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.
So the directors are selling their shares again with the money from the disastrous settlement :D
For tax reasons...
They are so full of shiiit!
Do be warned...
When a company has profits or or the market believes in potential profits, a buy back can increase the share price as potential profits can be distributed among fewer share holders.
The share price will not rise in this case because the market doesn't believe there will be any profits... and neither do the board, for that matter.
Sorry.
Nanogeddon, it will be in the terms of the bonus and option agreements that the directors sell as many shares are necessary for the company to fulfil its PAYE and NICs obligations. Otherwise the company would be on the hook for those amounts.
As far as I'm aware this is 100% standard and nothing to be suspicious of.
Oh... is that what they said... they are very creative.
This didn't make me suspicious. Not at all. They Samsung debacle made me suspicious.... and my suspicions were later confirmed at great expense.
If you can't sell your shares without those miserable ungrateful contemptible shareholders complaining about you milking the company... do a share buy back.
whats the differece between shiiiiit, **** and crap !
Spot on. Do the maths on the numbers and you'll see the named 3 sold precisely enough to cover the tax & NI, no more no less.
If you can do some basic maths you'll also be able to work out that LOAM didn't tender 100% of their shares (I've seen somebody else quite a % figure very close to that which I've calculated, dont recall who as it's so hard to sift through all the nonsense on here these days).
Regardless the drop in the share price is worrying but that's not going to change until we get news of some proper sales. I remain optimistic/ hopeful for the future and far more balanced than most here on the company & BT's performance.
@nanonano missing your level-headed contributions
You've obviously not been around very long. Do some research before you get burned.
It's interesting that you think we have had a 'share price drop' rather than that we had a 'unwarranted share price rise'. That should give you a clue as to your irrational sentiment on the share.
Please excuse my naivety, but may I ask what tax payments are triggered for a director to pay when a company does a share buy back.
Bullshiit!
They are not obliged to sell their shares. No tax falls due on shares until they are sold and NI isn't due on shares at all. Any other tax or NI that the directors are liable to pay is irrelevant to whether they are selling their shares, and certainly irrelevant to whether the company is buying back shares. Tax and NI are paid on a PAYE basis.
Am I missing something here??
Yes. Shares have been granted under the bonus scheme; the tax liability of which is being covered by Nanoco by selling shares.
There’s a table at the bottom of the RNS with a breakdown:
Acquisition of shares on exercise of option.
Sale of shares to pay tax and costs
“In order to comply with the rules of the scheme, a number of the shares will be sold to meet tax and fee obligations. To meet the exercise of these options, the EBT purchased ordinary shares of 10p each in Nanoco on the open market of the London Stock Exchange.”
So it appears the company once the exercise of the deferred award was triggered bought 928580 in the market for the employee benefit trust to meet its obligation and then sold 433982 shares to meet the tax obligation of it being a taxable benefit to staff as is often the case. So it looks like there was a 494598 shares net purchased in the market in the past few days on top of the ongoing share buyback. Allowing this to a major capital event when the company is in the process of completing a capital distribution through on market buy back looks wrong..since it was transactions effected for the benefit of employees know the dates and prices of such transactions would be appropriate.
The tax is triggered by the award and not any sale. These are nil cost ( nice) awards so it is all taxable benefit.
The basic tax rule is that if the employee or director is given shares for free or pays less than the market value of the shares at the time of award a charge to income tax and sometimes national insurance will arise. The tax charge will be the difference between market value and the price paid by the employee.
Westham..
“If you can do some basic maths you'll also be able to work out that LOAM didn't tender 100% of their shares (I've seen somebody else quite a % figure very close to that which I've calculated, dont recall who as it's so hard to sift through all the nonsense on here these days).”
So they had 53,790, 629 shares as declared 16.58% of the 324m shares outstanding
They end up with 16,945,280 shares 8.51% of the post tender outstanding.
Their holding has reduced by 68.5%
So their basic entitlement was to sell 38.5% =20,709,392 shares
But they sold 36845349 shares..excess of 16,135.957 shares.
If they tendered their whole holding and got 49.6% sold being the stated excess accepted they would have sold a further 16m odd as they got accepted.
Yes LOAM did tender their entire holding there is no way they could have sold 68.5% as they did if they hadn’t.
If you would like to explain why your basic maths shows this to be incorrect am happy to discuss.
Kooba is correct its highly unlikely LOAM tendered 68.5% and far more likely they tendered 100% but landed with 68.5% maxed out on the available distribution pot.
The interesting thing what next will that 8.51% holding drop further, will they fully exit, or will they hoover up cheap shares when they hit the mid teens come June?
They had to tender the whole holding to get the outcome ..tendering 68.5% of holding they would only have sold 49.6% of the excess over 38.5% and ended up selling 53.5% of their holding.
It is impossible they sold what the did and did not tender all their shares.
Agree not a good sign when LOAM does this just signals no commercial deals in the pipeline in the immediate future otherwise why tender at 24p?
Just looks like another stitch up LOAM,would only actually like this have access to inside information on likely STM timescales its so obvious!
Actions speak louder than words!
I would have thought given the Samsung settlement debacle the Board would have learnt their lesson to keep institutional investors at arms lengths!
BT is it really that hard to do can't you treat all investors fairly what's with this 'buddy buddy' back scratching with LOAM.
It seems those retail investors who held onto their shares and didn't tender have lost out given where the share price is headed..
Others here suggested that liquidity would fall as the shares became concentrated and prop up the share price I suggested that was nonsense...as the price only reflects cash available and any future organic growth expectations or speculating if you prefer the value of which is now slowly vaporising!
I have no idea what it demonstrates but it certainly indicates they don’t see the shares going over 24p in the short term you must think. As to whether they are looking to buy back lower having calculated the post tender valuation or move on ..no idea.
My point on them meeting the management after the results as would likely be the case as the largest shareholder who gets consulted was not that they might have been told anything not in the public domain but they obviously were not inclined to think there is anything transformational short term ( not something the company is promising anyway) one must think or be paying much attention to the Cavendish share price target.
Their next move if there is one will be interesting as will any other disclosures in major holders.
Looks like a growing disconnect between reaching cash breakeven next year as guided by the Board versus the Cavendish revenue forecast the Board disseminated to them showing flat revenues and what we have been seeing here with LOAM trying to off load their full holding!
I stand corrected
Though what individual shareholders do will not define the ultimate success or otherwise of the company’s IP backed materials being commercially adopted in mass market products creating the growing revenues to produce sustainable profits thats down to the management to deliver as they have guided to. Whether shareholders trust that delivery or not will be the big influence on short term investment decisions and the sentiment around the share price.
But the only major institutional holder taking a liquidity event they approved of and exiting the maximum amount and a large part of their holding is not always seen as positive by most.
We may well see other disclosures coming through on previously declared holders if they over or under subscribed shortly.