UK 02:45 Sunday, 25 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
With a very big hat tip to ‘ROB’ who posted a comment on my article “Equities First and a cancer at the heart of the AIM Cesspit” I bring you Optimal Payments (OPAY) which is, according to ADVFN, a £668 million enterprise trading on the AIM Cesspit. I have to say that I have not the slightest clue what this company does, but that is not the point.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Jane
I have a small holding in OPAY. Thanks for posting this article. I agree there ought to be an RNS to clarify this straightaway.
notjohn20
I had shares in several of these cowboys and immediately sold when this scam was highlighted. Thank goodness as it seems to me it is the start of a long slide. Presumably the FCA are too busy investigating high profile companies where the publicity is more important than the shareholder abuse.
Slim Fizzlebeef
“Loan principal is based on the last sale price over the previous 3 trading days”
Closing bid or daily VWAP would have been better practice as the last sale trade means EFH can ‘paint the tape’
Quindell yellow bellies called this “the 3-day average market value per share”… Most people in reading that would think they meant the VWAP, or closing mid. Misleading!
Slim Fizzlebeef
Another humdinger
“the loan principal amount was equal to approximately £4 million”
How much do I owe you?
You owe me a sum equal to approximately four thousand pounds
Can you be more specific?
Yes the exact figure is roughly in that sort of area.
commonack
Seem OPAY is being tarnished with the same brush as QPP which is unjustified in my humble opinion. No doubt that the director has raised funds with EFH but this isnt the same as the Terry transaction. The company generates hard cash at a decent margin, something very much different to QPP!
Phil
commonack
I disagree with you. Perhaps the reason OPAY are tarnished by the same brush as QPP, is because they have acted the same way as QPP
They lied, by a lie of omission, in some circumstances the most telling lie of all.
I’m not prepared to invest in any company where the board tell lies, one is too many. This company is uninvestable, and there will be more private investors who think as I do.
If OPAY don’t want to be flavoured as yet another QPP, then get rid of the CEO, who has told a lie of omission.
Nigel Somerville has had to drag this statement out of OPAY, you would never have known. Well now we do, your choice what to do about it, but if you can’t sell OPAY for more than you paid for it, you will lose.
Please don’t add me to the list of potential buyers of your stock, I’m not interested and never will, regardless of where it goes;
Elrico
There seems to be a common theme here. EFH seem to be used as a cash cow for management of AIM listed companies, these companies publish a deliberately misguided RNS designed to assure the PI that management have purchased shares in the companies when they appear to be net sellers. Meanwhile, EFH seem to be dumping the loan stock into the market, as this appears to be the business strategy because its not in EFH’s interest the share price being higher than the average 3 day price to which the loan was peddled at.
AIM regulators seem incredibly slow to act. The problem I have with this sorry saga is I am concerned AIM regulators will do nothing for fear of what is below the tip of the iceberg. This has the potential to kill off a lot of investment opportunities in perfectly sound companies. It’s a real concern that this could be the next big scandal in the square mile…like we need another.
Tom and his merry band of brothers have done a fantastic job unearthing this scam. I wonder if they thought it may be more widespread than what has already been uncovered.
One final thought. I initially felt sorry for QPP PI’s because they were reeled in by management lies, and lets face it, if you have an unfavourable opinion of certain people in the investment community, you’re unlikely to sit up and take notice, because that’s simply the way the human brain is wired. That said, when that community you hold in low regard for whatever reason keeps hoisting the red flag higher and higher and legal threats are not carried out you have to take a closer look. I mean, legal action was threatened way back in august 2014 when the SP was near 3x higher than Fridays close. Instead, a number of PI’s have vented their spleen at Tom and his friends for having the audacity to do what is right and risks to their own credibility and dog’s abuse.
nigel Somerville
Elrico – OPAY a company I know nothing about, but I sense it is a different kettle of fish to QPP. I feel sorry for the shareholders here, but truth must out. Full and frank disclosure is needed here to refute possibility of directors breaking the rules. Tip of iceberg? I fear so. The really worrying thing for me, as I keep banging on about, is that AIM took the EFH shilling. That is what I believe is the reason for the slow response from the authorities. To do something in public would be to incriminate themselves. What due dil did AIM do when it took EFH’s cash?
nigel somerville
COMMONACK – I’m not taking issue with the business or its model. I’m focussed on the behaviour of directors and advisers. I a way it would underline what a rotten stinking cesspit of shame AIM really is if it were the case that OPAY is indeed a very good company. That would demonstrate that AIM itself is the problem, and not necessarily the businesses on it (I fancy it is both, mind!)
Phil – yup, I reckon the CEO has to walk the plank. Possibly just for being one!
Slim – fantastic! Keep ‘em coming!
NotJohn – agree totally. Easier to pick up an acorn than to push over an oak tree. Hmmm…I rather like that!
Jane – sorry! Hope the end effect will be positive, however. It surely is better than hiding it is the closet, as Canaccord appear to want.
Elrico
Nigel – I agree with you. I do not tar OPAY with the same brush as QPP. That is an altogether different kind of abuse. OPAY will as we have already seen, be hit with negative sentiment on two fronts. 1 CEO lied or deliberately deceived investors regarding the loan agreement, 2 EFH.
Sweet Karolina
Surely share registers for the period under consideration are available now has anyone managed to check them?