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.
At IPO, the founder sold a number of his shares for cash proceeds of £212m. Institutions (representing, investors, pensioners and so on) bought them. This money does not go to the company, it goes to the founder personally. By the way, this is entirely normal. And essential. Without those shares becoming available, there'd be no public market. I think you're thinking of a capital raise where the company simply issues shares and sells them to institutions (or whoever). That money does indeed go to the company.
I'm new here and reading that the IPO Radcliffe sold his shares at 262p and made a massive profit at the expense of PIs. But hang on - in an IPO new shares are issued to raise more capital. That capital goes into the company, not to the existing shareholder. The original shareholders have a lower percentage of shares, but that is not because they have sold shares, but because after the IPO there are more shares. Was this IPO different? In effect, the overvaluing meant not that Radcliffe made money, it meant investors contributed "too much" capital to the company in return for their shares. I see £71m on the BS, presumably from the IPO, this is not in the pockets of the original shareholders. ps My basic calculations show this company is worth around the £1.20 mark. The increase these last 2 days may be the start of the journey to those levels.
This is not like buying a house. Cash out at the top and then buy the company back 9 months later for a fraction of the price may be clever, smartly advised, good business, or whatever, but is a dreadful result from the LSE's point of view. If this was to become the norm, nobody would ever invest in an IPO, would they? And where would that leave the LSE?
Good to consider the broader picture and not always take such a selfish view.
shares bitcoin anything really is only worth what the next person is willing to pay.
Yep, caveat emptor for sure. Difficult to believe though that this was valued at £1bn. Ridiculous. But yea same could be said about Roo, DOC etc. All a big con!
change your name to iloveramping :)
back adding at KGF
looks like all upside from here.. Gap up £1.30
Hardly robbed of PIs. He put is out there at the height of the covid boom, a bit like Lastminute.com and did what the advisers advised.
People bought in at the price, no one forced them too.
If you had a house would you try to sell it at the top of the market of wait until the housing market crashes and take 50% of the sales proceeds? Thought not.
If he was thinking of taking it private i'm sure investors would be wanting their £3 a share back as a bare minimum. Would never happen. 700k share buy is nothing. This will retrace in the next few days back to 50s i'm sure!
Looks certain to me he is going to take this private and pocked a few hundred million. Then if he is really clever then sell it to a corporation or hedge fund.
This is going higher and it looks like more director buys, on the way. Take it to 50% then make an offer for the rest looks like. £1.50 should do it. so 100% upside at least.
certainly could have legs. I don't doubt that. But i think a sustained rise will need better macro condition. Radcliffe buying a few shares is just a token thing to prop up sentiment. It's peanuts considering how much he robbed off PIs @IPO.
If Radcliffe does intend taking it back to private status, investors should sit tight.
If that happens though, spare a thought for those who invested at IPO who'll feel pretty damn ****ed off as Radcliffe walks away with 100% of his company again, plus maybe £120m in cash. As I said 3 weeks ago, a nice bit of business!
Makes a mockery of IPOs and is v poor publicity for the London Stock Exchange.
BUY OUT TO BE MADE SOON.
It looks certain the boss wants to take this back into private hands. He got the cash. The city has not given it the value he sees that it should be. So take it back...
Nice one paddyboy, but feel a ZZ Top song coming on along with my Dept S post. She's got legs,
The boss put a lot of money in here. So it must be in good shape. Looks like he wants to take the company private. Now how much will he pay for the 53% he does not own? £1.00 £1.25? £1.50?
Get on board.
Certainly makes sense but will just sit back and wait. Radcliffe will have his own ideas but so glad I added sub 50p. (at least glad at the moment)
A fair value is around 140-170p so hope it will rerate soon.
GLA
Not a recommendation.
Sold @64.5. 20% profit in a week is a decent return. I can't see the rises being sustained here at the moment!
when he gets 50% I think he will give us an offer. 90 pence or there about. Or maybe we can expect £1.00. Get on board now.
LOOKS LIKE HE IS GOING TO TAKE US OUT.
Certainly my thoughts. If I owned the company that was languishing at these levels, I would use my IPO funds to buy back the shares privately and end up will private.
At the IPO Radcliffe raised £212m selling a portion of his own holding at 262p a share and described the float as a “landmark day”. He still owns a 45% stake.
So he can buy it back at the low price, have his company back and tell the City hackers to do one.
The man has pride and is stakebuilding.
Did his brother and mother retain their 14% and 4% at the IPO?
Mark Radcliffe holds 152,079,642 Ordinary Shares, representing approximately 46.78% of the Company
follow the money. Looks like it is going to be taken private.
Following these transactions, Mark Radcliffe holds 152,079,642 Ordinary Shares, representing approximately 46.78% of the Company's issued share capital.
Yes I notice he has bought another 700,000 but it doesn't say how much he % is now.
When he last bought it said he had about 46% so he must be getting close to 50% now , what next ?