Roger Baron
02 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts A bit harsh Eagle?You posted - "an appropriate amount will also be held in reserve for developing and growing our businesses".At least he's admitted the directors regard the business as theirs, not shareholders.I would like to think that when he used the word "our" he might have been meaning the shareholders rather than the directors! After all, he is one of us too, and I am reassured by the fact that he did invest 1/4 mil last Dec (I think) at a price higher than this. Also reassured that there has been some bulky buys from some institutions - who exactly is Beach Point Capital, by the way?
eagle51
02 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts atshdyef - my post wasn't meant to influence you in any way. I am a bit downbeat about the way things have panned out here and generally now have a deep mistrust of directors of AIM companies and most listed ones. They all put their own interests first and pay lip service only to shareholders' interests (despite the term tripping out of their mouths at regular intervals). On the face of it, they're saying the escrow money should come back in full and I see no reason why the lot shouldn't be returned. I don't like all the caveats, however and we all know how long it takes getting court approval and the like. My timescale of April is about what I'm expecting. Had you asked most shareholders this time last year, they'd have said they hoped the whole lot would be sold by now, with only the escrow money to follow. I hate to think how much cash is still being burned trying to turn around businesses that might be too badly scarred by past events to have any real future.This lot could use up all the cash - all the time being extremely well paid for their gallant efforts. I hope I'm wrong. The skill might be in selling 'cum div' early next year if there's no indication of any real progress by then. I don't relish the thought of being left in these people's hands with nothing to look forward to except words and more incentive awards it's impossible to understand the meaning of, but you can bet your bottom dollar aren't constructed with you in mind
eagle51
01 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts Extract from Chairman's report last May:"We are confident that the £50.0m currently reserved in a joint escrow account for any warranty claims will be released in November 2016. No claims have been received from S&G at this stage. As detailed at the time of the December 2015 return of capital, we will look to make a further return of capital of approximately £1 per share if, as anticipated, the further escrow monies are released at the end of November 2016.It is likely that such a return of capital will require both the approval of shareholders and Court approval for a further capital reduction. As previously required, the Board will need to ensure the interests of creditors are adequately safeguarded (including in respect of any contingent liabilities). An appropriate amount will also be held in reserve for developing and growing our businesses.We remain hopeful of receiving, in time, contingent consideration in respect of the disposal of the PSD and we remain in close contact with S&G in respect of this matter.".........'if';: 'will look to'; 'interests of creditors including contingent must be safeguarded' (tens of millions already there evidently might not be enough - maybe they're planning to spend it); 'in time'; approximately; and the 'piece de resistance': "an appropriate amount will also be held in reserve for developing and growing our businesses".At least he's admitted the directors regard the business as theirs, not shareholders.50-60p in about April would be my guess - assuming there's no major dispute about the money, in which case forget it.
atshdyef
01 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts Is very interesting..... I sold out a few weeks ago to move funds elsewhere, booked s huge loss (for me), but felt more chance of recovery elsewhere....However, am keen to get back in at the right time, possibly.Now....If there is a return of £1 per share for the escrow funds, if......, do you think this is priced into the current sp? I would think that the expectation is that there would be some form of claim, and therefore it's not. So if based on today's numbers the £50m is not factored, then there is a good upside to the sp here.Possibly 
Interesting though, and surely the whole group has to be worth more than ~£125m
eagle51
01 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts Aunty - re: "I think that the statement - "the Company (ie SGH) has no liability as a result of the matters described above" - relates to the paragraph that precedes the one you have quoted"........... indeed it does. I didn't see much point in typing out the paragraph you now have - I couldn't copy and paste it because ASX announcements are in pdf format and I don't like typing which I'm not good at. It was summarised in the one I did type out, the relevant sentence being: "Quindell plc provided detailed warranties to the Company in relation to the operation of the assets comprising SGS (PSD)". SGH went on to say: "Despite reasonable enquiries, including of current directors of Quindell plc, the directors are unable to identify or rationalise every historic transaction undertaken by the former directors of the various entities and have made fair value adjustments as appropriate. The Directors believe that none of the known transactions relate to the fundamental business activities or economics of SGS and none of the known transactions are (is) material in value or effect".My comment on this was: "Suggests to me they're effectively saying they won't (based on what is currently known) be seeking to lay their hands on the £50m held in escrow". I am more than hopeful about this, although I can understand you not wanting to go overboard by saying it: "gives you hope".I would go as far as to say it gives me confidence. But only that the escrow money will be released to WTG, not that we will get to see much of it - I doubt that's in these directors' plans. They didn't seem to have much of a problem breaking their promise of "up to 113p and not less than £1" last time and got away with it, so why waste money on us this time either? They should have been clamouring 6 months ago to sell the remainder of the broken business to SGH in an all share deal that would immediately have put considerable upside into SGH's shares because its cash difficulties would immediately have been cured and gearing returned to more normal levels, leaving SGH's woeful directors time to have a better go at integrating and driving profits out of PSD, which they failed to do because they were on the other side of the world and sent people over who weren't up to the task. They (the Au directors seem to have been oblivious to the fact the UK business - where staff morale must have been horrendous after all they'd been through, then having orders barked at them to "do it the SGH way". They responded by not doing it at all. Clowns (I mean the SGH directors). Despite all the above, SGH's shares were considerably 'overshorted' (I know there is no such word but you know what I mean) and the much enlarged legal services business is capable of making considerable profits in the future despite its weak management (apart from a new CFO who seems to know what he's doing). I'd have jumped at the chance to take SGH shares at - say - £3.50 per share equivalent. The mechanics of the deal (dilutory effects etc) would have been tricky to manage but not impossible imv.SGH could have kept the non-core businesses in a separate vehicle and incentivised someone like IM to get rid of all of them as quickly as possible for as much he could get, then clear off with his money. Instead, we are where we are now, cash is being burned at an alarming rate as a board that's a size more befitting of a FTSE 100 company and probably paid about the same plays: "let's be a conglomerate", which went out of fashion with Hanson.It's all very glossy though and they use some cracking cliches, "maximising shareholder value" being my personal favourite. I think they mean: "some shareholders", because a couple of them do have modest holdings.All imho of course. I hate being shafted.
auntysatia
01 Sep 2016
Re: SGH accounts I think that the statement - "the Company (ie SGH) has no liability as a result of the matters described above." - relates to the paragraph that precedes the one you have quoted."On 5 August 2015, Quindell Plc, the vendor of SGS, published qualified financial statements in which the current directors and auditors of Quindell Plc explained, inter alia, that relevant information relating to transactions entered into by the former directors that could impact on the accounting, intention, commercial purpose or value of certain transactions was not available to them. On 5 August 2015 the Serious Fraud Office in the UK advised that it had opened a criminal investigation into the business and accounting practices of Quindell PLC".The statement "The Directors believe that .... none of the known transactions are material in value of effect" gives me some hope that there will not be a warranty claim in relation to them.
PilotPaul
31 Dec 2015
Money isn't in my AJ Bell account. Typical!
supeman1
29 Dec 2015
when is the special payment due?
PilotPaul
22 Dec 2015
Can't sell through AJ Bell either. Ridiculous. Missed out on that early rise.
Mole
21 Dec 2015
Don't see what all the fuss is about??? Once I'm paid my payment of 90 pence per share for shares held on the 18th Dec.. Then there's very little difference between now and last week as far as profits and losses go?!
