Quindell Legal Services. Comments about the business.

Comments have been made about the transparency of Quindell Legal Services projected figures and also the analysis from these figures.

Numerous points have been raised and to be frank I don’t have the time or inclination to lay out all the facts to refute every statement.

I am only going to therefore respond to a few of the perceived issues to highlight the inaccuracies I have found. This gives an indication of the quality of the whole article.

Run rate stipulated as predicted to be £900m by end of 2014.

This isn’t what was said. Quindell stated that run rate would be around £900m. Small point but indicates that figure was fluid and not set in stone.

It is well understood by investors in Quindell that the reduction in turnover is to manage cash flow. This being in the past a major issue for investors. The business has therefore taken action to address investors concerns about cash rather than grow the business.

Questioned why Jim Rymer of Silverbeck Rymer resigned from QLS board

As part of the deal between Silverbeck Rymer apnd Quindell, Jim Rymer joined Quindell’s Strategy and Integration Advisory board. I’m not surprised that once the integration had been successfully completed that Jim departed the business.

I’m struggling to understand why this is an issue.

KPMG’s suitability to carry out audits

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the capabilities of an internationally recognised professional organisation such as KPMG.

Revenue per case taken on

91,000 claims in 2013 provided a revenue of £146,198,000 this works out at £1606 per case.

RT in the past has mentioned a figure of £2000. The difference could easily be explained with revenue spanning between years.

Conclusion

The comments about Quindell Legal Services have no credibility.

Advertisements

One response to “Quindell Legal Services. Comments about the business.

  1. Also comparing the £900m H2 2014 run rate with revenue in H2. This is a false comparison because the run rate is the full gross sales per case x monthly volume x 12 months. It’s what would come in over a year later if they maintained that volume. So to compare that with H2 revenue is a false comparison because most of those cases will be work in progress and only part of their total revenue booked.

    Other issue is gross sales per case includes some disbursements, which are not included in QLS revenue.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s