Share tips thread
Discussion
I would hazard that fair value would be the remains of the cash pile less the cost of the loss making remaining business and the cost of the board going forward, less legal risk of losing part or all of that cash pile.
But I'm sure that the true believers will bid it up well over a sensible value in the belief that it'll all come good and the wife will never find out out until they retire that all the money has been lost.
I assume the most common argument will be that you'll be paying Xp for a 100p dividend so expext to see argent of 'free money for all'
But I'm sure that the true believers will bid it up well over a sensible value in the belief that it'll all come good and the wife will never find out out until they retire that all the money has been lost.
I assume the most common argument will be that you'll be paying Xp for a 100p dividend so expext to see argent of 'free money for all'
Mark my words - that cash pile isn't going to existing shareholders.
It will be severely depleted by lawsuits which are going to take an age.
S&G have every right to sue these guys.
The current board cannot possibly wing the money out to shareholders in the middle of an SFO investigation (NOT SPEEDY) and with huge likely pending litigation.
The chance that QPP was lying about EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS except NOT the one they sold to S&G is precisely ZERO, in my opinion.
Hence write downs will be necessary at S&G or rather the whole thing will be renegotiated via a courtroom or just outside.
It will be severely depleted by lawsuits which are going to take an age.
S&G have every right to sue these guys.
The current board cannot possibly wing the money out to shareholders in the middle of an SFO investigation (NOT SPEEDY) and with huge likely pending litigation.
The chance that QPP was lying about EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS except NOT the one they sold to S&G is precisely ZERO, in my opinion.
Hence write downs will be necessary at S&G or rather the whole thing will be renegotiated via a courtroom or just outside.
walm said:
Mark my words - that cash pile isn't going to existing shareholders.
It will be severely depleted by lawsuits which are going to take an age.
S&G have every right to sue these guys.
The current board cannot possibly wing the money out to shareholders in the middle of an SFO investigation (NOT SPEEDY) and with huge likely pending litigation.
The chance that QPP was lying about EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS except NOT the one they sold to S&G is precisely ZERO, in my opinion.
Hence write downs will be necessary at S&G or rather the whole thing will be renegotiated via a courtroom or just outside.
The only slight issue is that S&G valued the book they bought on the same basis as their existing book. They couldn't pay more as shareholders would then expect the existing book to be revalued upwards and vice versa. It will be severely depleted by lawsuits which are going to take an age.
S&G have every right to sue these guys.
The current board cannot possibly wing the money out to shareholders in the middle of an SFO investigation (NOT SPEEDY) and with huge likely pending litigation.
The chance that QPP was lying about EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS except NOT the one they sold to S&G is precisely ZERO, in my opinion.
Hence write downs will be necessary at S&G or rather the whole thing will be renegotiated via a courtroom or just outside.
So, it begs the question as to whether S&G is running the same 'accounting' standards as QPP were?
I guess it boils down to whether S&G are completely clean as to what they can do about it but you'd certainly think their Board won't be surviving this and that it will look very odd if S&G claim there was nothing wrong with their DD or that they weren't deceived and do nothing.
Besides which, a massive cash pile sitting in a bent she'll is goin to have myriad Sharks feeding off it as quickly as possible.
walm said:
Only if QPP told them the truth about what was in the QPP book.
And given QPP form, I would bet they didn't.
Indeed but I'm trying to work out how they could lie about the pre-booked value of leads they were working on without S&G being wholly complicit?And given QPP form, I would bet they didn't.
If much of the 'profit' lies was due to buying leads for £250 from cold callers and then booking the profit based on an expected return well in advance of any actual revenue then S&G would know first hand what the real likely return per lead would be from their own UK business.
Unless the leads were all fraudulent and much of the CRM data then added to the prospect files by the 'lawyers' was also systematically doctored?
Otherwise I'm not sure how S&G would argue the value was wrong as they based their offer off the back of how they are valuing a lead?
walm said:
"Our non-audited accounts show we have 1,000 leads."
"Fair enough, here's £250k."
"Thanks."
"Where are these leads, by the way?"
"Over there... in that box."
True but they were publishing the number of leads and their sources so that would make the cold calling firms complicit?"Fair enough, here's £250k."
"Thanks."
"Where are these leads, by the way?"
"Over there... in that box."
I also thought S&G sat in QPP for months trawling through the prospects to verify what level they were at?
Who knows but if S&G don't kick off then it suggests they are just a colonial replicant of QPP?
It's worth reading this from S&G - doesn't come across like they'll be starting proceedings against QPP. http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150806/pdf/430bcmhl...
Oakey said:
Quindell just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving... I belive their 2013 'profit' of £83million has been readjusted to a loss of £68million and reported net assets of £668million are now £446million
I was at the Races yesterday on a corporate jolly with a number of knowledgeable high end industry figures and the subject of Quindell came up a few times.The real world view on the actual shop floor is farcical. The biggest question on everyone's lips is what comes after the inevitable implosion.
CRB14 said:
It's worth reading this from S&G - doesn't come across like they'll be starting proceedings against QPP. http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150806/pdf/430bcmhl...
That sounds slightly odd to me - although I don't speak lawyer."This [the accounts adjustments] affects the ability to meaningfully reconcile the impact of these various changes on the PSD [the division S&G bought from QPP]."
"Quindell's accounting policies were not relied on by S&G in its due diligence of the PSD."
So on the one hand you can't reconcile the impact but on the other you didn't use it anyway....
If you didn't rely on their accounting then surely the impact is therefore ZERO!!??
Which is what they say later... "...does not alter... the economic benefits S&G expects the business to generate."
So you can't "reconcile the impact"... but you know it's zero.
Lawyers pour over every word in a press release but that one just doesn't sound internally consistent to me.
Oh and don't worry about the hearing loss claims we bought from them too because we aren't really focusing on them.
Stock at nearly AUD8 on PSD purchase announcement. Currently AUD3.2.
Good job.
I suspect that what they mean is that they valued the prospects based on their own accounting basis rather than using QPP's figure as to what each lead would generate.
However, given the amount they paid it does suggest that their way of valuing a lead isn't exactly vastly different from QPP's. Which would give you concerns of you were a shareholder.
Unless the prospects are fake then I don't see how they can squeal without blowing their own accounting model up?
However, given the amount they paid it does suggest that their way of valuing a lead isn't exactly vastly different from QPP's. Which would give you concerns of you were a shareholder.
Unless the prospects are fake then I don't see how they can squeal without blowing their own accounting model up?
Wow that iii board is always good for a laugh.
One guy says "tell me why the share is trading on 90p, if the board guaranteed a £1 payment in November in the press release today. ARE YOU CALLING THEM LIARS!!!??"
Someone then quotes the actual press release which says in effect "after the SFO investigation and provisions for litigation, the board still desires to pay £1 in November".
Sometimes these guys deserve to lose money.
One guy says "tell me why the share is trading on 90p, if the board guaranteed a £1 payment in November in the press release today. ARE YOU CALLING THEM LIARS!!!??"
Someone then quotes the actual press release which says in effect "after the SFO investigation and provisions for litigation, the board still desires to pay £1 in November".
Sometimes these guys deserve to lose money.
They know they are lying and destroying but are so desperate that they are trying go to dupe other idiots in to pump up the price. They are no less dishonest than Terry. The only difference is that they have lost a fortune instead of made one.
When an event like QPP happens it gives people an opportunity to find out just how little money it takes for them to sell their principles down the river and become no better than druggies on the scam.
All they'll get from QPP is the knowledge that they are low life's when it comes to the crunch.
When an event like QPP happens it gives people an opportunity to find out just how little money it takes for them to sell their principles down the river and become no better than druggies on the scam.
All they'll get from QPP is the knowledge that they are low life's when it comes to the crunch.
I just had a browse on LSE for some morning entertainment - my favourite quote....
"As risks in investing go this one is quite low.
If you can get in around the 85p level then you would have to assume that your downside is limited. There are risks as there are in any investment but in this case there would appear to be tangible rewards as well.
Ignoring all the bearish flack (court cases, SFO, FCA etc ) the only thing that would seem to be a serious financial risk would be a claim from S&G that they were not given the correct data BUT as they performed such a huge due diligence exercises this would appear to be unlikely to win."
"As risks in investing go this one is quite low.
If you can get in around the 85p level then you would have to assume that your downside is limited. There are risks as there are in any investment but in this case there would appear to be tangible rewards as well.
Ignoring all the bearish flack (court cases, SFO, FCA etc ) the only thing that would seem to be a serious financial risk would be a claim from S&G that they were not given the correct data BUT as they performed such a huge due diligence exercises this would appear to be unlikely to win."
CRB14 said:
I just had a browse on LSE for some morning entertainment - my favourite quote....
"As risks in investing go this one is quite low.
If you can get in around the 85p level then you would have to assume that your downside is limited. There are risks as there are in any investment but in this case there would appear to be tangible rewards as well.
Ignoring all the bearish flack (court cases, SFO, FCA etc ) the only thing that would seem to be a serious financial risk would be a claim from S&G that they were not given the correct data BUT as they performed such a huge due diligence exercises this would appear to be unlikely to win."
Court cases, SFO and FCA don't represent serious financial risk? Classic!"As risks in investing go this one is quite low.
If you can get in around the 85p level then you would have to assume that your downside is limited. There are risks as there are in any investment but in this case there would appear to be tangible rewards as well.
Ignoring all the bearish flack (court cases, SFO, FCA etc ) the only thing that would seem to be a serious financial risk would be a claim from S&G that they were not given the correct data BUT as they performed such a huge due diligence exercises this would appear to be unlikely to win."
They are right about one thing though. At 85p, downside is limited....... to 85p.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff