Skip Navigation
 

Meltdown At Plasmon

<%=_author %>

By

Padraig O'Hannelly

From the Fool blog

Local Police Station Is Useless!

Published in Company Comment on 19 September 2008

The meltdown at Plasmon shows that even experienced and successful investors can get it badly wrong.

It's like watching a train crash in slow motion; it's ugly, but you can't not watch. That's what spectators to the unfolding Plasmon (LSE: PLM) debacle will be thinking, but shareholders will have a more direct reason to wince.

Having reached a high of 270p in 2004, Plasmon is now the subject of a possible takeover offer of “not more than 0.25 pence” per share, which the Board describes as “the best viable option for the Company”. That a fall of 99.9%.

Fortunately, my interest in Plasmon has been as a mere spectator, but it could easily have been otherwise. The company is controlled by Hanover Investors, which holds 25.8% of the shares; I've written about Hanover previously, and have been keeping an eye on some of their investments.

Tempting as it may be to piggy-back on the moves of successful investors -- Plasmon's shares more than doubled after Hanover bought in -- the meltdown at Plasmon has served to remind me of some of the reasons I didn't get burned with this particular one:

l Even gurus can get it wrong. Hanover has an enviable track record of restructuring, re-focusing businesses, and improving efficiency and margins, but they are not infallible. No investor is;

l Stick to businesses you can understand. While I can grasp the basics of Plasmon's archive storage technology, I couldn't properly assess its strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors. And honestly, how many private investors could, or did?

l No matter how much a share falls, it can still fall more. The market is currently providing us with more examples of this;

l Cash is king, at the moment. The latest falls were precipitated by Plasmon's need for further financing, and this is not a pleasant time to be looking for funds.

Despite the possibility of a bid at up to 0.25p, the shares are currently priced at 0.33p, so shareholders are apparently hopeful of a counter-offer, possibly from a rival. And they may be great value at that price, but as I start thinking that way I re-read the bullets above and decide to stay away.

For stock-picking ideas, why not check out Maynard Paton's Champion Shares service -- you can even take a 30-day free trial with no obligation.

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.

GeorgeMicawber 23 Sep 2008, 9:47am

Sorry - can we please be precise about share prices? There is a considerable difference between 25p or £0.25 per share, and 0.25p per share. Sometimes what is meant is obvious from the context, but in this case there is an uncertain factor of 100x floating about.

Esquilax100 23 Sep 2008, 10:37am

GeorgeMicawber,

the prices are correct as written. For clarity, I even mentioned the percentage drop.

Can you suggest how I could be clearer about this?

- Padraig

marka48 23 Oct 2008, 3:34pm

I interfaced with Plasmon just after its formation in 1984 and was a management contractor in the U.S. company for the period 1997-2001, responsible for two product lines. That should lend some credibility. In my opinion, the failure of Plasmon, (which we first predicted in 2001) was due primiarily to a financially oriented management that had no experience in the data storage industry. The failure of the company can be directly traced to: 1)Stubborn insistance on developing a proprietary data recording technology ... an impossible task for a company its size, in a mature market, facing highly financed alternatives, and with a total potential market that was slightly smaller than the cost of developing the product, and, 2)Failure to understand the dynamics of the hardware segment of the data storage industry. Simply put, Plasmon thought it had an entire solution when in fact it was a component of much larger, integrated storage systems.

There is a story about our ill-fated General Custer, who, when informed that there were 5000 indians surrounding his 200 troopers, solved the problem by declaring, "Well, we won't take any prisoners" ... A classic example of not listening to feedback from the front line.

M. Anderson

Esquilax100 24 Oct 2008, 12:24am

marka48,

many thanks for your comments on my article - it's always useful to get the perspective of someone close to the company.

- Padraig

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.