Member Info for AdamAnt

Lucy (is that short for Lucifer?): “I do what I do because I hate fraud”. Excuse me while I wipe the tears of mirth from my eyes. It’s like Albert Pierrepoint saying “I do what I do because I hate keeping people hanging around.” You’ve been rumbled and if I were you, I’d call it a day and stop trying to push a boulder up a hill. I hope Shady Fellas don’t pay you by results, because since you graced us with your altruistic social conscience the CSH price has progressed! Better luck next time and hopefully elsewhere.

Since you mention the Sunday Times, don’t you think it’s a bit of a coincidence that it also ran negative stories on Boohoo (one of ShadowFalls other targets, as you pointed out before) which resulted in big share price falls. Now the same thing is happening with CSH. So, no – the Sunday Times is not “independent” enough for me. More likely it has a cosy symbiotic relationship with outfits like Shadowfall, which allows it to be used, knowingly or unknowingly, to manipulate share prices. I find that just as “smelly” as the allegations it is publicizing.

Concerned Holder: According to Linkedin, the “owner” of Xenia Management is Paul Norman, who is also founding partner of Beaufort Capital. According to the Beaufort Capital website, Tom Pridmore (Group Director of Civitas Investment Management) is a Partner at Beaufort Capital. According to the relevant government website, Pridmore is no longer a Director of Xenia Management: he resigned on 7th November 2018.

Correct me if I am mistaken, or if you think the above facts are wrong, but I don’t think this bears out your statement that “the directors of Civitas have a controlling stake (in the IoM entity)”. Paul Norman, who seems likely to have a controlling stake in the IoM entity, is of course not a Director of Civitas.

A different issue is whether the relationship between Pridmore, wearing his different hats, and the controlling stakeholder in the IoM entity is open to criticism. Pridmore and the Civitas Board (the plc and CIM) should provide a full explanation.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I feel that the panic has mostly run its course, that the inflection point is near, and the CSH is a “Buy” at these levels, although weakness may persist for a while. I plan to put my money where my mouth is by adding a further tranche today.

The insinuation (made by Concerned Investor) that the property valuations have been inflated also needs to be firmly and clearly refuted, as Matt has already done. I assume that these valuations are made by reputable independent parties (is it JLL?). If the valuations are dependent on assumptions about guaranteed revenue flows over the long term, courtesy of the UK tax payer, then it is legitimate to ask whether the those assumptions may be a tad over optimistic. That might justify a slight discount to NAV, I suppose.

ShadowFall’s allegation, which Concerned Investor repeats, that the opco may have been sold to the IoM company too cheaply, should be firmly and clearly refuted. The defence given by Pridmore and Dawber, as reported in the Times, is that the profit figure used by ShadowFall did not include rent paid out. The (non exec) Directors of the plc owe it to the shareholders to nail this point emphatically.

Agree with Matt. Not disclosing the stakes in the IoM business showed poor judgement. The excuse given by Andrew Dawber (Group Director of Civitas Investment Management) sounds very feeble, as quoted in the Times :(“We haven’t wanted this knowledge to be known particularly widely among competitors…we debated it with the board… for good or bad, the view was taken that in a competitive market, where we could acquire these high quality assets, we genuinely felt that if we put our hands up and said ‘we’ve got small stakes in the care provider’, it would open up the competition to try to work out how we have done these deals”). Poor judgement, hugely naïve, decidedly unconvincing – but not illegal.

By the way, when Dawber says that the transaction was cleared with the Board, he presumably means the Board of CIM, of which he is Group Director, not the Board of CSH Reit plc, who are responsible to the shareholders “for the overall management and supervision of the Company and determine its investment objectives and policies.”

I have a modest investment in CSH and a similar investment in SOHO. I am attracted to this sector because I used to own HMOs in London, some of which were rented out to housing benefit tenants, and wish to replicate the investment. My thanks to the contributors to this chat board, which I have found extremely useful and informative. ConcernedHolder, who clearly has an agenda, may well have access to some good in depth research on CSH, but his posts would be more convincing if he could rely less on innuendo and say exactly what he means. My own view is that if Li Ka Shing, Hong Kong’s Warren Buffett, is investing heavily in this sector, the business model is likely to be a good long term proposition. CSH may have a case to answer in respect of some of its leases and valuations, and this may lead to further short term weakness in the share price, but I am looking to increase my holding at or below the current price (99p) and would add more should the share price fall further (90p). Long term, I expect it to return to its former levels.

You could be right about 2800. The day chart has formed a double top and it looks as if we might be sliding down the final leg of the M pattern, which would take us to the 100% fib retracement. On the other hand, a more benign scenario would see support at the 0.764 fib (2980) which equates to the lower end of the sideways range the SP traded in from Nov-20 to mid-Jan-21. If we find a base there, we could consolidate in that range for a while before a break to the upside. In that case, 2800 would not be revisited. Either way, the shares are good value, IMHO.

I agree. Given THYME, the share price will ZIP upwards.

The share price has fallen about 8% since 19th April (between intraday highs / lows has fallen 10.65%). That’s a pretty hefty haircut for a defensive stock and company that has just had a good trading update. The news from the US should have already shaken out a lot of weak holders. So I’m guessing we are more likely to see a base is forming around 2620/2630 (where I see Fib support), rather than a deeper consolidation towards the 26th Feb low of 2485 or the 28th Oct 20 low of 2425. I am a long term holder of BATS stock and currently have a short term trade, entry 2680, target 2840, stop 2600.

I jumped in at 3260 after the big drop on 27th April, target 3480. Was feeling quite pleased with myself after the initial bounce, until the failure to break resistance at around 3350, and the falls on 29th and 30th suggest that the SP is going lower next week. I’m now hoping for a new bounce at or above 3174, which was the intraday low recorded on 24th March. If that support goes, I get stopped out at 3120, but I see strong support at the SMA 200 (2860) and at the 29th Jan low (2760) which happens to be close to a Fib line (2738) and if the SP fell to that level I would definitely jump back in. With the generally positive news about an opening world economy, overall bullish market sentiment and WTB’s solid long term potential buoying support for the share, I’m hoping to stay in this trade above 3120 and eventually end up in the money.

As I see it, from its 10p low on 3rd April 2020, the BWNG share price formed a strong ascending channel, peaking at 81.50 on 13th January 2021. Unfortunately, it lost momentum and fell out of that ascending channel on 2nd March 2021, when it closed at 68.70 and has not been able to regain the 11 month upward trend. I now see the SP in a short term descending channel, the upper limit of which is a line connecting the highs of 13th January (81.50 intraday) and the lower highs of 17th February (77.50) and 6th April (70.75).
To get out of this descending channel, the SP would have to close convincingly above 71 and progress from there, with a target of 85, which is the 0.500 Fib line between its 31st December 2019 high (163.90) and its 3rd April 2020 low.
The 0.618 Fib (67) seems to be providing a degree of support. The bearish scenario would be if it decisively lost that level and re-tested the SMA 100 (64.67). If that broke, the SP could fall back to about where it was on 11th Feb (60) before the surge. Below 60, there is support at the SMA 200 (56.2).
The SP is doing well today and I am hoping we shall soon see a close above 71 and regain upward momentum, in anticipation of results that are due soon.

Reaney can talk the hind legs off a donkey and is certainly doing that with the donkeys who are asking the questions, particularly the lady from Leicester.

Thanks, Rusty! I’m not sure which orifice the million number came from but clearly wrong. Yesterday’s volume was 42.86 million shares. That probably translates into tens of thousands of transactions - still a highly liquid market. On the subject of volume, if we see a reduction in volume today, together with share price stability around existing levels, this might indicate that a base is building around 250 from which advances could be made (just wondering). The Chairman’s purchase, though underwhelming, should help to create a floor, at least for now.

@ Wyndrum. Your paradoxical rule “Sellers force the price up, buyers force the price down” is useful in explaining the price dynamics of a single transaction, or a very small number of transactions, in a slow-moving illiquid market (eg real estate, rare stamps, the obscure recesses of the AIM market). But in a densely populated, highly liquid and generally efficient market like Boo (where yesterday there were over 22 million transactions, according to the LSE) the rule seems much less convincing, since it is the law of supply and demand (preponderance of sellers v. buyers or vice versa) which determines the price movement. At least that’s how I see it, though you are perfectly entitled to disagree.

Wyndrum, You seem to have illustrated my point. In the example you give, the transaction at the higher price 255p was, as you describe it, the result of greed and FOMO - the buyer deciding to pay more than he originally wanted to pay in order to get on board. In the absence of those emotions (the buyer’s motivation to buy) there would have been no transaction. The buyer would have been willing to wait patiently for a lower price.

On the other hand, if the person who had bought at 250p (now the seller) was overcome with fear of incurring greater loss (or if he was overleveraged and had to sell) he would be willing to sell at a lower price, thereby creating supply which is matched by a willing buyer at (say) 245p. In this example, it is the creation of additional supply (the seller’s motivation to sell) which makes possible the transaction at a lower price.

Wyndrum: Let’s assume someone is selling 1,000 shares at 250p. If someone buys those 1,000 at 250p, the shares are no longer available. The next offer to sell may be 500 shares at 251p. If someone buys those shares, the next offer may be 200 shares at 252p. Replicated on a massive scale, that's how any market works. It’s all a question of supply and demand. If the volume of demand (buy)is greater than the supply (sell) the price goes up. Your scenario works only if the supply (sell) is greater than the demand, or there is broad equilibrium between the two.

Getting tight again already, are we wyndrum? Funny, I wouldn’t have thought that you’re the type to enjoy a tipple this early. But that would explain the florid prose that emanates from your fertile pen!
Seriously, though: I appreciated your considered response to my earlier comments. Very fair, and I’m encouraged that we are on the same page on most things. I recall you observing some time back something to the effect that time is the most precious commodity. Indeed it is: time may vindicate those who believe (very short term) that the share is headed down and also those (short to medium term) who will be rewarded when the share bounces back after consolidating and shaking out its weak holders.

@ wyndrum. Your advice “I suggest you do not assume anything” is useful as far as it goes. As is your stop loss doctrine. But I think you would agree that you yourself are also making an implicit assumption when you said “If boo falls below 270 and would indicate further falls in the SP…” On what basis do you make the assumption that 270 is a critical support level for the SP? (It may or may not be, I’d be interested in your wisdom on this.) And could you be more precise in terms of quantifying numerically what you are assuming when you say “further falls”? In this volatile situation, setting too tight a stop loss could result in being stopped out and missing a rebound. And you need to take account of taking a short term trading decision and a medium term investment decision. Everyone's situation is unique, so it's difficult to extrapolate anything useful from one individual's personal buy and sell strategy, Moreover, while it's possible, as you suggest, that some incredibly astute people are selling for reasons that we have no inkling of, it would be difficult to base decisions on such "unknown unknowns". No-one has perfect knowledge of all the relevant facts: if we waited for that divine state, none of us would make any investments.