Member Info for LWHL

An interesting idea, and not one that I had considered before (the idea that a supermarket might be interested in a name like this one).

Whether or not the main shareholders here would be open to an offer in the region of £3.5 billion (I cannot see a number lower than that getting any airtime), is something that I have no idea of though. They must have been approached multiple times over the years.

I also cannot see an offer substantially above that kind of figure coming in, in this macro environment.

Institutions control the majority of the float, as far as I can tell, so the insiders, if they wanted to cash out, would not be able to do so at a price that said insti's were not satisfied with.

This does not feel like a takeover target right now IMO. Which is fine by me anyway.

Cue RNS takeover in 5,4,3,2...lol. GLA.

Interesting range of opinions here. I can see the merit in both the bull and bear takes, FWIW.

The buy backs will cushion any sell off to a degree, you would imagine. And there may well not be a sell off anyway, of course.

Will watch the price action with interest. GLA.

I actually laughed out loud when I read that paragraph about the Paris jolly.

Imagine doing stuff like that when your business is not even making a small profit, let alone printing the kind of cash that might justify such activities.

Trebles all round, lol :)

I do not have a 'feel' for this one, right now. So I have just been sitting patiently for a steer, or some news.

350p or 280p...toss of a coin right now, IMO.

Could just as easily experience a RNO scenario too, IMO. Not intended as a ramp, but not a left-field muse either, I think it is fair to suggest.

Waiting game for me at the time of print. GLA.

It cannot hurt. Especially if enough shareholders also email IR, explaining their decision on this front.

No certainties of success of course, but it at least makes them work a bit more for their keep, in spinning the corporate lines etc. GLA.

My only theory is that you might have some stop fishing, to accommodate a big buyer or seller who is looking to transact in a tight range.

Have been busy elsewhere, otherwise I might have tried to jump on a few quick day trades, involving said range.

Not advice of course, but it can be quite a nice little earner, when those 4-7% swings pan out repeatedly :) GLA.

I would share my thoughts on DEI, and the wider ideology that incorporates that stuff....but probably best I refrain from doing so.

It is a negative feature, IMO, but not sufficient to stop me from putting a few quid to work here.

But I do find it especially baffling with outfits like this one, where I would posit the overwhelming majority of their patrons share similar views to normal (sensible) orthodoxy, and therefore sit on the other side of the fence to said ideology.

State push behind the scenes perhaps? Bit like that well-known DIY business, which I found even more baffling at the time. Hey ho. The Overton Window is not made of concrete. GLA.

I like this name on current fundamentals, technicals and on future macro potential; I think they have handled all the challenges well so far (touch wood, lol), including the current clown show government (which spans decades, so the chart shows this to be a valid claim).

I think they will continue to do so. And I will also look to now patronise their establishments too, when I get a chance, to do my bit to help the P&L :) GLA.

Not sure about a 50% rise (well, depending on your time horizon of course!), but within 12 months or less, I am hopeful of having the chance to make 10-20% gains here.

Having bought in for the first time today after what is, IMO, yet another reassuring update.

Kept half an eye here for a few years, but never took the plunge until now.

Would be happy to add more on the way down, if it has a retest of the 50 DMA at some point (subject to the usual caveats), but 25's feels like fair value at the time of print. Will take a view if/when we return to that kind of price. GLA.

I think that they should have honoured the lock-in agreement that they agreed to, which tied them to that stock until the end of December 2025.

I think they should have notified you, as a shareholder here, of that decision at least on the same day that MET1 informed their own shareholders of this change of ownership.

I think that these are both further red flags against the business, from a potential investment perspective, to add to a growing list dating back years.

And which some of us have debated or recapped, at various points since the JAY days, to the current incantation.

Ultimately, and as I have suggested in the past, I think ordinary shareholders deserve better for their investment and their faith here, but that is your own call to make.

I would add, I also consider this a (small) strike against PMI, for investing here in the first place.

Not enough for me to exit my holding in that name, but certainly since they took a position here, they have been proven wrong, or at absolute best, got in far too early. Ho hum. GLA.

Putting aside the grammatical errors in this RNS...the key thing that a number of people thought might happen a long time ago, has now been confirmed.

But I see that you are as bullish as ever here, Ashton, as no doubt is CC, and a few of the other posters here.

Who will also be along shortly no doubt to put some lip stick on this latest disappointing update.

At least they ordained to confirm the MET1 sale at the same time.

Unlike a few of you, I look forward to hearing Rach's comments on this update. GLA anyway.

Agree they are pretty good, but want to see some inside buying now too.

Especially given how generous BOD remuneration is. Too rich for where the company currently is, but that is AIM in a nutshell.

At least - at the time of print anyway - this is one with some genuine promise and some progress - but IMO, then next 12 months will tell us if this is one of the rare winners, or the usual AIM wealth destroyers. GLA.

OK, CC. Think what you want.

You can create an echo chamber on these chat boards by simply filtering those posters who do not offer a narrative that you want to hear.

If none of you think that 80M should notify their shareholders of material news such as the entire disposal of your MET1 holding, then I really do not know what to say about that.

Even if they put one out on Monday morning, it is not a good look in my view - but you know best.

It does not appear to be the fault of MET1. According to their RNS, they were only notified today. Assuming this is accurate, 80M were tardy in making the notification to MET1 and for shareholders here, have still not even printed their own notification RNS to this end!

So, presumably they finished clearing out on 9/5/2025, but only notified MET1 today? And no RNS on here yet at the time of print?

Furthermore, I thought that they considered MET1 to be a long term value play? Hey ho. GLA.

I am so pleased to hear that from you, lse.

Mid 30's gap fill incoming next week it seems, ladies and gents :)

Good weekend all.

I took a few more on that pull back, even though it is kind of in no mans land right now, from a TA perspective.

Still targeting that gap fill above with the tradies, or will hold for the dividend, if it does not fill before then.

Going to be taxed/robbed either way if the long thesis is correct :( Ho hum. GLA.

With a disclosed short interest of only 0.60%, this IMO must be institutional buying, rather than short covering. Although it could be a bit of both, of course.

A break and hold above the 50 DMA will do me for today/Monday, if it happens.

Fingers crossed, shaping up nicely for that aforementioned mid 30's gap fill at the time of print. Not looking further ahead than that, right now.... GLA.

The risks are well documented. Which is why we are a sub £2 plus outfit right now.

Those inside buys suggest confidence in turning the ship around.

If they do, I do not think it would be ramping to suggest this would therefore be a multi-bagger.

You pays your money etc. GLA.

I am neutral on whether or not it was a good decision to sell, but it would be interesting to know if FRES supported the deal. Not that we may ever find out. Not that it really matters either, IMO.

Either way, presumably, they did not want to offer more than PAAS did to take the remaining 91% of MAG.