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.
Nice to see that we are all clear that the rules are accurate.
notrader - I had forgotten about that notrader, thank you. It used to only apply to uk investment managers, EEA investment managers and some US. I'm not too sure whether that has since been changed.
Thanks notrader - that clarifies the position. Woodford would have been investing the public's money. Blackrock are probably in the same position.
Archways - if Woodford was holding as part of a collective investment scheme, ie investing funds raised by the public, then these are only reportable at the 5%, 10% and above thresholds. See FCA Handbook DTR 5.15
@archways - please do. The critical question is whether any such exception from notification is driven by the specific characteristics of the issuer, or of the holder.
StarBright at 15.19 - I have looked at the Companies House website and I find that on page 91 of Arix Bioscience's Audited Accounts for the year to 31st December 2020 it states that the Company is incorporated and domiciled in the UK, so it is not a non-UK issuer with a London listing.
Tomorrow I will ask Arix's Company Secretary to clarify the situation, and I will report back.
Hydrogen you’re missing my point. I’m merely taking the facts not the speculation. I disputed someone stating something as fact. That is it. When it’s widely established the facts and people stop talking nonsense on regulations and passing them off on fact I may enter the speculation conversations as they’re all together different conversations
Yes 100% rubbish until someone takes the time to find me the regulation that applies to it. Funny how in the year of having this discussion on telegram I’ve provided quotes from all the guidance and regulations and nobody has once provided otherwise. I will stand corrected if it can be found, I’ve searched high and low.
Sorry - hit "Post Message" too soon.
The important point is that the reporting exception was driven by the domicile/circumstance of the issuing company, not by the status of the investor. Something similar may have applied with Arix.
@archways - Investment managers don't qualify for any special exemptions in the way your post proposes, whether EU/UK or wherever.
Was Arix a non-UK issuer with a London listing at the time of the events in question? I've seen something similar with Orosur Mining recently where Canadian disclosure regs were deemed to apply.
StarBright at 13.21 and Unimaginative at 14.18 - if you look at page 11 of the Arix Bioscience posts you will see the background. I asked why an RNS on 17th October 2019 showed that Woodford owned less than 5% when it looked as though they owned nothing, why didn't it say that they owned less than 3%? I received a message from the Arix management (the Company Secretary I think it was) to say that Woodford was an Investment Manager, therefore it only needed to report changes at 5%, 10%, 15% etc because Investment Managers were governed by EU regulations.
As I said, I was informed, and it was before Brexit.
Are you certain that Arix Bioscience was talking "rubbish/nonsense"?
Sorry - Ignore my last post. I've actually worded that really poorly trying to over emphasise my point, ignore the example as it's tosh but the first paragraph is more or less accurate
Archways - Hearsay mate, not to knock your source but it's absolute rubbish. We aren't in the EU. GGP are the issuer, all laws, rules and regulations are our markets not anyone else's. It's clear as day in the guidelines.
Also, think about it logically, if I was some far away mini country I'd just set up some nonsense laws in my own country to take advantage of other countries markets.. That's how illogical it.
@archways - whoever told you that? It's nonsense.
Unimaginative at 12.24 - This may not be relevant since Brexit but I was informed in November 2019 that Investment Managers (such as Woodford) are covered by EU regulations and are only required to notify holdings if they pass through 5%, 10%, 15% etc.
Agreed notrader, however when have the Feckless Complacent A-Holes ever taken ANY action concerning the blatant manipulation taking place regularly on the AIM? (I'll wait).
Here's hoping that tonight's results will be everything we hope for after the previous disappointments experienced throughout 2021, but whatever happens I won't be holding my breath for any uplift in tomorrow's sp.
Not selling any of my 2m + golden tickets though, as waiting for the T/O or Divis, so please wake me up once we get there!
GLA
I absolutely love this side of the markets, the knowledge of the companies are less my forte but reading up, researching and learning about the markets, how they work and how they fail absolutely fascinates me and I often end up down rabbit holes.
Canary3 - You haven't provided any evidence to support what you've said. You've provided speculation that someone did it. Seriously, you're passing things off as fact without any evidence, I'm not disputing things do from time to time happen, there is evidence of it, it's a lot rarer than you think. It's even rarer when it's a company such as NCM building a stake in an attempt for a takeover, it would provide GGP too much leverage to fight such a takeover as they'd have it investigated. Either way, the point is the regulation don't permit it. That is a fact, so it's a myth that they're allowed which was what my post said last night.
Hydro - Beetham can say what he want. Till he explains to you how so it can be evidenced I'll take it with a pinch of salt, bearing in mind we know the guy likes to lie. As for the missing c 8%, that is correct, but nothing under 4m is on there. nothing from any of the MM's has to be on there up to (I believe 10% but very unlikely for any of them to be carrying that, it's much lower) but all these figures add up, bloomberg doesn't actually carry all holders, it's not 100% accurate which is why traders use that amongst other sources for holding information.. In relation to it being slow, well it's not slow, it officially updates twice per month as per the manual that is available on the bloomberg site.
Strudel - Nail on the head! I'm only ever arguing about facts. The fact is anything purchased in GGP must be declared after 3% and 1% thereafter because we are uk issuer. I haven't got into "opinion" of whether someone is doing something dodgy. I'm quite simply pointing out that what someone said is a myth, you are not able to buy a share a day and you don't have to declare, it's a tired old myth. Thank you for your post Strudel!
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
''Anyone aware of such unreported accumulation should notify the FCA as it is clearly against their rules''.
And you actually believe the FCA will do anything about it? Please!
Interesting I typed "Bloomberg's HDS function" with some less than / greater than symbols around HDS, and LSE somehow edits them out. Let me try another few options and see what does and doesn't show:
HDS
[HDS]
(HDS)
The "tired old myth" is that the disclosure regs permit disclosure to be delayed until a worked order is filled. In other words, a buyer can place an order for (say) 25% of the issued shares and not have to disclose their position until all 25% have been acquired. This is nonsense, a tired old myth sadly perpetuated by the many bluffers on LSE...
@Canary3, @Hydro - the info on Bloomberg's function is not always complete. It's generally pretty good, but shouldn't be seen as definitive - as Bloomberg themselves will tell you. The only source of definitive info is the company registrar.
Canary - the fact that it can be done is not the same as it being within the regulations - as illustrated by your link, there can be consequences. Anyone aware of such unreported accumulation should notify the FCA as it is clearly against their rules.
Easy to get it wrong-LOl- i think he posted don here.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079298/The-accidental-oil-tycoon-B-B-owner-faces-multi-million-pound-bill-trader-son-accidentally-buys-half-oil-firm-Belize-City-watchdog-says-buy-rest.html
Hi Hydro. You beat me to it. Beetroot was on here some time ago stating he avoids disclosure. ATB Speedy