RE: who is the seller25 Mar 2015 08:14
Interesting that you mention Paul Scott, as he actually has declared holding a position in Porta! Discussion boards have a place in investment strategy just as much as the various financial mags etc. I agree that it is wise to hold a balanced view on such comments but to call all contributors morons is a markedly philistine view. The boards are merely platforms to air views and put forward constructive criticism. Many small shares are going to be subject to the P+D fraternity but they tend to be illiquid one-trick ponies where there is little available concrete evidence on progress allowing room for speculation.Porta has a broad business base with many components making it a more stable (and international) business. Business briefs and wins are available to researchers on various websites so can be posted to indicate what is happening on the ground. I totally disagree that Porta has been ramped - quite the opposite. Both the BoD and Sanlam have admitted erring on the conservative given the multi fold increases in fee income. The business is growing organically and by integration. There has been much discussion of a stale seller ( I have contrubuted reasoned argument on the subject, and have my own idea of who it may be as it fits in well with observed facts and no holdings lines being crossed). Do the research, check directors from 2011 and see if their current, but unrelated, positions are perhaps more demanding than they had thought. It would be logical to assume that they may then wish to gain cash from their smaller holding here. All speculation, yes, but if and when he clears, should allow for upside. Porta seems a well balanced share with very seasoned and competent management in a growing arena. Time should vindicate those who decide to invest at this depressed level. Perhaps you would care to state your own validated research that prompts your sell opinion, as without reasoning, you fall into the category that your last sentence indicates.