Member Info for Velo

Thanks Fleccy. That's clear. As below please substitute Liberty Global for "another rival bidder"

Wow! Aus! Only the first time you disagree with my posts? In that case it means I have several cats lives left, yes? :)

First off, I think this is a case of picking up on something perhaps contentious, by me, and that has left the main thrust of my post by the wayside, as the direction from that post now goes off down a lane I hadn't intended - Liberty Global!

I'm not too concerned with the rights or wrongs of who I suggested might throw their hat in the ring if a low-ball takeover offer was ever made for BT, only that it may induce hitherto totally unexpected attention from rival bidders to DT - as the main thrust of my post was to ask "what price" if any, has ever been put out in the media as a likely bid for BT.

The suggestion is that £2 might provoke one. My opinion is, it might, but fat chance of bagging BT for £2 odd - as I really don't care if Liberty Global are in the frame or not - it was just a blind suggestion, and I was probably best just leaving out a selected random name and going with a bland 'rival bidder', yes?

So, no I have no opinion on Liberty Global (as for DT I can only speculate on what the media reports as likely or not likely as personally, I don't know - not my field really) but I do in connection with another part of your post (here goes one of my cats lives :) and that is Vodafone; as you mentionerd it.

I disagree that the ink is almost dry on Liberty and Vodafone merger/takeover - will never happen, a joint venture perhaps only, but a takeover of Vodafone? No. Because it can be had for as cheap as chips over the next 2 years if things at Vodafone don't change, and handing £19 billion or so over to Liberty for the cable operations in Europe hardly helps solve where they are most weakest. In fact it hastens the end for Vod.

And I'll explain why.

Liberty has sold its cable networks to Vodafone - but it's a sale to Vodafone - not a merger between the two companies - as I understand it. I'm guessing John Malone of Liberty is already aware of what I stumbled upon during those long posts on BT's fundamentals in which I briefly said that BT was in several instances finacially in better shape than Vodafone (pretty sure I mentioned Vodafone as one of the sectors in which BT was head and shoulders above all others) and if he has - then Liberty's boss knows he may well bag Vodafone for bargain-basement insovlency value only - anytime in the next 2 years - that's right, I'm saying Vodafone is in far worse shape than BT and furthermore if something isn't done it could go Carillion in the next 2 years.

Ha! Now that's more worthy of you saying I don't agree with your logic, is it not? :)

PS. Watch out for the banks secretly telling Vodafone no more cash - go get it from your shareholders by raising a rights issue and diluting the shares in circulation and thus the SP. That may be the first sign - shareholders asked to cough up more for devalued shares as Vod issues bits of paper to shareholders in a bid to

Further to long standing, media reported rumours of an eventual bid by DT for BT, just for the sake of argument suppose they did, even though "sources familiar with those involved" report that DT have somewhat cooled on the idea (the 3 year contactual limitation on DT exceeding their current holding % in BT must surely be rapidly approaching it's deadline freeing DT too do as it pleases, unhindered, so we'll soon see.

Whatever, don't think I've seen a single analysis on what a likely bid price would need to be in order to be accceptable to shareholders and thus recommended to be accepted by the board.

What I have noticed since the announcement of the CEO's departure is more media analysis off the true value of BT being greater than the sum of its parts. Now that more and more is revealed of the value within BT despite its in-house problems it becomes harder for a predator to pick up BT on the cheap now that more and more realise the value, that focus has moved from GP and with some of the company's problem being addressed in some cases.

So IMO a sneaky bid at these lowly £2 prices would be daylight robbery, and should DT try it on I can envisage someone like Liberty Global throwing their hat I into the ring.

So DT won't bag BT on the cheap and to keep rival bids fromm appearing their offer would have to "knock it out of the park". I'm talking about 400p to 500p and that would get all shareholders a 'get out of jail free' card and still be bagging BT on the cheap, even at £5

Last article I read on business/Brexit quoted foreign companies who said they were less likely to go for a merger/acquisition with British companies once those British companies left the EU and lost direct easy access to the EU markets and therefore would instead prefer companies within the EU and therefore gain access that way.

The only reason I recall that article is because they lead with BT as an example saying that Deutsche Telecom were now less likely to make a bid for BT now that brexit was a certainty!

So if anything the last I heard was that DT had gone cool on taking over BT solely because of the Brexit vote changing their plans.

Just don't personally know - as DT are keeping tight lipped refusing point blank to respond and therefore by definition it implies keeping their options open.

OMG! I feel physically sick, £67k in a highly speculative AIM stock?!? You gotta be kidding me!

If you're well diversified that means you must have a 7 figure portfolio to put that much on a single speculative share and sleep easy?
So you're either a high roller or a riverboat gambler - which? :)

I'm running a 6 figure portfolio but your investment in this share still induces a feeling of nausea in me. And it's late at night so might yet have nightmares. Although I do have well over half that amount in my best performing share but then again it's currently showing a £22k profit on a single share.

If it's any consolation and if time, I intend posting a pure balance sheet analysis update, which surprisingly since last results now looks very top notch, but mainly that £12.6k profit that the accounts depth of Amer accidentaly found as an 'anomaly' has cleared up the only real negative I posted on, some time back.

So that algo calculation could see something mere mortals couldn't as Amer shamefacedly owned up to misappropriating £12.6k profit from previous years results so dumped the lot in this years accounts, and that cleared up the earnings manipulation reading it was spewing out agsinst Amer as a serious warning of earnings manipulation, but now it's showing all clear and good to go. So shame about the drilling updates, eh? Poor Amer, it just can't get all its ducks lined up at the same time, as soon as it does one goes awol.

Final post and I'm turning in for the night. See how the US researchers on explicitly US shares only and the UK based researchers on UK small cap shares below in the first post of the night - have near exact the same % break down per category of 1/2/3 or more warnings for both countries? Is that spooky or what? IOt leaves me intrigued (musyt be a right anorak, but it does; intrigues me.

As I said previously I'm knocked out by the mostly mean averages that all concur in similarity for every issue during the profit warnings phase AND AFTER - which tally whatever the region, country or decade, reveals it's research.

Ergo: Will the next 12 months be much better for PFG that what lies behind it? - The research explicilty says - yes! They even issue average percentage increases! But will save that for another day :)

Got cut of there - was going to add - There's a job for you this weekend Heregest - read through since June last year up till present all RNS's that likely include a profit warning and obtain a total; was going to do it myself, but too busy this weekend and too tired at this hour. Come on Heregest - you're invested here I'm not (yet). Research for you to do :)

P.S. Can't find the appropriate page, but read somewhere that the number of companies that went bust was either nil or so low as to be of no material impact to the studies. So to answer your question of 3 warnings and out? - it's No, none are at risk of going bust after 3 warnings. Each researcher (teams usually) - seperated by decades and continents apart, remarkably all conclude in reinvesting one year later after the first profit warning was issued, so they couldn't have seen companies going bust in that first year.

The second year is supposed to be "good" for the SP with some variations and deviancies, but generally the average do well in the second year, hence my "not yet" intention, hmm.. maybe ...to invest :)

Heregest @
" ....Presumably companies don't often go to 3 profit warnings because they go bust or restructure. Having said that Carillion went bust after 3 profit warnings.Any figures on 4 profit warnings? "

-----------------
In one study a 2009 study of US shares where 3,667 issued profit warnings, by a pair of researchers with such long, unpronouncable names that I'm not even going to attempt to type them here they revealed that of all the profit warnings issued -

64.6% of companies only made one profit warning
23% made two profit warnings
and 12.4% issued three or more warnings.

In effect, of all the companies issuing a profit warning only 35% of the total went on to further report of finding even more cockroachs.

This bit is for true for long term investors only, who may find some succor from it (but have all the long term investors sold and departed?):

"If you are a long term investor in a GOOD BUSINESS, a profit warning is essentially just noise and may be a great buying opporuinity. If more of a trader or you can't afford to wait a year, the best strategy is to sell immediately on the day of the profit warning and reinvest in the company one year later".

PS. Some shares (and the word I was looking for in previous posts is "deviation"!) some shares deviate well outside the overall mean data average, hence 18 months is revealed as the average by other researchers, before reinvesting and not 12 months as per the overall mean average.
Personally I think PFG may fit the 18 month category but I'm monitoring it, so we'll see.
(Also there's a reason I said "great entry points all summer long" in a previous post, but that's a highly personal interpretation of cyclical seasonal performances of which PFG is neither cyclical nor seasonable) and I will post that as a seperate post (another time) to seperate it from researchers fact driven evidence based data - from my mere personal opinion.

For info: One year later for PFG is actually right now. We'll see, because this one has been a real stinker and a half, has it not?

PPS. A UK research paper that actually answers your 4 warnings question. They found (smallcap companies only research) that -

63.7% issued 1 warning
25.5% issued 2 warnings
5.9% issued 3 warnings
4.9% issued 4 warnings

Another paper said they found no difference between smal caps and large cap companies in the time taken to recover or the number of warnings issued were similar for all groups.

Personally I still think PFG is one helluva deviant in the profit warning behaviour dept with that mega collapse in the SP, and if so, none of the above applies. Also did PFG issue 3 profit warnings? After the first the second announced no interim, and "maybe" no full year end dividend. There was no year end divi, so they must have warned again of that, making it 3 profit warnings? Just checked the final divi withdrawn in the 27th Feb'18 results. Just how many warnings HAVE been issued? Anyone know? T

Well that's torn it. Wasn't aware it had closed at 14.80p but that's what goes in the books (but is it an anomaly? Bid/ask closed at 15.08p/15.36p which suggests a mid price of 15.22p - not 14.80p

On the other hand all chart histories are showing 14.80p as occuring in the absolute final closing moments of the day in after hours auction.
However I've seen that "anomaly" all over the place tonight in a varirty of shares and in each case that's what's going down in the historic data records; so 14.80p it is then, puzzling as it is.

So with 14.80p as the official close - that's torn it tonight; contrary to my post on maybe signs of early green shoots leaning towards bullishness - the market gardener has come along tonight and ripped them out like weeds, leaving the opposite looking more likely. But hey! Was looking for 14.6p or less, before those "green shoots" - so every dark cloud and all that :)

PS.
+1 for me too for Rhodi's outlook in his post - looking more and more likely; I only disagree in so much, in that 20p may occur a lot earlier than he anticipates.

Gotta be quick it's half time - never clicked send at the begining when the game startedl.

Thanks Titus for the trading update confirmation and the additional info.

----------------------
Hergest - the stats I'm referring to are from research papers by financial academic researchers from the university of Exeter, that studied decades of data, also from a subscription site where they analysed 240 odd companies, culled from over the years that they had been mentioned as issuing a profit warning, and research from Europe, who included some US based data reseach). Got a ton of it now.
What's most surprising is that all the sources when collated into one mean average come out remarkably similar anyway. There is a tiny percentage that fly outside the average (PFG's retrace from £29/£28 odd from just before the profit warning to this week's sub-600p is a case in point). 99.9% don't decline by anywhere near that much over one year.

PFG has issued two profit warnings to date, that might have a hand in it. It was the ametuish, badly handled 2nd warning (IMO) that dropped the SP far deeper than the first had done.

- The research discovered that It's a myth that warnings come in three's as only a small percentage of those with 2 profit warnings ever go on to issue a third. (And less % than you think that issue only two warnings). By far the majority only ever issue the one profit warning.

Didn't want to post previously about the rights issue as I'm not as excited about it as some posters have been on here.

In fact I'm tiring of these repeated calls for rights issues, based on the outcomes of previous rights issues with this share.

Wanted to sell half my holding beforehand but missed half a dozen chances to sell above £8 which was my target. The last issue resulted in my average dropping to 710p per share - straight after the issue was complete the SP retraced to within 10p or so of that price - hardly worth the extra investment which resulted in my being oveweight in PHNX.

This issue will bring my average down to 600p. Tonight the market price closed at 665p. Huh! Big deal eh?
Now if this behaves as it did last time - just watch it retrace in the weeks after the deal is done to within 10p or so of 600p; again making the whole exercise pointless and academic, for me - it won't be such a great bonus for the investor - it almost always comes down to making 10p or 20p per share over all on the deal - and you're thousands out of pocket, overweight in PHNX.

Won't carry on posting my dissatisfaction with this share - as I don't want tro dampen posters enthusiasim - but I wiill hold until the SP rises a fair amount and start to unburdon myself of PHNX.And that based on the last experience will take about a year. I've had it with these rights issues from PHNX - they're becoming an annual event. I'm done with it - losing interest. Wouldn't mind if there was decent capital growth.

Sour-faced moan over - back to happy-clappy posters and how great it all is - look I'll show you :(

Got some very early indicators the SP is showing very early green shoots of signs of coming out of the current retrace. Need further confirmation but something positive stirring.

Had figured on buying if 14.6p or less came into view but completely omitted to set a computerised limit buy order and missed out when for 1 or 2 days it intradayed to the 14.7 vicinity. Oh well.

Last year the H1 interim trading update was released on approx 25th July.
Does anyone know if there is anything else due to be released beforehand between now at late July?

Checked their site but can't see anything listed as imminent.

(Got a little sideline going on profit-warning-hit shares - and PFG's first full year in jail is up and due for day release on bail). So there really shouldn't be hellish drops from here to the end of the year. However I do think it could get 'rocky' by late summer so trying to establish a probable floor area - but not the recovery - research shows that's too soon yet for a true recovery, but what the stats do show is that there really shouldn't be the stomach churning dire huge drops from now on, but, compared to the average in this situation, PFG is really behaving badly and is at the extremes of the average.

Anyway stage one is up and although not an end to volatility it should be "slightly safer" to buy a suitable entry without too much fear of further huge drops from this vicinity. That intrim trading update will be more ultra important this year, than ever before.

Tsk! Tsk! It just gets worse and worse.

The closing price shown up above of 214.55p is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong!

It's 216p on the nose.

How can it show the correct closing price on its mobile platform and the incorrect price on its desktop version ?!?

Just to counter the prevailing posts here, of those who believe the price is too low - the SP is still trending bearishly. Why would it turn on a sixpence and recover from here, without some bullish indication it intends doing so?

Therefore I fully expect it not to recover from here - but retrace even lower before that even comes up on the radar as a possibility. There will be plenty of opportunity to get a great entry/top-up this summer. I thought sub 600 maybe - but here it is already. This has been a profit-warning-hit share, they do not as a species tend towards recovering overnight.

Extreme patience of the confucius kind and then some is required. It's going lower. IMO. And if not lower then at least meandering sub 600 for some time yet. This is just the first day of 500's.

Take into account the difference against yesterday's close and the difference between this morning's open, versus the current price.

I disagree with LSE's closing quote for yesterday - it was 218.75p not 215.05p as quoted above which is why they're currently showing a blue gain for today when it's slightly down. (Just to muddy the waters further :)

Thanks for that link leas.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/870186/bts-fundamental-value-is-overlooked.html

Read that link on the day and believe it to be the most comprehensive evaluation and analysis on BT that I've seen. Recently I've given up taking any notice of media analysts reports on any share as they are all at the end of the day just another person's opinion, just with a bit of "authourity" erroneously attached to them for being published in a magazine or popular media source.

But this report has so much depth to it, I'm going to print off a hard copy for my files.

...This is on a bullish run. Not a single TA indicator with a bad face. All bullish with room to spare for further progress. Short-term trend lines to the positive. Not a single cloud in the blue SP sky and all looking good. (Long term trends excepted - for the moment).

Unlike the wider market with FTSE having a bearish time of it lately, and for a couple of weeks longer than BT has been bullish. So BT bucking the market trend :)

All to the good, with my eye on the next, will-it won't-it test be on that Gap-Down that is visible from the end of approx the first week of May where it closed at high 230's only to open the very next trading day down in the 220's!

If the belief that "gaps must ge filled" holds true on this occasion then it should close that gap all the way back up to the v high 230's. After which I will be holding my breath.

Must admit the SP where it is at the moment, is where I thought it "shold be" as an immediate reaction to the 2 news items of CEO to be replaced and Ofcom to become more amenable towards BT's intentions. Thought the reaction was slow burning to these 2 items but it it has now "reacted."

I think seeing 220p at any point in the very near future is more than likely. Even if it only holds for as little as just one day overnight, or maybe even longer. And I wouldn't read anything in to it either I also believe under the 'old house rules' so to speak, that 230's is likely too. And under old house rules it too more than likely would drift back before long. Anything above 230's, I'd be agog in unexpected surprise - under "old house rules". However, after the new CEO starts it's a fresh page and from then on, everything and anything goes - new rules apply. ---------------------------- Been snatching and quickly jotting down notes from the links to analysts reviews in various posts below, and I'm disappointed in the Soviet-style re-writing of history that every single one of the reviews has engaged in so far. When that one mentioned: "re-ordered priorities" I thought, Ah ha, perhaps recognition for the instigator of those re-ordered priorities? But not a bit of it. Some mythical being outside the orbit of the BOD or any other BT exec, is responsible. The instigator is now someone who's name can not be mentioned for fear of derailing the "neat" story. As nothing "fits" once the misdirection is unmasked. Need to condense all the bits that show what I mean, so that it all fits in one post (not back at my desk until the next week), but I'm hoping in the meantime investors can see "the story" being foisted by the media upon the readers of such articles before much more time has elapsed so that eventually everyone forgets the truth and just the neat story is left. In Hollywood stories fit neatly - in reality, it's rarely neat. I think it's something to do with the human condition for neat-fitting narratives to have a parable of some sort.

No, can't make it, have to be up early. When I reach my destination tomorrow might have time late tomorrow night just for fun to comment on the two analysis reports below (not the Simply Wall Street one; too tired to read those yet). If your interested can you see the one single line in the female analysts review that displays bias? (I agree with all she says but there's bias there). And the first one, the guy who lays into GP is displaying a pattern that I think will get picked up by other analysts - blaming all the troubles of BT - all of them on GP alone and suggesting - no he doesn't suggest he accuses GP of being solely responsible for bringing disaster to BT including EE as a mistaken decision! and loses objectivity. I will also attempt to demonstrate why his EBITDA and my intepretation of it prove what a **** metric it is to use (as me and my mate Warren agree upon :) He even then declares a true valuation of the SP using EBITDA Grrrr!