Member Info for CJohnSpain

Shareholders should read annual and half-year reports and decide if the long-term value philosophy is for them. If they require constant updates and reassurance, then neither this philosophy nor CRV is for them. I bought in in spring 2017 during a serious dip in the share price and am happy with company development and steps since. We are still awaiting the Panda outcome; this, potentially, could be transformative. Munster's posts are excellent; though I disagree with your remarks re the AIM listing. Though there isn't usually much liquidity, I found when I was buying in, with a bit of patience, i was able to get very decent prices; indeed, below the mid on a couple of occasions. When the share does take off, there willt hen be sufficient buying interest to mop up sells. I prefer this to a private company situation, where I have to take special measures to put through a sale. So limited liquidty rather than much much more limited liquidity.

I whole-heartedly agree with Munster. My own investment style is to buy companies - often troubled - trading well below tangible book and then wait for some event to crystallize value, or merely for the wider market to notice the discount. Much of what is said in RNS by such companies is of little or no interest to me: ie details about latest trading, which frequently have no bearing on value. I found the overall summary usefull as to how they see current markets: ie over-inlfated asset values in bonds and stocks, particularly macro and mid- caps. i also agree that there is value to be found in out of the way small and micro- caps, but patience is necessary. There was enough in the report to let us know that things are going quite well. the various loans - unfortunately- are not in arrears; there is considerable potential upside in a number of investments etc. CRV has four workers - the directors and I guess they empploy half-a-secretary to get the reports out. This reduces costs. But it means you can't expect the constant PR effort of companies wiht more lavish staff. They make no bones of the fact that they have a different approach. I don't want them to behave like a typical AIM trading company,; I appreciate their prevailing pessimisn and scepticisim. I get thoroughly bored with the usual hype and PR efforts of stutterting small caps. All the best to holders CJohn

Hi Karina, As I almost never attend Company meetings myself, I can't comment for sure. You may have read the book "Free Capital", a series of profiles on full-time private investors and their approaches. One chapter is about Peter Gyllenhammer and gives much detail about his modus operandi in a few cases. BTW if you haven't read this book, it's well-worth it,.I t agree with the main proposition that PI's like myself employ capital to win freedom. Certainly, I'd expect him to try for representation on the board.

I've been invested in several companies in which Gyllenhammer has then taken a stake: Leeds Group, 600 Group and two or three others. No coincidence: I like companies trading below tangible asset value. At 600 Group, he eventually sold out with a large profit , rather than raising his stake further and taking a more active role. So this might be his modus operandi here. In any case, it's very good news, as it will, at least, raise the profile of the compnay

Thanks for the kind greetings. I do see that this CRV board is more active. Good. The case boils down to whether there was a binding contract or not. In my view, we don't have sufficient inormation to make a very informed judgement. However, I'd agree with Karina that the fact that Sretaw tried to get the case dismissed with weak arguments about discovery suggests they think there is a significant chance they'll lose. And if they think that, then that's positive.

Hi Karina, it's very kind of you to re-post my ADVFN posting re Sretaw v Craven House on this board. much appreciated. CJohn