Tower Resources #TRP, Hardman & Co and Edison speak at London South East’s Oil & Gas event Watch Now
Hi Fred. Thank you for arranging that. I am staying at Travelodge 1-23 City Road, so I will see you at 10 o'clock.
While I was typing those few words I was phoned by Georgeson and I told the lady that I had instructed Barclays to vote against the resolutions for my 500,000 shares. At the meetings I will be holding a proxy for my wife's 25,578 shares, and I have just posted her proxy cards to Link.
Hi NewArrival - thanks for passing on their message. I phoned them a few days ago but they were not ready to take instructions.
I shall phone them on Monday and instruct them to vote No on my 500,000 shares.
My wife has 25,000 certificated shares and is giving me her proxy to vote No. I shall be attending the meetings on the 3rd March. On one of the motions I will have one vote, so I shall wield the same power as the one vote by HL or Barclays or any other institution. If enough certificated shareholders attend the meeting and vote No we could garner enough votes to defeat the motion where 75% of the number of shareholders need to vote in favour, and the number of shares they hold is irrelevant.
Jamie Nimmo says that Ian Ashby "has spent as much as £700,000 on Sirius shares", having bought 1,500,000 shares "about three years ago" and 833,333 at 30p last April.
Exactly three years ago Sirius's share price was 18.25p. If the 1,500,000 shares were bought at that time Ian Ashby would have spent £273,750, plus £250,000 in April 2019 = £523,750, so £700,000 looks to me to be too high.
He sold a total of 1,166,668 shares last August and September and raised £59,500, and he still holds 1,166,665 worth say 5.5p each = £64,000, making a total of £123,500.
He is therefore facing a loss of more like £400,250 on his investment in Sirius, not as high as Jamie Nimmo implies but still huge.
He sold 233,326 last August and September at a higher price than 5.5p, but 933,342 last September at only 4p, so the last deal ought to allay any thoughts that he had any inkling of a future bid at 5.5p.
Anybody at 17.25. My understanding is that if AA acquire 10% of Sirius's shares and have, in the last twelve months, paid more than 5.5p per share then they must increase their offer to the highest price that they have paid during those twelve months. If I am wrong someone please correct me. If I am right then it is unlikely that AA are buying shares in the market now that the price is above 5.5p. I assume that the Directors' shareholdings totalling a few percent will count towards the 10% because they have been irrevocably promised to AA.
I refer to my post on 9th January.
I am told that Arix has not been notified of any purchase or sale of those 6,940,878 shares. This implies that the transaction was merely the switching of that number of shares from one nominee account to another, without any change of ownership. This means that Link, on behalf of Woodford, still holds just under 20% of Arix. A very disappointing state of affairs. The sooner that holding is sold the sooner the shares can be valued in relation to, for example, the possibility that one or more of its investments might pay off in a big way. In the meantime the share price will probably continue to drift down.
I see that there is a delayed report of a trade at 10.44am today involving 6,940,878 shares. This represents just over 5% of Arix's share capital, so we can expect to see one or more RNSs in the next few days which will show who was involved in the trade. For every one or more buyers there must be one or more sellers. We may find that the Woodford holding has been reduced, and we may discover who has bought some or all of those shares.
If a bidder has an interest of 10% or more in a company it is not allowed to offer less than the highest price it has paid during the offer period or the previous twelve months. Can Anglo American buy the shares that have been sold in the market today at 5.5p or more, and reduce its offer below 5.5p, provided that it has not bought more than 10% of Sirius's share capital by the time it makes its offer?
Is there an expert in the workings of the City Code who is reading these posts and can clarify the situation?
I refer to my post on 17th October.
I have heard from Arix that because Woodford is (was?) an Investment Manager its requirement to advise re changes in its shareholdings in companies is regulated by the EU, and Investment Managers need only report when holdings cross 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% etc, so when its voting rights in Arix fell to nil it was correct in reporting that its rights are now less than 5%.
I have only just seen today's RNS, and it has taught me to look carefully at all future RNS re changes in holdings.
On Tuesday Link Fund Solutions sacked Neil Woodford as the manager of his Equity Income Fund and it will continue to oversee the management of his funds. The RNS merely stated that control of the voting rights had passed from Woodford - it did not say that any shares had been sold.
Today's RNS says that Link Fund Solutions has since Tuesday had the voting rights over those shares.
However Tuesday's RNS says that Woodford's interest had fallen from 19.78% to less than 5%, but today's RNS says that Link Fund Solutions has acquired voting rights to 19.79% of Arix's capital compared with nil before Tuesday. Assuming that 19.78% and 19.79% are only slightly different due to rounding differences, why does the Woodford RNS say that it still has an interest in less than 5% of the voting rights when Link Fund Solutions infer that Woodford's interest in the voting rights is nil.
If my memory serves me correctly changes in holdings need not be declared when the remaining interest is already less than 3%, but any transaction that results in an interest increasing or reducing to the next whole number must be declared. So if Woodford has an interest in less than 5% it means that it has an interest of between 4% and 5%.
If anyone from Link Fund Solutions, or anybody else, reads this chat board and can explain how Woodford continues to have an interest of at least 4% in the voting rights of Arix I should appreciate their explanation.
In the meantime it should have been obvious to me, if I had read Tuesday's RNS carefully, that the 19.78% holding of Arix's shares has not been sold by Woodford to another shareholder. I said that I had taken a risk!
If you look at the RNS issued yesterday re Holding in Company you will see that Woodford told Arix yesterday that it had reduced its holding of 19.78% of Arix to less than 5%. It may well also hold (or have held) a stake in Autolus, whose shares have not bounced today. We would like Autolus's share price to return to earlier levels so that Arix's net asset value can increase.
Well, I have taken a risk and doubled my investment this morning, reducing my average cost to 136p.
I noticed last night that Woodford had reduced its holding to less than 5%, but I have no idea whether the shares that have been transferred have gone to one, two, three or more holders, and whether the new holders are going to be long term investors in Arix, but I thought enough is enough, if the new holder(s) are looking to sell the shares as quickly as possible I am no worse off than I was yesterday morning, but if it (they) are long term holders then the share price ought to improve. I shall eagerly await one or more RNS to see who has bought the shares.
Hi cadburyhill. Thank you for the information about the Woodford Patient Capital Trust. Do you know what percentage of Arix's share capital it owned at the date of its previous Accounts? I mentioned in August that Woodford owned almost 20% of Arix, but I am not sure whether that was held just by the Equity Income Fund or by both Funds in total. If Patient Capital owned only say 5% there could still be a long way to go before Arix is completely free of Woodford.
Please note that the 50,000 transaction at 10.8p at 11.36 this morning is now shown as a sell, but the spread at that time was 106-109 so it was more likely to have been a buy.
Autolus's shares are now over $16, so they are rising quickly.
Has someone acquired Woodford's holding? Will there be an RNS on Monday or Tuesday morning?
I listened to the conference call at 12.30pm and was impressed with the information given by the Chief Executive Officer Dr Joe Anderson and the Chief Finance Officer James Rawlingson, and their answers to the questions raised. I recommend shareholders to read the Interim Results Presentation document, the link to which can be found near the mention of the conference call in this morning's RNS.
None of us should put too much of our portfolio into Arix because it is essentially a long term project which may, or may not, produce good results, but the management seem to be very experienced and professional, and I would be increasing my holding now if the Woodford factor was not present. In answer to a question Dr Anderson said words to the effect that it was frustrating that the share price was relatively low, but the main cause for the decline was the existence of the Woodford shareholding (referred to only as "the W word"). Once that holding has been sold I expect the share price to rise, and I shall invest more as soon as the appropriate RNS has been issued.
Sorry - when I said on the 19th August that the value of Autolus's shares had reduced in value by just over two thirds I was comparing the 31.12.18 value with the value at the close of business on Friday 16th August. If I had used the 30.6.19 figures the calculation would have been $16.10 @ 1.2693 to £1 = £12.68, a reduction of 50.7% from the 31.12.18 figure of £25.74. Arix invested new money into Autolus in April, if I remember correctly, and I have not made any adjustment for that new money.
If Autolus's share price does not improve by 31.12.19 a further write down of Arix's investment will be required.
Arix's figures for the first half of 2019 have been published this morning.
I see that the value of its holding in Autolus represented half of its core portfolio at the end of 2018, so it is no wonder that the reduced price of Autolus's shares has caused a major write down. On August 19th I had anticipated a write down of just over two thirds, but Arix say that it is 41%.
The net asset value of Arix's shares is now 171p compared with 200p at 31.12.18, but this is still well above their market value of 109.5p.
As always we need to hope that one or more of its investments pays off. There is no mention of the detrimental effect that Woodford's substantial holding is causing. I shall listen to the conference call at 12.30pm.
Malkis - you may laugh at the idea of "shifting all of the muck, dirt to Stoke-on-Trent", but for centuries people from that City have created beautiful objects from clay. Potholes in roads are so named because in the early days potters randomly dug holes in roads to extract clay.
As a Stoke-on-Trent resident I await with interest further news of the secondary production unit in Staffordshire.
What are the odds against Woodsmith being renamed Wedgwoodsmith? lol