Good morning!

Mobile Streams (LON:MOS)

Share price: 16p
No. shares: 37.1m
Market cap: £5.9m

An interesting situation has arisen here - stock has been the biggest riser for the last two consecutive days, having risen from 4.75p on Oct 9th (last Fri) to 17.4p on Oct 13th (last night's close). This was triggered (as I mentioned in my report here on Oct 12th) by results coming out which seemed to show the company generating quite a decent profit (for a company with such a tiny market cap).

Anyway, this morning out comes an amended results statement, with the following changes having been made to the revised results announcement;

561e016f5bad9MOS_corrections.PNG

The theme of these changes seems to be, that somebody has reviewed the results statement, and decided that it buried too many material points in the notes, and that significant points (such as the first one, release of a £0.34m provision, which boosted profit) should be disclosed more prominently in the highlights, not buried in the notes.

So my questions are ;

1) Who decided that the results had to be re-released with these amendments? My guess would be the auditors.

2) Why did they not review the accounts announcement before it was released, and insist on these changes being made when the announcement was just an internal draft?

Also, as a general point, what are the rules (if any?) concerning what information the company must highlight in results statement? From what I have gathered, companies seem to have complete freedom to present results however they like - i.e. as long as the statutory results are provided, then the announcement can be embellished with any narrative and highlights sections, not to mention adjusted profit calculations, that management wish to give.

Usually the highlights section only mentions positive factors, designed to give a skewed, positive view, so that people will rush out and buy the shares. Is this acceptable? No, it isn't. Surely the highlights section should be required to mention all material points, good and bad? This looks like a sloppy area, where tighter rules are needed (and enforced).

I would like to see a simple set of principles-based rules, saying things like, e.g. prominence must be given to all material facts & figures (good or bad) which would affect an investor's perception of the results, financial position, and risks.

The other thing that this situation highlights, is…

Unlock the rest of this Article in 15 seconds

or Unlock with your email