The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
i saw that a poster last night said that it was tired old Myth that a position could be built without reporting that they have breached the specified limits, normally 3 or 5%. I have posted about this before and that tired old myth is indeed correct.
I am not saying that there is or isn’t any activity being undertaken, but the poster expounding his knowledge is incorrect.
Positions are built all the time and reported well after said limits are breached. I will give the Aim example i cited previously a company called Iofina, similar in some respect to GGP in that it is listed on AIM and does its business in another country , in their case in America, they are focused on iodine production.
IOf has 192 million shares in issue, average daily volume is 350k which is sells and buys.
On the 10th of September Mr richard Sneller informed the company that he held.
11 million 155, 904 shares in the company equaling 5.8 % of the company, the previous position was 0 thats Zero.
the AIM disclose limit is 3% and should be done as soon as practicable but with two days of the limit being breached.
there is no way he observed the 3% disclose rule, posters on IOF speculate that he is an ex fund manager with Blackrock.
This happens frequently in the the main markets as well as AIM.
I am not saying this poster doesn’t know what goes on but perhaps is mistaken on this one.
Canary do you know whether holdings can be withheld from the Bloomberg lists we occasionally see referenced on this board? Thanks
If it was on Bloomberg terminal it would be public information ( if you can access said terminals), so i wouldn’t imagine so.
Here is a link to a raider taking a raider taking a position in BT 12% , the link is to Bloomberg news site.
It happens all the time
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-10/billionaire-drahi-makes-3-1-billion-bet-on-bt-s-internet-plan
That’s an exception to the rule. That is not a rule.
I have not for one second claimed rules aren’t broken but it’s rare and it’s quite often explainable.
I believe van ecks delay for us was due to the change over of reporting system due to brexit, never got confirmation from the fca on that but I’m almost certain.
Can I just say upon reading your example you’ve provided no evidence of a reason why you think he didn’t observe the rules apart from speculation as per usual.
If you can find me a rule that stipulates what you’re saying to be correct I’ll dof my cap. I can find a rule that proves what I’m saying though…
That is it will not be on the Bloomberg terminal - it will be withheld IMO - but i don't know for sure.
Jersey, my city bank trader friend says it can and does happen all the time.
With Bloomberg though, it’s quite easy to figure out by adding up all the holdings. You’ll never see more than a small amount missing which can make sense for under 4m holdings, market maker holdings etc etc. certainly not enough to warrant a substantial stake
Thanks for the response Canary.
ATB
Unimaginative- the exception proves the point the disclosure rules are broken, as anyone involved in this area of finance knows, when you are building a position you do it by stealth , if the target knows it is being stalked they take action.
Trying to claim that one breach is a rare exception is disingenuous. If you have city contact with bloomerberg terminal , then you know this, if you don't know it i suggest you ask your friend.
thats all from me on the subject
I have another holding that has been through the mill recently trying to work out who owns chunks of its shares - "the mill" includes High Court action.
I keep that share in my "dog drawer" but occasionally catch up with news. The most recent was a routine audit by the company themselves of who held what ..... Turns out one individual had ended up with 5% or so of the company so they quietly reached out and suggested the individual formally declare their holdings. After a reasonable period of silence they announced that individual's holdings to the stock exchange themselves, and explained they had asked the individual to do so but had had no response.
I think sticking to the rules is aligned with your attitude to reputation management whether on an individual or company basis.
Hi Hydro. You beat me to it. Beetroot was on here some time ago stating he avoids disclosure. ATB Speedy
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
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.
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.
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)
''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!
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
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!
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.
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
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.
@archways - whoever told you that? It's nonsense.
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.
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
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"?
@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.