Teathers Financial - Suspended but far from out

Comments

1. ---

   End of our Teathers

   4 December 2015, 09:12

   Oli Fattal was giving it large on Twitter this week trumpeting about the fact that the 1st placing on the app was due to happen tonight.

   Those tweets caused the price to spike up considerably in anticipation before coming back a little yesterday.

   Totally irresponsible of him to take to Twitter to ramp knowing that the shares were about to become untradeable for an indeterminate period and that there was a risk that they would never be tradeable again.

   If they don’t get readmitted in the next 6 months, how much of that £1m will be left for distribution? Also part of their portfolio of investments was a chunk of cash they chucked at the LGC IPO debacle so will not be readily realizable.

   Somebody has fucked up big time with this. Either sheer negligence or sheer incompetence on the part of Teathers or their Nomad..

2. ---

   Juicin Drumroll

   4 December 2015, 09:15

   Everybody else can see it, why can’t you TW?

   http://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2015-12-04/

3. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   4 December 2015, 09:24

   Juicin.

   maybe because "everybody else" did not bother checking the facts with the company before writing. I did.

   t

4. ---

   Mould Capital

   4 December 2015, 10:23

   There seems to be a lot of jealous competitors and out there in relation to Teathers Financial. The technology of the TFSL app is a disruptive innovation, and plenty of vested interests would like to see it fail. Jason Drummond has stated very recently that they don’t need any cash at the moment. Welldone for getting the facts out Tom.

5. ---

   Davecandle

   4 December 2015, 11:45

   Tom,

   Not sure I trust JDs “facts”

   In the interims to 30 April 2015, they had £965k of net current assets, which included £100k in KOG so that’s £865k of net liquid current assets. Seven months later, there is further admin expenses, further investment in TSFL, cash in from some warrants exercised and loads of investments on which in total they are under water.

   In addition £100k of that went into CUBA and they’re not seeing that any time soon.

   My estimate is that net liquid current assets is no more than £500k now.

   If this went belly up in 6 months, the chances of more than say £300k being available after legal costs is pretty slim unless one or more of their current investments goes sky-high.

   Not sure it’s right to say £1.75 is the worst possible outcome in this situation – looks more like 50p to me. Happy to be corrected if JD can show me his own spreadsheet.

6. ---

   Rhambo

   4 December 2015, 13:42

   I’m surprised by this article Tom. TEA should have sorted its own ship out so shareholders can sleep at night and not face liquidation. If Jabba had done this you would have gone nuts and I don’t see why you are being so light touch with TEA?

7. ---

   Drunken Sailor

   4 December 2015, 19:57

   Obviously everybody should be delighted that AIM are enforcing the rules at long last. Whether they are enforcing all the rules and not just selected rules and whether they are enforcing them for all companies and not just selected companies remains to be seen, but having spent years ignoring their own rules and the breaches of them, I guess they have to start somewhere.

   2 Key questions for TEA:

   Why have they not published the above info in the RNS announcing the suspension?

   They knew of the possibility of suspension many days before it happened. Why did they not advise investors by RNS when it first became clear that they had a problem?

   By failing in these 2 respects TEA will have lost a lost of investors’ trust and that will impact them going forward, if indeed they do move forward.

8. ---

   Juicin Drumroll

   5 December 2015, 03:17

   TW,

   Jason Drummond was one of the speakers at your Gold & Bears shindig held 6 days before suspension. Did he utter the words ‘suspension’ & ‘Teathers’ in proximity at any time within your hearing?

   Did he allude to this suspension in any way at all?

   #bezziehoodwinked

9. ---

   wildrides

   5 December 2015, 03:55

   Dear Sir (Tom)
   you do me a disservice sir, which I feel I must correct less readers would know that I have lost my marbles rather than just think I have lost my marbles . It is true that I am a supporter of the under dog LGO and its struggle with low oil price under Mr Ritson . However I am nothing but a critic of Del Boy Lemongas and all of his recent and current companies including :- Cuba . Horse Hill , Rare earth , AFRI etc . I have never been an apologist for Del Boy Lemongas and my support for LGO and its current struggles post dates his departure from that company in Aug 2014 .
   Thus you owe me an apple ogie in this respect .

10. ---

    Simple Moving Avarice

    5 December 2015, 06:59

    AIM rule 15 says (amongst other things) that a company must implement its investing policy to the satisfaction of the Exchange. That seems to be the part of rule 15 which they have fallen foul of in this case.

    But Teathers investing policy is fairly broad and basically revolves around investing in AIM companies or companies which will be listed on AIM within 12-18 months. And they’ve been buying and selling like beavers since they set it up. So what can they have done? Have they bought an “investment” which isn’t likely to come to AIM within 18 months (LGC?) (“Investment” in quotes since they don’t seem to hold anything longer than a couple of months anyway.)

    Tom says he is led to believe that if they fix up a few of these investments they could gain a speedy readmission. But the RNS says rather ominously “the Company is currently seeking advice as to how best to enable shareholders who wish to trade in the Company’s shares to do so” which sounds like a more serious falling out with AIM, because otherwise there is a very simple way to enable shareholders to trade in their shares – get themselves unsuspended!

11. ---

    Davecandle

    5 December 2015, 10:51

    The more I analyse how they might have breached their investment policy, I can only imagine it is linked to TFSL as this is an operation they set up themselves rather than an investment in a third party and I can imagine AIM kicking up a fuss about an investment company operating its own business.

    Resolving this issue isn’t straightforward.

12. ---

    BRITTA

    6 December 2015, 07:11

    AFRI set up 100%-owned AfriAg Marketing recently, albeit after sign-off for being an investing company had been granted, so there is a precedent for that sort of thing. TFLS is a similar wholly-owned subsidiary (and like at Afri, with an overlap in directors)

13. ---

    catempire

    6 December 2015, 10:20

    The whole idea is crap and has been from the get go…

    Why on earth anyone thought this would work is really beyond me, doesn’t make sense in the slightest… tiny market, tiny uptake, tiny margins, only ramped sh*te shares would use it, tiny investor following and why on earth do people need to take part in placings while going for a sh*t ?

    JD called it “his best technology to date” I think that says a lot about his business sense.

    Wouldn’t also surprise me if they let it go down the shitter knowing its far more hassle then its worth and will never work… I could have told them that from the start the fooking bellends.

14. ---

    VINES

    6 December 2015, 13:25

    ‘‘how they might have breached their investment policy, I can only imagine it is linked to TFSL’‘

    its good but its not the one. its like this see, if the companys main asset is cash a year after setting an investing policy it goes suspenders

15. ---

    catempire

    6 December 2015, 14:32

    Vines – it also depends on the investment policy, why companies set themselves such stringent rules when they don’t have too and all that is required is a vote at an AGM or EGM really makes little sense… take a look at LME as an example, they have far more cash than investments and it’s been over 18 months since listing.

    It would be unfair to force a decent company to make an investment even if a decent investment wasn’t available… so there must be another reason as to why those in charge take such stringent rules on their polices…?

    Anyway’s… they have proven that they are shit business men, but they are pretty good at ripping people off, so dare I say, they knew this would happen so as to give them a get out clause should they need one ?..

    It’s a shame at the investment show more people had of asked JD some half decent questions like…

    Have you actually done any market research?.. How do you expect to make a profit with such a small market and tech being high operating costs?.. Why do shareholders need to take part in placings while going for a shit? & Whose stupid idea was this?..

    You could tell he was nervous in the video, probably because he hoped people wouldn’t give him a grilling and ask very valid questions.

16. ---

    VINES

    6 December 2015, 16:23

    ‘‘LME as an example, they have far more cash than investments and it’s been over 18 months since listing’‘

    its different rules for new listings as they jumped thru more hoops when listing. all they gotta do is get shareholders to renew its investing policy at each AGM. the crappies that takeover a listing havnt jumped thru the same hoops so only get a year or they go suspenders, simples

17. ---

    Davecandle

    7 December 2015, 09:35

    Vines – do they have much cash?

18. ---

    BRITTA

    11 December 2015, 06:57

    CHAL has now re-listed and been sold (at a profit) so that is one step towards solving the Investing Policy problem.

    TFSL first app-based placing has also gone thru (Constellation healthcare), so that seems to work too.

19. ---

    Drunken Sailor

    11 December 2015, 08:20

    Based on the figures JD gave at Gold and Bears, it will take about 2 years for the revenues from TFSL to cover what they will lose on Lenigas Cuba.