Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth 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.
Agree, but it would be opening the door to an outsider, which is why there will be reluctance to this... However dbay seem to be quite persuasive. We need some one on there who represents shareholders.
Rodney Potts is 76. Why have him when you could have someone in his place representing a larger shareholder than him that can add more value. DBAY should have someone on the BoD.
cureboy.sorry predictive text
agreecwith that curably. the problem here though seems to be that at the moment there is little to move the s/p up significantly. there doesn't seem be much buying interest from pis and it seems the institutions can acquire substantial amounts without pushing the price up.possibly we could get additional buying if we get a very positive trading update, but absent that, we may just sit here until whatever the master plan(assuming there is one)is revealed. that said the only thing that is certain on aim is that things never turn out as you expect, so anything could happen.overall though i agree that the situation is very positive.
FSP - “several interested parties”.
I see it as a positive sign that the stock is so tightly held with institutions adding in huge volume recently. That said, the longer it’s sat here at mid-late 30s, the more they become a sitting duck for a takeover imo.
Apologies: I got it badly wrong. Thank you. I hate wrong info myself, it really annoys me, so I appreciate the correction. I was enjoying trying to be funny and lost concentration. !
I looked on Stockop*dia at the "Institutions" link which by memory I thought said 87.6%, actually checking today it was probably 83.6%, and didn't notice it was actually the 10 largest holders, so included a private investor who holds 9m shares. Otherwise it is all institutions: and apart from those on the website includes Fidelity, Strategic Equity Capital, Liontrust, and Otus Capital Management [report date Oct 18]. Don't quite know what to make of that, but would on balance trust the company's own info, and they do say the page was last updated 24th June.
We also know that around 5% is held by senior execs and others in the company. Plus if I remember correctly from when the FSP forced them to declare, all the sub 3% holders added to around 15%... This will have no doubt changed over time but will surely remain between 10-15%.
As such, I estimate around 85% are held tight with around 15-20% being with PI a percentage of which will also be holding tight... I won't let my 0.3% go easily.
Also, there are actually 3 technical support roles on the proactis website now! :-)
Institutions hold much less than 90%. Check the Shareholder section of the website to see., it's 65%. The other 25% to the 90% is probably not ii's.
https://www.proactis.com/uk/investors/
Oh dear.
I doubled my holding at 21.9p in April. Now up 66% on that so looked at selling it to raise money for other things. Fatal: topped up again :(
Institutions have been buying this very heavily since March, now hold nearly 90%. It's in a fantastic area for this economic environment. According to the interims published in April (which seemed to me great):
"Total Contract Value ("TCV"), excluding renewals, signed was £7.5m (H1 FY2019: £6.1m; H2 FY2019: £5.2m), an increase of 44% against H2 FY2019" and post period end:
"TCV, excluding renewals, signed to date of £10.8m compared with £11.3m for the whole prior financial year"
That's £6.1m to £5.2m to £7.5m to £10.8m just for 3 months - period ended 31st Jan.
Now you tell me they're hiring. No ***** wonder! Poor things.
Of course I could just lose the entire gain from the last top up.... I'll blame you.
Two new technical support roles advertised on the proactis website... Looks like the company is either seeing or expecting an increase in demand.
would having a seat on the board put then in a difficult position if they are trying to facilitate a hostile bid?just musing ,but they may have a freer hand for that type of purpose if they are completely extraneous to management.if they are going to push for change internally then it would probably be different.i.could be very wide of the mark of course.
If I was DBAY I'd push for seat on the Board. Potts has one stand they have a larger holding than him now.
perfectly possible YHAL and in my view quite likely.
A favour arrangement all below 3% outside of M&A window. or just a business arrangement ourissd of M&A window
not sure i quite follow you there. if a third party were buying on behalf of Dbay it would still be incumbent on Dbay to report to the company as they would presumably be controlling the holding which i think is the criteria determining the reporting requirement. not absolutely sure that is correct, but even if that were not the case, the reporting obligation would presumably arise as soon as the holding was transferred, although the report might not be required for an extra day or so.sorry if I've misunderstood you and I'm certainly open to the possibility that it may be some form of concerted approach, but one which is loose enough to avoid the reporting obligation at this time.we are not in a bid situation (yet) so i dont think concert party regulations come into play, but nothing to stop parties joining forces or working to a common purpose in the future i imagine. however I'm certainly no expert on this type of thing so more than happy to hear alternative views.
Perhaps some intermediary.
If DBAY wanted to disguise their purchaseS it might be done by another entity up towards declaration level and then transferred immediately so market makers don't see DBAY as the party. Does that make sense?
YHAL I've no idea but looking more closely at the figures for the trades, each trade was for 2.647% of the issued capital, exactly the percentage by which Dbay increased. so clearly Dbay took all of one trade.what about the other? one explanation, of course, it that it is simply a duplication. this does happen occasionally and the same trade gets posted twice. another explanation is that another entity took it as a de novo holding, so no report required. there is a small time gap between the trades, so i would doubt it is a duplication, but it could be. probably we will never know,so this is just idle speculation. anyway something is clearly afoot, as the trading is clearly not random, with virtually no pi trades and virtually no s/p movement. time will tell.
Then only one trade for £1266 today.
Does anyone have a clue what's going on.
Only those holding a lot of shares are ever listened to. The rest don't matter.
pete i seriously doubt anything posted on here or elsewhere will have the slightest effect on anything the bod or DBay do.if we get bought out in some way involving dbay (which is what i consider to be the most likely outcome) then that will be entirely the result of their own deliberations and whatever i say or do will play no part in it.just my opinion of course.
Keep telling yourself that Fahrantir and the Italian when you get bought out at 80p by Dbay on the cheap, just because you didn’t make a difference or kick PHD BoD up the bum and shake them up to the real world!
Lol the Pete kid here and there is the same person. Get's slightly frustrating. Investing is a long-term game, but he's trying to encourage a short term approach. I'm not interested in a 100% return when I strongly believe i can get 3x that by doubling my waiting period.
verbatim duplication from ADVFN board.bit like punch and judy over there .much more civilised and,imo,nuanced on here. interesting times though.