Have a small investment following Director putting money where mouth is - he's invested in the last few days at 77p (see RNS). Currently 86p to buy. On the surface there is no turnover and no profit - yet they are hoping to apply for Full listing - is this just talk? I thought a Co. needed several years of "proper" accounts? - odd that this (one) Dir has invested so much money if there is nothing in it.
Earlier this year they floated (near 1 DYOR) and have reported nothing much since - except a 6m/pa deal to mange some part of Hull dock.....

Now how about some Local Knowledge bearing on this investment?

JohnEWunda - are you talking to me? My post of 18 Oct 04 doesn't mention Russia....shom miskake here, my friend.

Please give EPIC and date if possible, etc. there must be a simple answer but I'm baffled so far.
Regards.

"IMHO the FSA seems to have neither the time, nor teeth required - a sad state of affairs for the Country that invented shares.
Any votes?"
This is your quote, 'Hang on' Isn't it? No 2 of 12.
I might be wrong but weren't the first shareowners a group of Russians who banded together in 1712ish to buy a ship and share the proceeds.

Sorry JonhEWunda I thought you wrote that I'd mentioned Russians. As I was sure I hadn't I was unable to respond.

Historically you may well be right, I dunno.
My knowledge only points to the City of London having started in a Coffee House, originally for insurance and then it grew.
Can I rephrase what I said to something like the third country to invent shareholding (in cas there is one more earlier?)

I was concerned by the poor Regulation here in UK, not the details of historical events, although thank-you for the info.
- Our own regulators seem to busy themselves with small events when the real picture is ignored IMHO. Witness the fining of Pace when the Regulators could not find a reason to prosecute the Directors....did the company act on it own - the fax machine was in charege, etc? It was the Directors responsibility to alert the Market and this they failed to do until long after the news was cold. The sp had fallen on leakage, is my guess. By fining the company the shareholders were dealt a blow - why? Were the shareholders manipulating said Fax machine - no! they were being kept in the dark by Directors - who else could do this? Grr, and nothing to do with PDP.


I have noted that the Australians are tightening their regulations so as to protect investors....I have no problem with investors losing money in a fair market, but I do object to Directors making loadsamoney when their business is failing, propped up by posturing and good news which comes to little more than spin. I read somewhere some were trying to Lock-in Directors to a rolling 5-year reward cycle so as to concentrate their minds. I have no problem with Directors being rewarded but I don't like companies to fail whilst they benefit.

nice post Hangon! I totally agree with you. I got burnt myself in a company called Procomm in the Dotcom days. The director was Michael Wakeley and the whole thing a shambles from start to finish.The company lied about how many shares were applied for in its IPO. The group stockbrokers which handled the flotation were disbanded by the FSA later. Even worse he is now in charge of Sunbeach communications, the AIM listed company which has been suspended while they clarify matters with regard to funding. (Un)funny Procomm was suspended too. Procomm only ever produced one set of accounts about 2 years late, never made a penny etc and on the few occasions they sent any info to shareholders it looked like it was on scrap paper by second hand post. I'm not bitter really.I feel sorry for those who made bigger losses. But like you say how they get away with it is equally beyond me.