Small Cap Value Report (14 Oct 2015) - MOS, SSY, CNCT, WGB, VTU

14th Oct '15 by Paul Scott

15 comments 22263 reads

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;

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 with Facebook

Unlock with Google

or Unlock with your email

Already have an account?
Login here

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Gostevie

14th Oct '15

Hi Paul,

I wonder if Connect (LON:CNCT) is still on your reporting list. I know you have previously expressed concerns over its balance sheet and debt levels but this morning's results look good and they have started paying down that debt so maybe things are improving.

All the best,

Steve

Ramridge

Re. Mobile Streams (LON:MOS) and RNS. Personally I take the information that an AIM company releases in the same way as the patter of a second-hand car salesman. They are well heeled in selling you the sizzle and it is up to you to ask and research the bits they will not highlight or tell you about. This approach has stood me well.
This state of affairs will continue as long as the regulators continue to adopt a very light touch regulation of the AIM market. The latest scandals haven't done much in changing the FCA's attitude.

FREng

I agree that SCISYS (LON:SSY) management seem to be serious and competent. I met them following the earlier profit warning and they were working through all their other contracts to reassure themselves that there were no other lingering problems. They haven't reported any, so I'm confident that this was a special case. I'm currently long, for that reason.

Any software house can have a fixed price contract go wrong. The contractual requirements are almost never written with mathematical precision (or anything close to it) and it is always therefore possible to have a serious dispute with a customer about some particular that turns out to have a profound effect on costs and timescales. Then you face the choice between negotiating a compromise and retaining the client (which appears to be what has happened here) or instructing lawyers, with all the associated costs, impact on management time, and reputational damage.

When I spoke to the management they said they were having to put extra staff onto the troubled contract and that this would have an impact on profitability until the problems were resolved. That seems to be over now, so those staff will be back earning fees.

I see no reason why the SP shouldn't recover to 80p quite rapidly. At the current price, they would be a cheap way to acquire 400 staff with scarce skills, some important clients, and £40m turnover.

herbie47

Good Morning Paul,
I was searching for discussion on STM (LON:STM) on here but did not find anything recent but I was sure it had been on a recent audiocast, I have now found it, it was on the Edward Roskill one, would it be possible to index those companies so if you do a search there will be link to the relevant report? Just thinking about searching in the future.

daletcombe

Hi Paul,
Animalcare (ANCR) posted its full year results this morning and an RNS statement was showing early on their website but was not on Investegate for some reason. Is this a company you track? Good results this morning and I would be very interested in your comments.

Novice Investor

Paul is long in MOS?

NI

MGinvestor

Paul please don't answer such a question *shakes his head in dismay*

Aside from telling Paul what to do, I don't understand why you would say that chillax.

NI

italo

Very useful

TMFMayn

NI -- oh yes, here we go:

"(Paul holds long positions in MOS, and WGB, and no short positions."

Seems to me he writes the reviews, which then sometimes prompt a purchase, but then does not go back to put an ownership disclosure in the company sub-header.

I saw that Mayn, that's why I was asking! I was questioning if that was correct given his comments on the company earlier in the day.

Buffy

Paul Scott

Hi,

The rules are that I have to disclose in each article if I hold a particular stock, and that I can't write about stocks that I'm short about. So that's exactly what I disclose.

I (embarrassed to admit it!) have a small punt on MOS at the time of writing today's article, so I disclosed it.

I had a small long position in WGB when writing the above article, so I disclosed it in the article.

Regards, Paul.

P.S. I'm not going to get into any arguments over this. I disclose what I have to disclose, and that's it.

It wasn't a criticism at all Paul. Mayn took the anticipated discussion in a different direction. I was just interested to know whether you did have a punt in MOS, as my instinct was that it might be worth one. I didn't pick up from the tone of your report that you would have one;that's all.

Regards,

NI

gus 1065

23rd Mar '16

Seems the Mobile Streams (LON:MOS) rampers and de rampers might be coming out of hibernation - must be Spring. Shares are up 32% today, albeit from a very low base. Mutterings on some of the bulletin boards that things are starting to move in India (must have been the Jalfrazi).

Seen it before and possibly back down again tomorrow

Gus.

Hi Gus,

Yes I also noticed that Mobile Streams (LON:MOS) had woken from its slumber. It's a potentially interesting micro cap I think, so bought more at recent lows, as well as holding on to a position from a while back.

It tends to do spectacular moves up, then comes all the way back down again! Bonkers little stock.

Regards, Paul.

Small Cap Value Report (14 Oct 2015) - MOS, SSY, CNCT, WGB, VTU

Mobile Streams (LON:MOS)

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

Paul Scott

15 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...