If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
@baronbog - thanks for this very useful bit of analysis and input. Consider me educated, I was also of the opinion that a strengthening USD was a good thing for RR. Clearly not the case. I have to say I find an average hedge of £/$1.53 astonishing since the £ hasn't been above $1.40 in the past 5 years. Is this just bad management or is the hedge deliberately meant to protect RR in the event that the £ strengthens to such a degree that it would damage profits?
Received a couple of Google notifications regarding this share price and thought I'd have a read seems like there's been some good news in recent weeks. I sold out a couple of years ago as some might remember. Do hope this turns out good for you LTHs you have the patience of saints. :)
Good afternoon all,
I did attend yesterdays meeting - it was just myself and Mr. Pajak. Official business concluded quickly and then Mr Pajak was then kind enough to spend another 20 odd minutes responding to my questions.
My questions were:
1. Why does the company feel the need to purchase its own shares? Basically because it believes they are undervalued and that it represents a good use of the company's capital.
2. Will the shares be purchased on the open market as opposed from a large holder? Yes, shares will be purchased on the open market (there are AIM rules relating to this), but these could come from a larger investor were they to begin to sell their holding on the open market.
3. What income will be used to fund the share purchase? Loans maturing / payments from loans / potentially the liquidation of some assets.
More generally I asked why the company was now wanting to drive the share price. Mr Pajak denied that this was the case (aligned to their long stated position) and said that it was the most appropriate use of the company's capital. I also got the impression this was the company giving themselves the option in case there were no more attractive investments to be made, so it may not occur immediately or at all. I asked whether the company might look to do any more promotion, answer no - same reasons as have always been given.
Asked whether there was any intention of taking the company private. No - not discussed by the Board and in fact would largely undermine the investment strategy of utilising share capital to drive investments.
Talked about the continual lack of transparency (at least in my opinion) he said this was driven the nature of the deals that CRV does and the need for discretion when buying distressed assets.
Overall I got the impression that this investment's time horizon will be far longer than that I am prepared to keep that money tied up. As such I felt that it would no longer be in my interests to continue holding, so I sold out at a loss immediately following yesterdays meeting.
Good luck to those remaining in.
I'll provide an update for those unable to attend on this board
Is anyone else planning to attend the meeting on Friday? Thought I might put in an appearance given my presence and ample free time in London on that day.
They can have mine for $10 a share. Roughly break even price and I can be rid of them.
The RNS says: "The adjusted pre-tax income of the business being acquired for the full year 2017 was $500,105."
Given that it was established in June 2018 thats clearly an exceptional effort. Obviously the underlying company generated that income rather than IIU Inc, just more of the usual obscuration and wind from our beloved management.
Nice research both - very interesting. Kind of agree with SPOT on this one though. Very much sounds like our "day-to-day" manager Desmond Holdings is acting primarily in their own interests by buying themselves a company they already own.
Hi CJohnSpain - if the company is an insurance broker it is engaging in a regulated activity and therefore should be registered with the SEC. As I've said in earlier messages the company we've bought appears to be a newly formed shell company which apparently owns insurance broking subsidiaries (which presumably are SEC listed) but are not disclosed. Once again deliberate smoke and mirrors from the Mgmt and BoD. If they spent as much time promoting the company as they do trying every which way to conceal whats going on I'd probably be on a beach by now.
Don't know about the rest of you, but contacted the regulator prior to this on the basis that the company were not forthcoming. This smacks of a knuckle wrapping. They still haven't addressed the issue that they've gone and bought an insurance broker that isn't regulated by the SEC and was apparently founded a month ago and has no published accounts to back up their claim that its make $500k. Completely despicable behaviour. Suspect the best we can hope for is another Pajak special essay full of flowery cow defecation and some numbers hidden in their equally opaque accounts. Might go buy some of the auditors I know down at GT a drink and see if they're any the wiser. Doubt it.
Classic. You should be pulling a salary from they Karina.
There is also precedent for CRV announcing when they have resolved litigation. Recall a few months (year?) back when they had to resolve a dispute with a creditor.
Given that the above company listing indicates that the sole director is a lawyer with a practice that offers business services, I think its quite probable that IIU Inc is a holding company established as a shell to conceal whatever they have actually bought.
Found one IIU Inc. Founded in Virginia in April 2018.... https://sccefile.scc.virginia.gov/Business/08310617
Aside from a comment in last year's full results (something along the lines of "the company is party to litigation") they haven't even confirmed that they're fighting a legal action over Panda. Cant imagine that the powers that be consider it worthy of explaining to shareholders what they've been up to. Another point, I'm still miffed as to who this IIU Inc. is - you'd think they might provide some greater detail. But of course not.
From CRV website: "They were not corrupted by fee structures that incentivised taking unfounded risks with other people's money. All interests were aligned." But they were corrupted by **** poor governance, a complete disdain for the "other people" who's money they did take and all the interests were aligned in their own favour. BOD and management are a disgrace. The amount of time I spend jumping through PRA hoops you'd think the regulator would go and have a look at some of the crap these companies are pulling on AIM.
Forgive my ignorance, but can one transfer held shares between two brokers. I would love to be in a position to quickly trade them if the opportunity arose.
I can't trade these shares online via HL. Have to call up their brokers and have them do it manually over whatever systems they're using. From memory this lack of functionality is due to only two market makers trading the share. This apparently makes it difficult for brokers to get an accurate spot price and therefore they restrict trading. Interesting to know if any other people are able to buy/sell online without having to call up.
It will be interesting to see what CRV say about whatever's happening. To the best of my knowledge the whole SRETAW case is not mentioned in an RNS, but has only been confirmed via the exceptional sleuthery of Karina / TC, court listings, the media and management comment at AGMs etc. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if the only indication that something's happened would be the financials in the 6 month statement in November...
Going to assume that IIU Inc is a holding company for the registered insurance brokers it owns, because the SEC do not list any companies by that name (although it could plausibly be insurance institute of utah or some derivation thereof). Usual objective I would imagine for a broker is to build a book and get acquired. I work in the sector and broker consolidation is pretty common.