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.
Could the "Unknown" trade be DSMY pulling in some funds to recompense their trading arm?
Just a thought.
And there lies the problem.
As DSMV seem to be above the standard UK regulations for reporting their % holding, we will always be left wondering if they have sold / bought x amount of shares.
And Dsm could sell into any rise, again loyal shareholders get shafted , imo
I wouldn't quite say shafted but there should be proper market transparency.
I don't foresee them trading a whole lot more. the main company are engaged in exploiting the benefits of Fruitflow in the gut health sector, the success of which should surely improve the finances and prospects of PXS. therefore, I doubt they will do more than balance the books after taking shares in payment , with the stock not belonging to the investment arm. The accounting exercise between DSMV and DSM will have to be transparent to their auditors.
I think we all agree on the lack of holdings notifications. They need their ears clipping by authorities.
They sold just shy of 13 million (12,845,872) sometime after July 23 and IMO it has been pretty recent.
12,845,872 @ around 0.6p = £77,075
Question is. What would DSM(V) be using this cash for?
Promotion of FF and Gut health B to B perhaps???
The cost of ending the AA and entering the new agreement???
...........
Those would not be costs born by the venture arm, they'd be down to the main trading company. It's very poor reporting, being charitable perhaps they assumed that evidence of them selling would be poorly received by investors. No doubt at all that some bashers would have had a high old time on that news.
I don't disagree about the bashers but on the other hand if the had reported that they had increased their holding (45,123,732) from 5.9% to 7.78% it would/could have had the opposite result.
Gixer
I'm not totally sure about this, but I suspect an RNS with a TR-1 for DSM-V going above 7% might not be needed because the RNS for the purchase of FF from DSM had already informed the market of that.
I can't think of any reasonable explanation as to why we weren't properly informed about DSM-V going below 6% though. The same RNS told us they had, but didn't say WHEN, which is part of the mandatory reporting.
The lack of what I'd consider proper reporting is bloody annoying, but, given it's DSM-V, who I don't believe care much about Provexis any more, it could be worse. I'm ambivalent about DSM-V's position as a shareholder and, if they end up exiting completely, wouldn't see that as a negative.
BB
BB, I don't know if you are correct about going above 7% or not but it doesn't explain all the other thresholds that we didn't get a TR-1. 11%, 10%, 9%, 8% and 6% (there was one for 7%) although this was down to dilution and not selling.
I wouldn't see DSM selling out as a negative either. It would just be nice to know if they do :)
That's got me puzzled. it seems to defy logic to me.
Either a fair percentage of the total shares would have to find new long term owners, or the sp would be seriously depressed by a major holder exiting.
I just can't see that being advantageous to us under any circumstances.
??
Gixer
This isn't an excuse for them, but, as we've previously discussed, Provexis isn't even mentioned on the Venturing site as a company they hold ( https://www.venturing.dsm.com/en_us/portfolio.html )
Also DSM-BV has a lot of fingers in a lot of pies. Even when you strip out the wholly owned subsiduaries and majority owned companies, there's an awful lot of dribs and drabs of holdings documented in https://www.dsm.com/content/dam/dsm/corporate/en_US/documents/list-of-equity-interests-DSM-BV_16042024.pdf . Chances are, until they recently got involved because of the FF purchase, DSM Venturing had pretty taken their eye off the ball wrt Provexis.
We're plainly more than a bog standard supplier to DSM, but equally plainly, our relationship isn't as strong as it was under the AA.
Alf
No-one's saying it would be advantageous if they sold out, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Angle, all be it from a smaller base, sold up and barely anyone noticed or cared.
BB
So. It wouldn't be advantageous.
But you wish for it because someone else holding the same shares would delight you.
I'll go have a lie down.
Thanks for that Doc BB, I haven't seen this before and highlights just how many companies DSM are involved in. As its dated "16042024" it does add further doubt as to what % DSM hold.