Shepherd Cox and Platinum Portfolio Builder

badger09

Interesting that one of the 'investors' in Shepherd Cox providing the glowing testimonials, works for SJP:cool:

Malthusian

badger09 wrote: »

Interesting that one of the 'investors' in Shepherd Cox providing the glowing testimonials, works for SJP:cool:

As a Senior Manager in Business Acquisition. In other words his job is recruitment. He has no client-facing role and has been off the FCA register since 2016. So he is no more an authority on investment than any other recruitment consultant.

Which is good for him, as promoting an illegal collective investment should get you struck off in my book, even if it is an unpaid testimonial.

bostonerimus

Why, oh why, do people consider these bizarre investment options? Stick to the simple mainstream options and avoid becoming a segment on a TV consumer complaints show.

Christmc

Look up their accounts Shepherd cox holdings ltd if you want to see how their business is performing ! but pay attention to the loans and dividends taken out by Lee Bramzell and Nick Carlile.

I thought it was against company law to declare a dividend when you are not making any profit ?

Malthusian

Christmc wrote: »

I thought it was against company law to declare a dividend when you are not making any profit ?

If it's Shepherd Cox Hotels Holdings you're looking at, they had retained earnings from previous years in which they did make a profit, meaning the dividends were legal.

Christmc

How can they have retained profits from previous years when Shepherd Cox holdings was only set up in 2017 and these are the first published accounts ?

bowlhead99

Christmc wrote: »

How can they have retained profits from previous years when Shepherd Cox holdings was only set up in 2017 and these are the first published accounts ?

When you say 'Shepherd Cox holdings' are you actually looking at Shepherd Cox Hotels Holdings? At a quick glance, the parent company on a standalone basis made profits and it's quite legal to pay a dividend to its owners. The consolidated group as a whole didn't make a profit because interest expense (largely a 7% debenture) exceeded the profits before interest.

The 2018 accounts are for a period ended over a year ago and the next ones won't be due for a while, so all sorts of things could have changed in the meantime.

Malthusian

bowlhead99 wrote: »

When you say 'Shepherd Cox holdings' are you actually looking at Shepherd Cox Hotels Holdings? At a quick glance, the parent company on a standalone basis made profits and it's quite legal to pay a dividend to its owners. The consolidated group as a whole didn't make a profit because interest expense (largely a 7% debenture) exceeded the profits before interest.

The 2018 accounts are for a period ended over a year ago and the next ones won't be due for a while, so all sorts of things could have changed in the meantime.

Bowlhead's explanation is correct and mine about previous years is wrong, as there weren't any.

Now I'm intrigued. Say I incorporate two companies, Malthusian Holdings Ltd and Malthusian Bonds plc. Malthusian Bonds borrows £20 million from investors and invests £19m in crappy warehouses in unfashionable areas of Hull. It pays £1 million to Malthusian Holdings Ltd as "admin fees" and consequently Malthusian Holdings Limited banks a £1 million profit and pays out £1 million in dividends.

Is all of that really considered kosher? Effectively I've paid myself dividends from a loss-making company simply by incorporating another one.

As Shepherd Cox Hotels Holdings Limited hasn't filed a profit and loss account for the company (only the consolidated group) it's unclear how it made its profit while the overall group made a loss.

bowlhead99

Malthusian wrote: »

.

As Shepherd Cox Hotels Holdings Limited hasn't filed a profit and loss account for the company (only the consolidated group) it's unclear how it made its profit while the overall group made a loss.

An example would be where the subsidiaries that make profits pay them to the parent and the subsidiaries that make losses do not. The parent received a decent income on a standalone basis and can cover its debt servicing obligations with net profits left over to pay dividends. The wider group however may not have made a profit, as some of the subsidiaries may be making losses (consuming assets rather than growing the assets).

That's just an example - I'm not going to look into this one in particular made its profits or losses because I really don't care . I was merely reacting to the comment about something being 'against company law' which implied the person writing it did not know company law, so perhaps take their 'Pay attention to..." with a pinch of salt.

Christmc

I personally wouldn’t even think about taking a dividend when the debt and interest payments are so huge .

Surely it would make more sense to lower the debt levels rather than milking the company ?

The returns they pay their investors are 8-10% plus they have £7.7million at 7% interest + a Lloyd’s bank loan for £1.5m which is the only debt at normal interest rates .

If those businesses don’t maximise profits every single year the card house simply collapses ,

But by then have they taken millions out in dividends and don’t care ?