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.
Who says they are even interested. A lot of companies get to 29.9% and do nothing. Because they believe and think it will go higher. Remember A certain person has options which I believe have to be mid 50s before he can buy. So in my opinion that's your absolute minimum. If company gets back to profitability share will rise well in excess of those levels. If it doesn't. That's not a conversation or thought I would want to have as our "war chest" would start to disappear.
Always in Black. Mid Point. 05-Oct-15 10:54:00 27.375 750,000 27.00 27.75 205.31k O
Lets break this down! What if Tosca do pass the 30% threshold and thereafter have to make an offer for the company, …. Let’s assume Tosca makes a low offer of say 40p per share, then what % of the remaining minority shareholders (from the table of holdings below)need to agree with this figure to enable Tosca to take over at 40p? Toscafund Asset Mgmt 24.30% Richard Griffiths. 10.06% Hargreaves Lansdown 7.84% Barclays Wealth Mgmt. 6.79% TD Direct Investing 5.64% River & Mercantile Asset. 4.92% Halifax Share Dealing. 3.45% I would imagine none of us small fry will have a say!?
I'm potentially waiting to get back in if the signs become right. I fully realise no digital media company is whiter than white but need to see this elusive infection point but am struggle to see it atm
Thank you Rusty As for mr ML, I too have wonderd where he stands in all this. He hasnt bought for some time, even when the SP has been on the floor (15p), There again I think his mind maybe elsewhere with looming law suits and counter law suits against HP for hundreds of millions of $.
Risks for the Majority Shareholder  A shareholder holding less than 75% of the voting shares in a company cannot make certain decisions without the consent of the minority shareholder.  A majority shareholder may find that a minority shareholder becomes a problem that he cannot get rid of. There is a right for a purchaser buying 90% of the shares in a company to “force” a sale of the remaining shares by the minority shareholders. Apart from this, as a general rule there is no mechanism for buying the shares of a minority shareholder without the consent of such shareholder. This can leave an extremely unsatisfactory situation if the majority shareholder and the minority shareholder fall out.  In the long term, it may be the intention of the shareholders to sell the shares in the company. Having a minority shareholder can complicate such a plan, particularly if the minority shareholder holds more than 10% of the shares in the company and cannot be forced to sell.
They cant force shareholders to sell unless they have a large majority, I would suggest 90% minimum. As Rg and others have considerably above this, I would have thought that's highly unlikely, I will check up on the rules for getting over 30% because I believe over a certain percentage they have to make offer for company. I personally don't think this will help. Then there is also a certain Mr Lynch. He certainly wont sell on the cheap. He has a track record of NOT doing that.
Guys, I saw the quoted comment below from another fellow Pi on the iii BB. "Tosca will have to get over 50% of the voting shares to take control and over 90% to force the remainder share holders to sell" (to take the company private). Does anyone have a good understanding of the rules and the mechanics of when and how a majority share holder (Tosca) can force other share holders to sell? - Thank you in advance.
I remember reading something about Chris Oil "supposedly" making a mistake and buying on behalf of his mother. Share price flew and I know he got rid of quite a few initially. People buy on a whim, without doing research. Theres also WRN. suspended now for about a year and people waiting for the 10 deals and 20 bagger.
Got it right this time. Total voting rights ( lol )
Oh, and re. shorters getting burned, don't forget the New World Oil and Gas fiasco (forward selling before the requisite vote to pass the placing had been voted for at a GM)! I wonder if anyone was taken to task over that. Probably not.
"There are always some who will allow their shares to be "borrowed" rustybucket - permission isn't necessary and brokers loan out their client's shares all the time (if they're held in a nominee account). I've asked on several occasions on several boards now whether placing a limit order (to sell at some ridiculously high price) prevents this but have yet to receive any semblance of an informed response. By the way, Blackrock getting hoisted by their own petard (in a sense - I remember that) was quite amusing!
Mediapro, while we are waiting for a response to your question, please tell us whether you are long or short on Blinkx?
October 2014 is a clear 10 months after the scandal hit which was claimed to have been sorted...may be the following day they got out of the malware business and turned an honest penny...I spoke to a contact the other day and he informed me he had been purchasing pops from blinkx as recently as last week hence the digging. Just a reminder, a stock listed company involved in malware (for those who don't know malware doesn't do that well in the whole legality department last I checked). May be some bright spark can tell why a company which has been continuously accused of malware some how miraculously turns malware ad dollars into fully ligit ad dollars over night?
Shorting isnt illegal, so it wouldnt be a problem. The point I was making was. if enough people dont sell then they cant amass more shares. There are always some who will allow their shares to be "borrowed" to allow shorters to have their fun. A prime example in the past was blackrock who "wanted their cake and to eat it" they spat their dummp out when they lost heavily on a share. Another famous shorts get burned scenario happened with VW years ago. My own opinion is shorters have already made their money from blinkt. But what do I know.
The only way people can amass shares is to buy them. The only way for people to get these is for someone sells. Simplefact is if no-one sells they cant amass and price would go up. I think there are many more twists and turns in this saga.
One link from 2009 and one from 2010. Other from 2014. Well thats not very good for a supposed mediapro. Is that really the best you can do ?? Heres a challenge for you. Go and find something positive ?? Or does that not fit in with your agenda ??.
Mediapro, this is an old story that presumably you missed. Soon after the shorting attack a virus named blinkx appeared but it had nothing to do with our blinkx company. I do not think it takes too much thought to understand the sequence of events and possible motives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/2954838/British-business-people-The-top-1000-Hedge-funds-private-equity-and-fund-management.html Blnx was shorted almost to dust by tiger. By strange coincidence Blnx is now being heavily bought by tosca. The article above shows the connection between the 2..
It is good news that Tosca have stepped in again and increased their holding. I do believe we are going to see them continue along this path until they can secure (potentially with other partners) a majority stake (I maybe completely off the mark, my gut feeling). We would then expect to find out in due course what their intentions are. The key now for Blinkx is returning to profitability and demonstrating they are not burning their cash pile - which we should find out soon enough. Overall I have been slightly more impressed with the actions of senior management over the past few months, although this has not fully translated yet into the share price, I believe it will begin to do so when we see the positive signs of recovery taking place. Clearly the market is still to nervous to re-rate this share and Blinkx have still got a lot to prove. I do believe that Blinkx have a better control on their cost base than compared to some of their peers quoted in the US, so for this reason have a better chance of a speedier recovery.
Saw RNS flashing and immediately thought "yes I know" total voting rights. But, Blinky surprised me, Not 1 but 2 and NOT total voting rights.
..I do think blnx is setting itself up for a nasdaq listing: change of branding, quarterly updates, agm (probably) moving outside of Uk next year (due to Uk offices closing/reducing) & board of directors based in the US.. So question is, could they not dual-list at first?
I didn't see the Sunday Times article you mentioned, but I did see ML at a Telegraph business event last year... where he said he'd like to build companies to a valuation of £1 billion (+).. and then list them on Nasdaq.. Blnx has been at that price in the past of course (although v painfully a long time ago), so has his intention always been to do this with blnx?.. ..Separately, but slightly related, ML successfully burned shorters when he sold au. to hp - so it's not beyond reason that blnx might wish to (and will) do the same. Although it's not heavily shorted anymore it is still being shorted, it would be GREAT to burn JpMorgan at this point in time! So I'm cautiously optimistic that we have passed positively beyond the 'inflexion point' and will rns as such. Soon.
I didn't answer your question about why FUEL is sick, both the stock and the company: They're paying too much for their growth, which has slowed dramatically. In other words, they're losing Money, too much Money, and they don't have that much of a buffer to keep it up for much longer. Note: They have publicly identified the problems, they say they're addressing them and gave a fairly optimistic view of the future, but time will tell. I am anxious about FUEL. Very. Same with blinkx, but I am down to a small fraction of my original holdings here, so what I see as even more severe problems with blinkx, they are not nearly of as much interest to me as FUEL's problems
blinkxx committed to "regular" quarterly updates in the 24th August business update. "Given the ongoing Industry and Company transitions, blinkx will keep investors apprised of its progress through regular quarterly updates for the remainder of the financial year." The question is, is the next one due on 24th November (3 months after the last update) or anytime now (i.e. just after the end of each quarter)?