Member Info for Couerdelion

A little action today around 15:25. Something brewing or just the usual ups and downs chez Naked Wines?

Derek has a lot of shares to sell. The last we heard was nearly 2 months ago when he had nearly 35m shares left.

I notice that they are expecting c£26m of revenue in HY2 (compared to a target of £18m). If this is on a margin of 30-40% that's an extra £8m of revenue generating marginal profit of nearly £2.5m - that's around 1/6th of the market cap generated in 6 months!!

I don't trust his latest article which is advising a sell after taking the 60p per share tender offer. The only option I can see here that isn't value destructive is to take the unlisted shares so at least the bidders would have to try again to steal the company assets from me.

Something that I don't think has been mentioned here is the take-up rate for the tender offer. If this is low, presumably the bidding parties won't then own just over 75% of the shares so the sale might then be subject to a shareholder vote.

After the fiasco at ANX, I can't stay here a day longer. Made a tidy profit here which will go a little way to offsetting the money that DBAY and management are trying to squeeze out of me there.

Something that I often have trouble understanding but they talk about a margin of c42% - and on a revenue of £10.1m that's £4.2m.

But EBITDA before central costs is only £1.4m so there are some other costs eating into the margin. Are they using the term "margin" a little flexibly here or do they simply want to separate "fixed" from "variable" costs? In which case why are the "fixed" costs not treated exactly the same as "central" costs?

Pedro, why do you keep saying that lawyers should be honest or decent, particularly when you're not an investor here.

It's not letting me view it. Tells me that I'm not sophisticated - which is fair comment but a little rude.

I was tempted to take a little dip at these prices. So far so good....

There are clear conflicts of interest here but it is also clear that the Directors, in accepting the offer, have failed to look after the interests of all shareholders. Based on NAV per share, the bidders will "pay" £26.2m to the 37% minority shareholders leaving them with £141.3m or £1.90 per share (an increase of 34%). I don't think the NAV figures in that shareholder letter were correct.

If they have a legal protection it is probably only because most of the directors will not have voted on accepting the proposal - the RNS suggests that possibly only two directors approved the deal so it might be just them carrying the can if the FCA find they have breached their duties as directors.

Why are they writing to the company? It's the Board of Directors who are responsible for this shambolic offer.

Is it publicly available?

I'm hoping we're seeing here the start of the rebound, not least because I topped up yesterday.

Presumably the regulatory channel appears to be the best approach here. It appears that we minority shareholders have been offered by the bidders

a) to buy our shares at a discount to market value

b) exchange our shares for a promise to pay 187% of current market value in 5 years (but as a junior creditor and who's to say they don't make a later offer here to pay less)

c) Take non-voting non-tradable shares in a company where you currently hold voting and tradable shares.

It's not clear to me that all of these options are open to all existing shareholders but only the third option comes remotely close to return what the shares are currently worth and the lack of tradability is a big discount. So I think the Takeover panel or FCA would have clear grounds to sanction the offer based on fairness.

I saw a slight upbeat tone in the RNS but didn't see the results as particularly encouraging (on a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a "meh!").

But I won't argue with the markets on this occasion. I suspect they are looking at the positive forward statement regarding inventories.

I too was looking to buy here at these price. I still think it's cheap but I'll see where the market settles today.

Results all look very tidy and in particular they are generating cash.

Not looking forward to today's trading.

Why would the bidders, let alone the independent members of the Board, consider that a tender offer of less than 90% of the current SP would be acceptable? Failing that we'll give you illiquid notes that will be worth something in 5 years time.

I must be missing something because this looks like an offer for an entirely different company.

Llol makes a perfectly legitimate point in arguing that history here is relevant. It's all very well looking forwards to the sunny uplands but if you have sunny uplands behind you too then maybe the ones in front of you are not one the same road as you. His central claim being that any value generated by TEK never finds its way to the shareholders is demonstrably true (up to this point in time).

More importantly, this is also the view of the market - if it were some other anomaly then why are more people not investing in this anomaly and simply waiting for their money to double or more? How else would you explain such a deep discount to NAV in a business which you would hope would achieve higher future returns than the market?

FYI, the discount to NAV is equivalent to an annual management charge in excess of 5%.

Don't know where this news came from but it's covered in ST's latest update. FWIW, I like the acquisition.

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/e6fb2588-e94f-4e5a-8c8c-994da8c4d616

Someone please explain to me to this bit - "LDG is investing £15mn for its 50.2 per cent equity share and has put in place a new senior debt facility of £30mn to support the acquisition." Why do you need £30m to support a £15m acquisitions.

Maybe the problem here is that you can never get a group of lawyers to agree on anything.

Not the Lord Lucan who ordered the charge of the light brigade? Well I was promised war and peace but I think there is a little while before we see signs of an armistice.