The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Long term investors with absolute confidence in the company which is fully funded for years now should hope for a lower price for the company to buy shares back surely , the lower they do the more concentrated interest in the successful delivery of their targets the better. Those that profess to be long term seem more concerned at the short term price that anyone rather than best bang for buck short term..sit back relax the price will sort itself out and what happens short term will not have an impact of them creating transformational shareholder value down the line ..if they manage to.
All the conspiracies and someone driving the price down is a bit on nonsense ..it’s a small tech company with mostly underwater private investors..stop jumping at shadows.
I don’t tend to remove my posts rightly or wrongly and folks that like to cite historic posts should probably be honest and leave their comments up for reflection.
You are such a child ...and my time is too precious to be dealing with childish questions incessantly as much as you like the attention. Post your childish drivel ..its just irrelevant and rather boring.
Remember this a few days ago when the price was 23p charty??
Yes, the cash balance has reduced, but so has the number of shares issued. So the impact on the share price is more less ZERO.
Like the capitals really stresses the fact you know jack.
Sweaty.
Charty my opinion was never the cash value if you bother to look it was cash value plus an extrapolation of the EV divided by the reduced shares in issue so was around 17p on a like for like basis. No point in lying sunshine. The cash is indeed 13p and the apportionment of the EV from 324m shares applied to the reduced 200m shares outstanding giving 4p based on a price of 20.5p pre tender where there was 18p cash and 2.5p EV.
So don’t make things up.
Charty yesterday
Summary of today. Kooba made clear he took the tender offer and has obviously an interest to buy back at a lower price. this is what everyone else needs to know when reading his posts. GLA
Charty today
I think it's great that there are people who are selling at this price. I can buy back shares at a lower price and Nanoco will be thrilled too. It can buy back significantly more shares at a lower price. Win-win situation
Apparently you are not allowed views…hope no-one got suckered in on the puffing 20% higher up !
I personally am in no hurry to replace any sold just yet.
Please do not take that as advice as i am unaware of everyone’s circumstances.
Those who did not tender as are very long term i respect your view as you do indeed own more of the upside if/when the company delivers and if they do the shares should respond very positively from these levels…we just need some evidence of traction.
Yes you would have to announce a fall below 3% but not necessarily what the resulting holding was..so you could say no longer has a notifiable interest..so could have anything up 2.99% left so could still be a significant holder but would no longer need to report any sales.
How the hell would i know..since he appears no fan of the incumbent management and i believe has a city background so can do basic math , that might be a pointer i would guess. I do not see that what he does is as sensitive to the share price as the largest institutional holder where we actually know what they have done. We will have to wait like anyone else as to whether there is a disclosable change as with the other shareholders over 3%.
Though what individual shareholders do will not define the ultimate success or otherwise of the company’s IP backed materials being commercially adopted in mass market products creating the growing revenues to produce sustainable profits thats down to the management to deliver as they have guided to. Whether shareholders trust that delivery or not will be the big influence on short term investment decisions and the sentiment around the share price.
But the only major institutional holder taking a liquidity event they approved of and exiting the maximum amount and a large part of their holding is not always seen as positive by most.
We may well see other disclosures coming through on previously declared holders if they over or under subscribed shortly.
I have no idea what it demonstrates but it certainly indicates they don’t see the shares going over 24p in the short term you must think. As to whether they are looking to buy back lower having calculated the post tender valuation or move on ..no idea.
My point on them meeting the management after the results as would likely be the case as the largest shareholder who gets consulted was not that they might have been told anything not in the public domain but they obviously were not inclined to think there is anything transformational short term ( not something the company is promising anyway) one must think or be paying much attention to the Cavendish share price target.
Their next move if there is one will be interesting as will any other disclosures in major holders.
They had to tender the whole holding to get the outcome ..tendering 68.5% of holding they would only have sold 49.6% of the excess over 38.5% and ended up selling 53.5% of their holding.
It is impossible they sold what the did and did not tender all their shares.
Westham..
“If you can do some basic maths you'll also be able to work out that LOAM didn't tender 100% of their shares (I've seen somebody else quite a % figure very close to that which I've calculated, dont recall who as it's so hard to sift through all the nonsense on here these days).”
So they had 53,790, 629 shares as declared 16.58% of the 324m shares outstanding
They end up with 16,945,280 shares 8.51% of the post tender outstanding.
Their holding has reduced by 68.5%
So their basic entitlement was to sell 38.5% =20,709,392 shares
But they sold 36845349 shares..excess of 16,135.957 shares.
If they tendered their whole holding and got 49.6% sold being the stated excess accepted they would have sold a further 16m odd as they got accepted.
Yes LOAM did tender their entire holding there is no way they could have sold 68.5% as they did if they hadn’t.
If you would like to explain why your basic maths shows this to be incorrect am happy to discuss.