We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Kinda got distracted from my point there sorry.
Main point I suppose is that ~67% of shareholders did NOT vote at all. Do institutions take a position like this and then not vote?
:)
I see where you're coming from, so I'll explain my rationale:
AMGO has ~475M shares.
At the original RG GM where he was not allowed to vote his 61% there were 144M total votes, representing 77% of available 186.6M votes. He lost 10:1 (13M for, 131M against)
At the latest GM there were ~157M votes cast, representing ~33% of available votes ((only 13M (2.8%) more than last time and still only 84% of what was available before JB released his 61% into the wild). Again he lost, but this time 66M for and 92M against.
If we assume II's voted with the board, then some of them seem to have changed their minds?
We've seen no TR1's. £1.5M puts you into disclosure territory. Which institutional investors spend so little and invest in such uncertainty?
It's gotta be in the hands of PI's surely?
Pupper - I still think you are JB : ) - Unless you definately know the proportion of shares held by iis compared to the proportion held by PIs and you KNOW that there are more shares held by PIs then your argument falls down. I believe the majority of shares are held by iis and it didn't matter about PIs forgetting or not being able to vote. I think the Old Boys Network influenced the vote but I can't KNOW that because I don't know the proportions held ii to pi.
/JB has tweeted he is respecting the result and walking away as it is what the shareholders want.
Hmm. This is awkward, cos I'm slightly disillusioned with JB's strategy at the mo, but individual words have meanings, and after we've dug through sentiment, implications and emotion, we need to isolate those meanings and reflect on what is actually being said.
In response to a tweet asking him to "confirm he is walking away from Amigo for good", he said "I have stepped away."
JB has always been deliberate with his wording. He did not confirm that he had walked away, let alone for good.
Could he justify describing 'selling your 61% share in a company' as 'having stepped away'? Hmm, yes I think he probably could.
I think this suggests he has just stepped aside for a while. Given the following tweets about respecting the shareholder's decision, I would guess at that being his motive. Might there be more drama to come? Possibly.
/The people who voted against him were iis and not us!!!! If the votes were down to people holding shares then JB would have walked it but institutions holding millions of shares have detrimentally affected the result we wanted!!!! GOD KNOWS WHY!!!!!
Ex, I think the voting speaks for itself. Private investors failed to vote in anything like the numbers JB needed.
I don't think he realised quite how many of his shares were in the hands of millions of very small investors, many of whom were new to the market, unfamiliar with voting, and may have felt that their tiny holdings alone wouldn't make any difference to the result.
JB needed to be far more pro-active in rallying these guys together I feel.
I reckon he's off in a cave somewhere, watching a spider trying to build a web.
Fed up with any JB tweeted and hate to know and if not lift up the share prices.
The wolf is coming.
How many times still recognising his word and now is useless and worthless
Good luck to him and good luck to amigo better then
Afternoon All,
GCN says don't get too excited about the big buys after trading close - I'm sure he will explain why later.
I want a blue Friday as much as any invested here but as has been stated before - Friday has been profit taking day for weeks now so a finish in the 10s will be good enough for me - unless we see more BoD buys!!!!
JB has tweeted he is respecting the result and walking away as it is what the shareholders want. The people who voted against him were iis and not us!!!! If the votes were down to people holding shares then JB would have walked it but institutions holding millions of shares have detrimentally affected the result we wanted!!!! GOD KNOWS WHY!!!!!