Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
That's why you see BBers say expecting TR1 and they never come, there are other ways to build a stake. Also TR1 seem to be late when they do come (on other stocks I hold). If you are building a stake for potential buyout a TR1 with your name on it wouldn't help you one bit now would it ? ? ?
Rules are bent and broken routinely, any long term investor will have seen questionable behaviour in any number of shares they have been involved in. The problem is when the regulator and enforcer of said rules is lax in their enforcement. Plus with AIM the onus is on nomads to enforce the rules.
Ok. We're not all legal experts on such stuff. You may suspect that many people aren't experts.
If they are buying an asset then it makes little difference, however if the suitor was interested in both our assets it may be simpler and more cost effective just to take us out completely - particularly if that was the plan all along and the buying started at 0.5p.
As for TR1's, they are routinely abused, I have been in shares where declarations were not made or made many weeks after the event on the basis that they only declared once they finished buying not at the point they crossed the threshold. Plus it is trivial to hide behind nominee accounts to bypass this if you have a number of entities you control.
I suspect some of you need to read the Takeover Code and AIM rules. Many of you are very wide of the mark with regard to what happens in a takeover, or asset sale, and the rules which are in place to drive the process and protect shareholders.
Essentially at it's simplest if they buy at under 4p and then offer 22p a share they also make 18p a share on the shares they have bought now. There may be rules that don't allow them to buy while they're negotiating, I wouldn't know. There may also be ways they can get around that by having an institution buying on their behalf.
"It can affect shareholders in a takeover situation because if the accumulator was able to do so at a cheap price then when news of a potential takeover causes a large uplift in share price they can use those cheaply accumulated shares to sell down and suppress the price from their share pot, keeping the price artificially deflated to secure a cheaper buyout price thereby cheating other shareholders of potential value."
Ok, sounds more of an issue, but again, if they accumulate at any significant amount, we need a Tr1 no? Unless its dribs and drabs.. in which case... well... I'll join the STOP SELLING crew :-)
It can affect shareholders in a takeover situation because if the accumulator was able to do so at a cheap price then when news of a potential takeover causes a large uplift in share price they can use those cheaply accumulated shares to sell down and suppress the price from their share pot, keeping the price artificially deflated to secure a cheaper buyout price thereby cheating other shareholders of potential value.
"So if I owned 1/4 of a house with the other 3/4’s owned by my 3 housemates. We bought the house for 100k, but now I’m buying it all for a total house valuation of 200k. Each housemate gets 50k, so a 25k profit for them, while I actually only have to pay out 150k as I already owned 1/4. Meaning I paid in total 175k."
Which means it doesn't matter to them who buys it, they make the same either way.
Well said Jezthefez! That is so true what you said
If there is an outright buyer it would make perfect sense to buy shares in the open market. Standard business. You will mop up as many as you can now and play a bit loose with the reporting requirements and before you know it you have scooped a great deal of the business below 4p. Make a cheeky 15p offer per share and you are on a winner. Wont matter in the slightest to us holders. The end result is the same.
I feel like this also doesn't make sense... as anything they get will be balanced by them paying it in the first place, and they would have to pay more overall. If they have a stake they get a percentage of any payment, but paying more wont help them...
So if I owned 1/4 of a house with the other 3/4’s owned by my 3 housemates. We bought the house for 100k, but now I’m buying it all for a total house valuation of 200k. Each housemate gets 50k, so a 25k profit for them, while I actually only have to pay out 150k as I already owned 1/4. Meaning I paid in total 175k.
Which presumably doesn't affect us then?
Basically, if ZYZ company managed to buy 10% of the company for peanuts, through subsidiary companies etc. Then whatever off they make for assets or full company, they would receive that back through their 10% holdings.
That doesn’t sound right, Stockdale. If it’s an asset sale, the price would be same regardless of who owns the shares. If it’s a TO they would still need to offer the same price per share, so it would cost them less perhaps but we wouldn’t lose out.
Besides which, if they bought £4.5M (peanuts to them), there would be a TR1
How does that work Stockdale? Presumably them owning some shares doesn't change the overall number of shares or valuation for the company, and therefore doesn't change the percentage we get of any payment?
Apologies if I'm being daft here.
No problem with those selling for a profit. Good for them. However those waiting for the final offer (includes me) should be aware the large buys are going to the final purchaser to reduce their final cost, at our expense, as they would already have bought a large part of the company cheaply.
Plface - I read and observe, but not often post here. My total posts comes from Deb/TCG/Motif and Metro. I take every thing abroad, what has been posted.
Might be right but reason I use this site is partly because it seemed to rank top of google near enough for any share I looked at. There's quite a lot of people read but don't post I think as not everyone is that plucky. Lots of times you hear posters say "I've lurked here for 5 years but until today not posted..." I reckon 2-5% of holder starting to sell would generally be enough to trigger movements anyway. Not that I'm an old hand just observation. And on penny shares 1 or 2 buys can seem to have up to 20% effect if a thinly traded share. Just it's never worth acting on because the spread be like 20% anyway.
There are no de-rampers, they all say so .
stock - I don't see any reason to be concerned unless you are a trader in which case you could miss out on a few percentage points. But as I see it the game has changed from being a mad scramble to buy and sell thereby making a few percent on trading in and out, to the long game waiting for the single life changing RNS that could move the price by a few hundred percent
Well if they sold at a profit did they really lose out? Not everyone wants to tie their money up for days/weeks/months (and for some of us years). Everyone is playing their own game and as long as people are making a few quid good luck to them. If the bog boys want to accumulate how is that any worse than a PI doing. In fact its better because they dont panic sell and generally reduce the liquidity of available shares
In the meantime the big boys buy up their shares and the PI's lose out.
Im bothered by the constant pleading people not to sell or reminders what they have bought into. Most people arent stupid although if anyone thinks more than about 2% of the shareholder actually read these board I might have to revise that thought