annum), at least in the medium term. I think the KPIs in the last RNS were milked for all they were worth and flattered to deceive (onboarding the new businesses made some of the figures look a lot better than they actually were because of the relatively low prior year comparatives). Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not knocking the three new contracts that IVS won in the period; I just need/want to see more new contracts. Rinse and repeat often.

During the recent Investor Q&A, in response to a question raised, they did allude to the possibility of some cross-selling between motion capture and smart manufacturing, i.e. introducing real-time motion capture to the smart manufacturing process, but I think it's more of medium/long term prospect, if that. I certainly didn't get the impression that it was one of their key focuses at present (a nice idea but perhaps a project for another day).

Like you, I'm very focused on seeing some positive momentum across both motion capture and smart manufacturing over the next 6-12 months. However, my gut tells me that, although they might have started to turn the corner in H2 FY25, not to expect fireworks in FY26. I've looked at the figures and they do appear to be a lot better in H2 FY25 than they were in H2 FY24 and H1 FY25 but the change of KPIs from adjusted PBT to adjusted EBIT and the rundown of the loss-making New Zealand business make direct comparatives difficult and open to possible misinterpretation e.g. a lot of the improvement in H2 FY25 within motion capture business may simply be because they've stopped racking up costs in New Zealand. E.g. by my reckoning motion capture sales in H2 FY25 were only c2% up on H2 FY24 but there seems to have been a c£3.2m swing in adjusted EBIT from loss to profit! Likewise, the PLC figures still look a bit odd too.

PS. If I had a spare £10k at the moment, which I don't, I might take a look at Seraphim Space IT (SSIT). I don't currently hold SSIT but It does look well set to ride the current postive momentum in the space sector.

Bigdaddy, as far as I am currently aware SpaceX has not acquired any FTC shares in the open market; I don't recollect seeing any RNS to that effect but stand to be corrected.

FTC and SpaceX entered into their 1st Strategic Agreement on 24 April 2024 whereby FTC agreed to grant warrants in two tranches, up to a maxiumum of 10% of the issued share capital (5% each) and exercisable at 33p within a period of 5 years (not 2 years as I previously thought) plus, I believe, 6 months from the date of the 1st Strategic Agreement, as and when certain order criteria had been met. See the RNS issued on 24 August 2024 for further details.

The 1st tranche of warrants (5%) were subsequently granted over a period of several months, as successive irrevocable orders were received, and were fully granted by 30 August 2024. As far as I am aware, SpaceX has not as yet exercised the 1st tranche of warrants; I don't recollect seeing any RNS to that effect but, again, stand to be corrected.

FTC and SpaceX entered into their 2nd Strategic Agreement on 19 March 2025 whereby FTC agreed to grant warrants for a third tranche, up to a maxiumum of 5% of the issued share capital and exercisable at 92.8p within a period of 5 years (not 2 years as I previously thought) plus, I believe, 6 months from the date of the 2nd Strategic Agreement, as and when certain order criteria had been met. See the RNS issued on 19 March 2025 for further details.

On 26 August 2025, FTC announced their largest ever order from SpaceX and, within that RNS, they indicated that the terms of the 2nd tranche of warrants were being amended to include the new products covered by that order.

As regards, the second and third tranches, it's not clear whether any warrants covered by the terms of these tranches have yet been granted to SpaceX. Again, I don't recollect seeing any RNS to that effect but stand to be corrected.

Hope that helps.

So, if you are asking whether there would be dilution, yes there would, but, on the flipside, if and when they do exercise the warrants one would imagine that the Market would read it as a positive signal opening up the possibility of a potential future offer (albeit that I personally don't think they will make an offer and/or HMG would necessarily approve it - Musk is a bit of a Marmite character and not necessarily the sort of person that you'd want to own a key UK growth business).

I'm not sure that SpaceX currently holds any shares. I think that warrants for 5-10% (I'm not sure theyt've yet met all of the criteria for the remaining 5-10%) of the shares have vested but, as yet, have not been exercised by SpaceX (require payment of the warrant price and would no doubt result in an RNS being issued as and when they are exercised) and indeed may yet lapse (I think they've got 2 years from the date that the warrants vest).

I could make some sarcastic comments about the performance targets they might have achieved to receive these LTIPs but, for once, I'm just lost for words. I'm sure that'll amuse Chelsea no end but let's see him him justify these awards.

It's probably a good thing, from their perspective, that they aren't linked to any performamce objectives, given their track record over the last 2-3 years ;-)

Time for action methinks. At the next opportunity I'll be voting against their re-appointments (and the rest of the BoD come to that) and their remuneration rewards. Might not achieve anything but it will, at least, signal that there are some of us shareholders who are deeply dissatisfied with their performannce and do not appreciate them snuffling at the trough whilst we have witnessed a share value decline of over 50% under their leadership.

Disgraceful but par for the course for Imogen and her sidekick, I'm afraid.

Care to enlighten us?

Al4x, It's a Catch-22. If it wasn't for the possibility of HMG reform (are we get again seeing this Labour government playing to the political galleries without actually delivering any meaningful benefit - their IHT changes around agricultural and business relief are short sighted and likely to do far more harm than good in the long run - they could have made IHT changes that would have benefitted the exchequer in the long run without forcing private businesses to the wall - they're as daft as brushes) the share price wouldn't be at this level, so make up your mind.

TimBob, I think HMG is on very thin ice. Making retrospective changes or wholly reneging on past commercial agreements would, in my view, open HMG up to not only compensation claims in the courts but wholly undermine any further private sector investment in the UK energy sector (nobody is going to sign up to an agreement with HMG where HMG can arbitrarily change the terms of a signed agreement as and when they choose). Also, although it might play well to some in the galleries, if the changes don't actually deliver any meaningful reduction in domestic power bills then they aren't worth the disruption they'd cause (political suicide).