Fined £500k For Misleading Investors

Published in Investing on 23 June 2010

Serial offender Photo-Me has been punished for creating a false market in its shares.

Photo-Me International (LSE: PHTM) has had a chequered history as a listed company.

Indeed, the maker of the familiar photo booths has had more than a decade of corporate 'hiccups', brought about by poor management and dubious accounting. For example, way back in August 2000, my Foolish friend Maynard Paton wrote about accounting problems at Photo-Me dating back to July 1999.

A £500,000 fine from the FSA

As the old investing adage goes: "There's never only one cockroach under the fridge."

In other words, when a company's directors warn of serious problems, these have a habit of growing and multiplying, instead of going away.

Thus, on Monday, City regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) fined Photo-Me £500,000 for failing to disclose inside information to investors as soon as possible. The delay led to a false market in Photo-Me's shares for 44 days.

Photo-Me's current problems go back to between September and December 2006, when the photo-processing equipment seller announced large contract wins. However, on 17 January 2007, Photo-Me found out that one major contract (with US retailer Albertsons) was being re-tendered and the firm faced at least four other rivals for the contract.

Instead of warning the market immediately, Photo-Me withheld this inside information. By 12 February 2007, Photo-Me knew that its January sales were 40% below target. Again, this should have been revealed to investors without delay. Eventually, on 2 March 2007, Photo-Me issued a profits warning, causing its share price to slump almost a quarter (24%) that day.

Don't keep investors in the dark

Photo-Me issued a response to the FSA's fine on Monday, pointing out that the FSA found no regulatory breaches by Photo-Me's past or present directors in this matter. Also, the firm has already provided for this fine, so it will have no effect on this year's results.

Other companies fined by the FSA for similar breaches include collapsed retailer Woolworths Group, chip-maker Wolfson Microelectronics (LSE: WLF) and media company Entertainment Rights. However, Photo-Me's fine is the largest of its type issued by the FSA, which is soon to fall under the control of the Bank of England.

Under the FSA's Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) and Listing Principles, companies must provide full disclosure to the market of all relevant information on a timely basis. This ensures that all users of the market get the same information at the same time.

However, some company directors still behave as though their shareholders were mushrooms -- they keep them in the dark and feed them manure!

Hence, it's high time that directors started taking their obligations to all investors seriously, in order to prevent insiders from being able to benefit from market-sensitive information at the expense of the wider herd.

More from Cliff D'Arcy:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Gengulphus 24 Jun 2010 , 6:49pm

I'm not a shareholder in the company, but surely this fine goes completely against natural justice?

If directors keep shareholders in the dark when regulations say the shareholders should be informed, fining the directors would make sense. Fining the company doesn't - because the burden of a fine on the company falls ultimately on the owners of the company, who are of course the shareholders...

In other words, what this fine amounts to is fining the shareholders for them being kept in the dark by the directors. Talk about adding insult to injury!

In my view, a sane system of regulation would only fine the company for something the company's current shareholders could reasonably have done something about, or that they have profited from in a way that would not have occurred in regulations had been adhered to (and in the latter case, the fine should be restricted to the excess profit). For other matters, the regulator should be required to either find individuals who have breached regulations and fine them, or refrain from fines at all. And it would also prohibit companies from indemnifying their directors and employees against being fined.

What would be appropriate though would be for the regulator to be able to put shareholders on notice that they're not exercising proper control over the management of their company. That's just a vague idea at present, I should add - I haven't yet worked out how a system that did that might reasonably work in practice!

Gengulphus

twowills 25 Jun 2010 , 1:35pm

I agree with Gengulphus regarding the punitive punishment of shareholders (note: I don't have shares in Photo-me either).

I agree that the Directors should be fined (and not indemnified by the company), but, where the impact of such activity has already destroyed shareholder value, the fine should be returned to the shareholders by way of a special dividend and that also excludes the Directors (who are shareholders) from the dividend payment.

bouleversee 25 Jun 2010 , 5:43pm

Spot on, as usual, Gengulphus. I regret to say I have had shares in Photo-Me for a long time and am losing money on them needless to say.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.