Member Info for Hexam

"@savage how can you lose via consolidation?"

You can't and you don't.

You may lose out after a consolidation - or you may gain - but that will (almost entirely) be for reasons not to do with the consolidation which in itself is always neutral.

There may be a small benefit or loss due to things directly triggered by the consolidation (e.g. attracting more ii's may boost the price a bit or some PI's rushing to the exit because they are spooked may drag a little on the sp) but consolidation itself does not change the mcap and any knock-on impact from it will be very much second order compared to other things (notably company performance).

Good to see a director buy.

Agree Ricey. He may already have gone to the well once too often but if he hasn't yet then surely this is his last visit.

He has set expectations so high on Method C that failure to deliver this time must see even the most avid of his supporters start to have doubts?

I think it's FG, knocking his own company simply to create more noise and interest - like what bloggers sometimes do. Of course he is paying them in options though.

Rule 9.5 (a):

"An offer made under Rule 9 must, in respect of each class of share capital involved, be in cash or be accompanied by a cash alternative at not less than the highest price paid by the offeror or any person acting in concert with it for any interest in shares"

So it is the highest price paid by those making the bid (or who are in league with those making the bid).

It's the highest price paid by Frasers in the last year that forms the minimum for any bid by them.

Pretty sure Frasers haven’t bought at 39p in the last year. That’s the highest price it’s been and they don’t buy on peaks. Probably closer to around 35p but academic anyway as can’t see them putting in a bid anywhere below 40p.

Maybe 50p would be enough? Hard to say as need institutions to sell. Besides still not convinced he would want to go down the mandatory bid route at all.

*or not - nobody's perfect ;-)

I don't think I have been derogatory at all about Frasers buying more. I may have said there is little scope to buy more (less than 1.5% without triggering a mandatory bid which I'm not at all convinced they want to do) but I don't recall speculating much one way or the other as to whether they were actually buying a not? As to being condescending I think you've already got the market cornered on that front (as your last three posts show).

I may be an idiot but at least I can spell ‘cue’ correctly.

The TR-1 shows they have gone from 28% and 355m shares to 29% and 405m shares. So they’ve added 1% and 50m shares??? I don’t think so.

The last TR-1 was issued on 15th Nov but BEFORE the placing shares were actually issued (that was the 26th November).

I’m beginning to think you are just trying to wind me up as you can’t surely be so dumb as to keep getting so many things wrong?

“Ps they were at 28% not 28.5% read the tr1 and last one. Might help. They have added 1% 😂”

Er…no. The TR-1 says 28% because that was what it was the last time they crossed a reporting threshold. However, SINCE then they were quoted as having 28.5% as part of the shenanigans late last year. This was not via a TR-1 though and so this latest TR-1 still goes back to the previous TR-1 before that.

If YOU read the TR-1 it suggests they have added over 50m which of course they haven’t but the last TR-1 was before the equity raise which Frasers took part in. So again you CANNOT simply take the change shown on TR-1.

So I’m afraid the 😂 is on you.

Or that UT may have been a short losing…which was what you suggested!

And 0.5% is not around the UT. It’s around 7m shares or £2m.

No it wasn’t. They were at 28.5% last year so at least half was already done ages ago. That is fact whereas you’re just putting 2 and 2 together and not necessarily making 4.

Could have been many other reasons for any spike on Friday. Probably part was Frasers but less than 0.5% and perhaps closer to 0.1%.

Frasers didn’t take 1% over the last few days, it was a lot less than that - they’ve just tipped over the 29% threshold for reporting that’s all. They held over 28.5% more than a month ago as this was disclosed as part of the equity raise.

No reason to think it should have increased the sp , they’ve just been taking advantage of the low sp over the last few months to very gradually increase their holding.

"Your view of what is credible is different to mine Hexam."

Yeah, so it seems. I'll stick to the usual definition and one you'll find in any half decent dictionary.

By your definition no plan is 'credible' until you actually see if it is starting to work or not. Odd.

In any event I don't think we have seen the full plan yet (credible or not) as surely there is more to it than what you have suggested. At least, I really hope so.

"There is clearly a plan we don't know if it is credible yet."

You keep repeating this phrase but it makes little sense. Even if, as you say, what they are already saying/doing is their plan (personally I don't believe it is and certainly not all of it) then surely you can form a view now as to whether it is a credible one or not?

A credible plan isn't one that WILL work it is one that only needs to have a reasonable chance of working. Are you saying that their plan doesn't have a reasonable chance of working i.e. that it is not credible and so they should rip it up and come up with a new one that is? My, that's really pessimistic if you think their plan has already been made and communicated but you don't think it is a credible one.

“There are 3 funds operating shorts still open here

Hexam you are on here daily you think you’d know”

Firstly I’m not on here daily. I hadn’t posted for well over a month before yesterday. So you can’t even get that simple fact right.

Secondly, you are still avoiding naming those three shorts. I wonder why that might be?

"One thing market makers should have learned by now is that continuing a down trend on no news destroys volume, it doesn't create it"

And I thought SCB was supposed to be Hans Christian Andersen in your overworked and tiresome analogy?

There is little volume in BOO as there is little interest in BOO - simple. Just an out of favour stock drifting steadily downwards in the absence of any encouraging news and not helped either at the moment by wider world events.

Any big news (good or bad) would soon boost volumes as it is though it just indicates that few care and even fewer are excited. You don't have to make up your own fairy tales about MMs, brother Grimm.

PJ PJ - So you can't name them. Thought not.

And who says they are investing in AI? The $40m is to replace machines, strengthen the balance sheet (with more debt!?!) and some possible M&A activity in unspecified areas.

You just can't help yourself making things up in a futile attempt to pump the share. No shame.

"Meanwhile the market makers don't seem intent on making any kind of market"

So you think they should lower the price even more to try to attract sufficient buyers?

In that case I would argue their 160% improvement using Method B would 'appear to be' the biggest achievement - or winning the court case which has at least been 'proven' (just need to collect the money)!