Member Info for Lending

When you look at the fundamentals of DT, the product is great, and the need for it is unambiguous but, more and more, it seems to me that the greatest strength lies in the management. It is early days, and the jury is still in session regarding the managements ability to generate shareholder value, but boy (or should I say girl), what I see and hear is impressive.

Max. I don’t have assess to the Prospectus at the moment, but if I recall correctly, there was an escape clause in the lock-up agreement. Not sure of the exact wording, or whether the letter of the agreement is being followed in this case. We now know what to expect end October.

USD225M vs USD150M last time in August. Another 3-5% free float. A fall yes but not a crash I suspect but we will see - and it may give a good indication of what might happen end- October when the first lock-up period ends.

Good luck to all holders.

The question I ask myself is- has anything fundamentally changed between the price being in the high 900s and now that will affect its long term value? If not, then the price just reflects large and small traders at play, influenced, in part, by the TAs crystal balls.

In my humble view if most follow TA it will become a self fulfilling prophesy. So. For instance, if the SP hits a point which signals “ do something” like buy, then shares will be bought causing the SP to rise and visa versa - a direct cause and effect relationship. But the what do I know - I don’t trade but I do observe.

My observation over a long period of time is that SPs will in the end to reflect the fundamentals - and the fundamentals of DT have improved since IPO as has the need for their product. In between news on the fundamentals it is, IMO, just noise - a noise nevertheless that can be use]efully exploited by some. Whatever the SP, I I remain quite relaxed and an enthusiastic long term holder.

Excellent question OF39 and an informative answer T37. I’m not sure many PIs are aware of this - I suppose most PIs don’t trade huge amounts anyway in one go so haven’t been affected by it, but is important to know.I see this as one of the important aspects of this BB - helping each other learn, debate the different approaches to investing, and exchange views on the merits or otherwise of DT as an investment in a business rather than just a tradable object.

SW77 - someone who reiterates his belief in the fundamentals - good! My belief too is that the price will always follow the intrinsic value ( that is how much money a company will eventually make for SHs) albeit it may be a bumpy road. So indeed, if growth in revenue rises above expectation, and if there is still some belief that management can control costs, then the SP will rise on announcement of results - and visa versa. Unless, of course, the SP is in bubble territory already - I am still reasonably comfortable it isn’t. In between news on the fundamentals, the SP, will shift around on the basis of beliefs lead by the practitioners of technical analysis. That is another point of view and another story.

Worst Case? If reputation is affected, revenue growth will be slower - how badly who knows. If DT is accused of knowingly using dirty money and being found guilty of the offence, then the very worst case could be end of game - but this is, in DT’s and other commentator’s assessment, extremely unlikely.

PB - If you are interested in the intrigue surrounding the ML affair from the perspective of DT, the section on risk - pgs 12-35 - oin the prospectus, goes into fine detail. It covers their assessment of how serious it could be for their reputation and whether there is any likelihood that they could fall foul of the anti-laundering laws as DT was funded in part by the proceeds from the Autonomy sale. If I recall correctly, their assessment of the risk was low and very low. Commentators believe this was one of several reasons the SP was pitched low at the IPO and the that the affair might still be sufficient to spook the market on any news about the case emerging.

Charles - US based ETF Funds have already. been buying for some time now, ETFManagers (US), for instance, holds about 1.26% of DTs shares (in top 10 of holders) and DT constitutes about 2.3% of their cyber security fund at last count - and is also in the top 10 of that fund (HACK). More, indeed, must surely follow.

I read profit in 5yrs for ON and there are golden shares to prevent hostile takeover-or whatever the proper name is - so they cannot form part of any index I believe. Also the the indicative price is reported today to be between 375 and 450p which to my thinking may be a tad the high side. Cautionary amber flags are flying - thorough research is needed.

Agree the technology behind Oxford N is brilliant but it seems to me it is more a technology push rather than a market pull. DT has both, so will be a difficult act to follow. We have anyway to wait until post IPO to invest so I will take a closer look as to how the land lies then.

Good to have our great universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, my old alma mater IC and others still producing world beating scientific and technical ideas - and that there is now the willingness, infrastructure and finance to develop them. Long may it last.

Come on Nidec - give Oxford a chance.

Charles - seems to me that the investors on the extremes of the investing spectrum need different skills and human attributes.

So, for instance, long term investors need imagination on what a company could bring to the world, strong analytical capacities to determine intrinsic company value and need that human characteristic of patience. The other end of the spectrum, short term traders (it only seems to me as I am not one) would need the skill to reason short term price movements (behaviour/sentiment of the market) and the human characteristic of decisiveness.

Personally I only have some skills and temperament to play the long game, can imagine how the short game should be played, but would find paying the middle game that requires a combination of distinct skills and human traits a very difficult game to play successfully.

It seems to me you are in that middle ground like some others, and have been quite successful while hitched to a rising star - congratulations.

Charles - if you believe your own repeated predictions on the SP medium term, and don’t think there is anything now better in the market to buy, why “muppet”?

Thanks PB And GF. Good to see some debate again on the fundamentals of the company that will affect its intrinsic value, rather than just a focus on the short term price movements. It reminds me of a Buffett throwaway “ price is what you pay, value is what you get”. And that value depends, of course, on the difference of only two main factors - revenue from customers and the cost in meeting those customers’, needs, requirements and expectations.

One advantage of buying once -or at one time - and holding on is the feel good factor of multibagging more frequently, albeit with less total profit than those of you who keep buying on the way up. A little more upward movement by DT and and it will be a 3 bagger for me and my holding in SQZ has just 11 bagged today. Not as good as it sounds as I have also lost on other oil exploration stock several of which went bust.

All good Nidec. I was just trying to get my head - again - around the numbers. The only hard and published numbers for the free float available were for the shares in the public offer (8.34% of total at IPO), selling shareholders (1.26%), over allotment (1.44%) and unlocked shares (3.32%) summing to 14.41%. This is different from the 17.9% quoted by Reuters or the 27% given to you by IR so I was keen to understand where the difference came from.

When I saw that the same figure of 27% in the prospectus for ‘‘shares in public hands’ and that this number can include locked-up shares of up to a 180 day duration according to the Listing Rule 6-14-3 (R) quoted in the prospectus, it started to make sense to me. But putting 2 and 2 together in this case does, indeed, not necessarily make 4. It may all come down to definitions, but it seems to me that the Wikipedia explanation is a little different from the Listing Rules.

The only relevant information really needed, IMO, is the difference between how many shares are tradable before and after the end of the first lock-up period, as this would give a better appreciation of any market reaction.

How the market will react I see as something akin to understanding whether directors are buying or selling and how many are doing so. Of course directors cannot trade until next year, but those being unlocked on 28/10 ( the date is calculated assuming that the 30/4 is included in the 180day duration) have more information about the company than we do, so If they start selling - or not - could give an indication as to their thinking.

I concur with your view as to how Summit and KKR may wish to play the game and for this reason, IMO, DT will have a limited life on the public market.

OK Nidec. No point, I guess, in having an open debate on the matter.

My source of information is the Prospectus where all is covered in great detail including all lock-up arrangements (and how they are to be administered) and the figure (27%) for ‘shares in public hands’ which is very much smaller than the number subject to lock-up. My understanding is that ‘shares in public hands’ is different from ‘free-float’ while some shares are subject to lock-up, but will the same when there is no longer lock-up. So IR would be correct after 28/10 regarding the free float, but before?

All I really want to know is the % of shares that will be potentially tradable on 28/10.
- Is it only the the 27% ‘shares in public hands ‘? This would be the current free-float plus those unlocked shares that are part of the ‘shares in public hands’ - that is if my understanding is correct.
-or is it the current free float (whatever the number) plus all those no longer subject to lock-up arrangements?

Nidec - I respectfully suggest you look at your contribution on 25/8 where you state that the free-float was then 27%. This figure is not in line with my interpretation of the Listing Rule and information in the Prospectus - or on published information by Reuters and others. The figure of 27% is for the “shares in public hand” and this figure includes many locked-up shares. And it was or this reason I thought it worthwhile to share my “ research” on this BB.


It was actually your statement that the free float was 27% and a question today about the timing of the end of lock-up that made me take another look and really try and understand what it is all about.

To me at least, the number of shares potentially available to the market 0n 28/10 is aN important piece of information.

I, for one, have not been clear on what constitutes “shares in public hands” and how this differs from those in “free-float”. If anyone is interested, here are some referenced facts.

To be admitted to the London main market at least 25% of shares must in public hands (Listing Rules.14.1-R). So it is not the free-float that must be 25% but the "shares in public hands"'

Shares are not held in public hands if they are “subject to a lock-up period of more than 180 calendar days” (LR.14.4-R). So shares can be in public hands even if locked-up for 180 days and not be part of the free float.

On admission DT had 27% of the shares in public hands (prospectus, part 14-1 - it is also the actual on admission). So not all the 27% will be in the free-float until the end of the lock-up period. It is not clear to me whether the 3% of the shares released from lock- obligations were part of the 27% "shares in public hands" or in addition to but presumably they entered the free-float.

The actual free-float figure remains a mystery to me – but Reuters quote 17.9 %.

The end of the lock-up for most of the original non-employee shareholders is 180 calendar days from 30/4/21. Therefore this will be on 27/10/21 - trading can take place the following day. Those locked-up shares that are part of the “shares in public hands” will, presumably, therefore then enter the free-float making it 27% from 28/10/21. So the number of shares released to the free-float for public trading, although substantial, is not as is not as large as I first thought.

But, presumably, the rest of the shares - not part of the 27% - freed from lock-up restrictions could somehow also enter the "shares in public hands" and hence the free-float.

For the employees, the end of the 360 day lock-up period is 24/4/22.