Member Info for Munster1978

I am still struggling to buy these shares. Can someone explain to me the market maker system on the AIM? I have even opened an new online account to buy shares in small lots cost effectively but I still can not get filled. I had to ask my broker (for a fee) to manually upload the ticker to their system. The shares trade through my bid every time. I increase the bid and nothing fills. I put in multiple bids and nothing hits. When I look on the LSE website it often reads Off Book AIMX. Does anyone know what that means? For months I have had a standing bid GTC up to 5 dollars and have only been able to pick up a tiny amount once. I started bidding when shares dipped below 4 and now it is trading above 5. Any ideas? I do not understand the AIM market maker system. For what it is worth when I first opened the account and could not buy any shares I a put in a sell order above the market just to see if the account was working and it went through immediately. Any insight would be appreciated. I am very close to throwing in the towel on this AIM game. Why would a company want to stay listed on an exchange and incur the costs of a listing when it is so hard to trade the shares?

Apologies for the breach of board etiquette. I stand corrected and will not make the same mistake twice. I only asked because the company in question does not have its own discussion but you make a logical point. I am new to such things yet probably should have realised this ahead of time.

Thanks. Now that there is a generational handover we might see a change. There is a large margin of safety and those Scots count every pence.... any idea where I can get any more info on their business and the market?

Actually, there may be a misunderstanding of terminology here. One must consider the difference between a public company and a company listed on a recognised stock exchange. There are many a Plc not listed on any exchange. It is not wise to confuse �going private� with ceasing to be listed on an exchange. Any �Public Company� can loose their stock market listing either by choice or against their will. In the wake of the 2008 crisis there were hundreds of small cap companies that ceased trading on the exchange because they were no longer viable as listed companies and / or there is an unjustifiable expense associated with maintaining the listing. If a company were to stop being listed on the exchange there is no requirement for an offer for the shares. The company remains a public company ( Plc)with all the accounting and reporting requirements under the Companies Act but the shares only trade by private treaty. This has nothing to do with any particular company this is just corporate governance. The corporate documents may or may not dictate if this is a decision of the board or requires shareholder votes. In the US this happens often when either the market cap falls or share price falls below an exchange minimum or the issuer fails to pay fees or file accounts with the SEC. I�m sure there are LSE / AIM specific requirements of which I am ignorant. The point is it is a mistake to think that the company must remain on the exchange unless there is a tender offer for the shares. These are two separate issues. This has NOTHING to do with CRV. It is just how it works. In a tightly held company it is not inconceivable that the board or shareholders decide there is no benefit associated with being a listed company. If there is no liquidity and the capital markets are not supportive and they do not need or want to raise capital then the costs may well outweigh the benefits. For what it is worth there is serious talk here of the block chain eliminating the need for stock exchanges within a decade. Some believe all trading will be peer to peer via any number of trading applications in any jurisdiction without the cost of friction. This may be the logical next step. Corporate governance will be based on the laws where the company is domiciled but trading will be global and free of regulation. Companies will pay a one time fee to have their shares put on the block chain and then from there all trading will be directly between shareholders. Bad news for banks, brokers and registrars. Good news for companies and investors. Finally and while I am here does anyone follow J Smart (SMJ). It looks like it trades at a significant discount to the underlying value but there is very little information available.

I am based in the US and am always seeking value investments. I particularly like closely held companies where management owns a lot of shares. I am begining my research on this company and was wondering if anyone else had any ideas where I can learn more about the real estate portfolio. It seems to me that if book value is either accurate or below market value this company trades at a steep discount to its orderly liquidation value. I know it is family controlled but perhaps they are looking at ways to unlock value. Any thoughts from fellow value investors would be very welcome. Thanks.

And this bit below: While I�m on the subject of our owners� gaining knowledge, let me remind you that Charlie and I believe all shareholders should simultaneously have access to new information that Berkshire releases and, if possible, should also have adequate time to digest and analyze that information before any trading takes place. That�s why we try to issue financial data late on Fridays or early on Saturdays and why our annual meeting is always held on a Saturday (a day that also eases traffic and parking problems). We do not follow the common practice of talking one-on-one with investors or analysts, treating them instead as we do all other shareholders.

I am reading the Berkshire letter issued over the weekend and thought the following was very similar to what CRV wrote in their last accounts: _________________________ Though markets are generally rational, they occasionally do crazy things. Seizing the opportunities then offered does not require great intelligence, a degree in economics or a familiarity with Wall Street jargon such as alpha and beta. What investors then need instead is an ability to both disregard mob fears or enthusiasms and to focus on a few simple fundamentals. A willingness to look unimaginative for a sustained period � or even to look foolish � is also essential. ______________________ The last sentence sounds like CRV.

Sorry I was not following this latest bit of drama and I do not have any insight. I�m not here much. It seems that the ROI subsidiary issued more shares to CRV who was already the 100% shareholder. I have no idea why they would do that. Nothing jumps to mind. I suppose they could be thinking about selling a stake in the ROI subsidiary and need to even out shares but that is pure speculation. For what it is worth, buy orders are not getting filled even when share price dips below the GTC price. I stand by my assessment of the AIM.

Many value investors have closed their doors over the past five years because there was no value to be found. I like that they have held the line and waited for the right opportunity. I know it is very American, but the baseball analogy is that investing is a game with no called strikes. The published strategy is deep value, patience and a global mandate. Very unusual and not for everyone. Definitely out of favour at the moment. Regarding the transformational deal, I hope they find one, however, no deal is much better than bad deal. They are very careful with dilution because they are sizeable shareholders. That is a good check on big dilutive transactions. When markets revert to the mean we will see a lot of deals were not as good as they seemed when the free money stops flowing and EPS flounders without buybacks.

It seems your complaints are unrelated to the performance of the company. Rather the issue is the manner in which the company communicates with shareholders. Your focus is on AIM market administrative trivia rather than the performance of the investments. I don�t know who Alex Eavis is or when he sold his shares. Nor do I care. From my perspective, things like updating the shareholder roster, meeting locations and the timing of announcements which seems to generate a consternation, is completely irrelevant. As mentioned previously I view this as roughly equivalent to deciding if one should buy a house based on the colour of the carpet. CRV is an investment company and like any hedge fund manager or private equity manager they should be focused on capital allocation. The questions I ask when investing with a manager are: �Where are they putting my money to work?� �Am I comfortable with the risks they are taking?� �Are they structuring their investments in a way that protect investors?� �How do they view the macro environment for the next two to five years.� �Are they chasing short term returns and exposing us to a violent swings?� �Are manager�s and investor�s interests aligned?� Regarding the TSX listing, I have decades of frustration with M&A and IPO processes and understand that they can be held up for plenty of reasons. This one could be tricky as there are three jurisdictions (Brazil, Canada, UK) involved each with different rules and regulations. They should make a public statement if it is not going to happen or it is materially different than previously announced. Regarding the spread and liquidity, that is most frustrating. I view the AIM market as a worthless venue unless the shareholders are almost all UK domiciled institutions and the company has a simple story and an institutional following. It has to fit in an asset allocation box. Clearly this is not the case with Craven and management acknowledges that openly. I entered the position in 2017 with the assesment that CRV should be viewed as a private company which happens to have an AIM quote of limited to no utility. This was clear from reading the filings and looking at the market action. I view the discount as significant enough to justify the lack of liquidity. I like the way management and shareholders are aligned and that management have been very conservative to date. Most managers would have chased �hot� assets to woo �hot money� whereas these guys have stuck to their investment philosophy even though they see it hurts them in the short term. I want exposure to the philosophy and experience when the �everything bubble� bursts. Until then I am going to have to be patient. I know this because they said it every year for the past five years and I agreed with the assesment in their last filing. Many value

I�m happy to take the other side of the trade. The company is doing exactly what it has said it would do. They clearly understand that shareholder value and share price are entirely different and they are working for the long term shareholder. You talk about shareholder value but what you mean is share price. They have drastically increased shareholder value. Value is what you get price is what you pay. For years they have been openly telling shareholders that their strategy will result in little market interest and a discount to NAV. They repeatedly warn existing and prospective shareholders that they only care about the value per share and not the price per share. This makes them look like professionals. Sometimes it does make me wonder why they are bothering at all with such a small company on a fourth tier market. I can only surmise that they plan on using the company for something big at some point. If indeed, what they call the �everything bubble� is starting to deflate we may see prudent value investing come back to life. I would rather own these shares in comparison to most of the shares pumped up by easy credit, buybacks and Index flows. I really wish they would figure out how to move from the AIM to another exchange or just go private. In the meantime I am happy to sit on these shares and hopefully the market will offer up more at lower prices.

I�m new to this board and to AIM shares. Still feeling my way around. Has anyone looked at the warrants? What is the strike price? I can not find the info but perhaps it is because I do not know where to look. Many thanks.

I really have no view on the share holder roster. I am not entirely sure how it is to be disclosed. It seems to be an AIM requirement which I certainly find a bit odd but I am no expert. On other exchanges the company has nothing to do with the shareholder disclosures. On AIM it seems the shareholder informs the company and then the NOMAD (on other oddity) releases the information. It seems very odd. I know enough about the plumbing to know that a change in nominee account does not necessarily indicate any change in shareholders. I suspect, but do not know, that the shareholding may be the same but brokers have reciprocal agreements with local nominees. So if shareholder A has a local brokerage account with broker B in the US and B changes their local custodian for UK shares then the roster will change without any change in shareholding. In fact the shareholder and the company will not know that the change occurred. However, if the managers have disposed of their shares that would be significant and absolutely should be disclosed but from the information I have seen there is no reason to draw this conclusion. Regarding any other shareholders I do not view this as significant to my decision to own the shares unless there is a likely change of control. This is a uniquely AIM characteristic I have never thought about until you asked the question. Everywhere else, as far as I know, the shareholder informs the regulator when certain acquisitions and disposals are made without any interaction with he company. It also strikes me that focusing on this issue is like buying a house based on the colour of the carpet unless insiders are selling and not disclosing it.

I�m afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. I would not expect or want them to realease any information publicly about any of the current investments unless there was a material change one way or another. For example they lent money to the Greek hotel. The loan has not been paid off, is not in default and they haven�t sold the loan. There is nothing to say. It doesn�t make sense for them to tell us if they plan to convert it to equity now because the point of a convertible loan is to have the optionality and the Greek economic situation is far from certain between now and the point when they have to decide. They can�t say �we really hope the Greek banks collapse and the owner can�t pay the money back so we can get the hotel on the cheap�. (Not that that is their hope) That would only make the borrower start scrambling to find a new lender right now. At present they don�t own the hotel, they own a loan secured by the hotel. Even if they have access to the occupancy and profitability numbers from this summer it would be improper to disclose that while it is still a private family owned business and it isn�t material to the loan value. So what can they say and why would they say it other than for entertainment value. We get the NAV annually. That is �notification of progress and failures�. Maybe they invested in Royalty Sports for the property value or the import licences or the titanium in pedals or they think there will be a spandex squeeze? It doesn�t matter. The disclosures are completely in line with an investment holding company. I don�t mean to be dismissive of your views but it seems to me that you don�t see CRV as an investment company. Your expectations are more along the lines of if you were a shareholder directly in the subsidiary portfolio not the holding company. I want the manager to allocate capital where they think they can get the best return with the least risk. How they do that is complicated and changes as the economy and markets change. For instance I read today that Anglola is going to liberalise the TCOM market. Good news? Bad News? They will have to decide what that means for their investments good or bad. I don�t expect an update unless it changes the recoverability of the loans. Perhaps because I was in the business for a long time, I view it differently but most good asset managers have their head down 50% of the time trying to find the next opportunity and the other 50% of the time trying to maximise the cash flow or the asset value in the portfolio. They disclose publicly only what is required and when it is certain. Any more is a distraction from what they are there to do. As a rule of thumb the less they talk the better they are at their job. If you don�t like their investment style or their communication style that is a separate issue from if they are doing their job

There is a complete disconnect between the company and the stock price. They AIM market is a complete mismatch for their style of investing. The managers realise this and know there is nothing they can do about it. They have been very clear about this in each of their last three or four annual letters. When you invest in an investment company/ fund you are not buying the investments of the company but rather the acumen of the managers. I for one think these guys are doing exactly what it says on the tin and why I invested. I like that they don�t try to hype the company to move the shares. As a shareholder I really appreciate they are willing to stick to their value bias. Most managers rush to buy something/anything to increase the size of the company and charge more fees. Regarding their analysis, �waffle� or �drunk� writing�; this is exactly how good professional asset managers work. After 26 years in Private Equity and M&A you can spot a manager who has been around long enough to know being unpopular is much better than losing money. They are value investors and stick to the principles of value investing. They admit they don�t understand or can�t reconcile the price the market is paying for assets. They don�t chase momentum. They don�t give play by play analysis or colour commentary while in an investment. Good PE guys let the exits speak for themselves. A manager who has been around the block knows the last thing you want to do is telegraph your next move as either a buyer or a seller. Distressed investors are the most tight lipped because they are always playing an angle in litigation or in negotiations with other creditors or shareholders. Our MFO is invested in two PE funds and three hedge funds and what Desmond writes is pretty bog standard. They sound very much like Paul Singer�s last two letters. I�m prepared to treat CRV like a private investment. The shares trade that way anyhow. The recent movement in shareholders did not print on the screen so the shares must have travelled off market. Most of the investors in the company either bought blocks privately or subscribed to private placements. They don�t watch the screen. I�m surprised they haven�t taken the company private already. I�d support that. Unless they think there will be a big enough transaction or future fundraising to make the shares liquid it isn�t worth paying the fees to be a listed company and have to deal with the regulation which is a distraction from investing. Just let them get on with the strategy and not worry about the stock exchange listing which is providing negative value to the company. I�m clueless when it comes to AIM but my guess would be that the market is dying. Passive investing, spread betting, FANG, Bitcoin and a host of other things are more interesting to punters than micro caps on an exchange

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective or expectations. I would not say management is aggravating. I appreciate that they stay well clear of regulatory trouble by only communicating facts and not "potential blue sky" I also know their distressed strategy requires them to keep their cards close to the vest. Some of the most successful investors rarely communicate with the market except through annual filings. Warren Buffet is the most famous but perhaps the most successful were Cumming and Steinberg for the first three decades at LUK. I noticed some people on this board complained that the management doesn't want private shareholders. I am not sure that is accurate although it could be the case. However, I remember when Warren Buffet was asked back in the early 1990s why he didn't split the shares so more investors could buy his stock, he replied that having an expensive share which was hard to trade was effective in creating a self selecting group of shareholders who viewed themselves as long term partners who wanted to get rich together slowly. He actually tried to keep Berkshire on the OTC market as long as he could so his shareholders were almost "invitation only". He said having an share that was easily bought and sold as the price fluctuated attracted shareholders with what he deemed the wrong type of psychology when it comes to investing. He called his very high share price an effective screen for keeping out hot money. I suspect management here uses their repetitive warnings about the share price volatility in much the same way. This is a frustrating situation but also an opportunity for small shareholders because the market makers can push the price around significantly while the management plugs away in silence.

I trade through a prime broker relationship. I don't know with whom my broker has spoken but I know he has tried multiple avenues.

Since I have been back in the US I have spent a great deal of time doing analysis (including travel to see an investment, corresponding with the comercial attache in Luanda and talking with two US developers in Brazil) Since my last post I have come to the conclusion that the company is trading at a fraction of its intrinsic value. The management is contrarian and understated which is what I like to see as I have no time for small cap stock promoters. They are quietly working away. I like very much that they actively discourage anyone from buying the shares unless they have a long term horizon. They are building a platform to acquire distressed assets when they are cheap and sell when they are dear. The problem is that you cannot buy Craven House shares in any size. I have had a standing FOK order for 50,000 shares at $5.50 or better for over a month. I have also put in selective smaller limit orders but so far have only been able to get a few thousand shares. I even had a 10,000 GTC market order for a few days and got nothing. My broker can't find any shares other than the market makers' standard offer. These shares can't be bought on the screen. This tells me the large shareholders are not even considering selling and to get shares in size you have to buy from the company directly. They sell new shares at $12.50 and the buyers of those shares have to have reason to believe they will be worth more than that in the relatively near future. The gap between the current price and $12.50 has to be filled by small shareholders willing to buy smaller lots and hold otherwise there just don't seem to be any shares available. A fund manager or family office that wanted to build a position through the secondary market just can't get any traction. Professional investors can't buy in the small lots available from the market makers. Most of the volume is tiny lots of shares that seem to pass between retail investors and the market makers. From what I can tell about 90% of the shareholders look at Craven House as a private equity investment that just happens to be on the stock exchange so that they can use their shares as an acquisition currency. As we sit here today I think this company is hugely undervalued but it is nearly impossible to buy a significant block of shares. If you are comfortable buying a few thousand shares for full position size that is great and you will probably make several hundred percent over a couple of years. However, acquiring more may be impossible without driving the price up above the $12.50 mark. There just are not any sizable blocks available. Just sharing my limited experience over the last two months. I am disappointed because I really thought this one was a sleeper we could tuck away and wait for good things to happen. They may announce a big deal next week that would send the shares up 100% but it doesn't look like I can get into it in a meaningful way.

Thanks for the kind and certainly unexpected offer. I don't think I added much to the discussion an apparently neither do some of your digital brethren. It is a bit of a moot point as I moved to America in 1987 and took my first job on Wall Street a week before the markets cratered in a day. What was supposed to be two years to earn a bit of dosh became 24 years in banking and now a full time investor. I'm just back for a couple of weeks with the family. Rather than write any more I think I will follow the sage advice and go to the pub for a pint.

I am in no position to offer any advice. I can only share my own thoughts. I am intrigued by the company and think I understand what they are trying to do. I don't know if they will be successful. What I do feel comfortable saying is that there are lots of potential catalysts that would keep me from selling if I already owned the shares and did not need the money. They could sell an asset for much more than book value and pay a special dividend. They could reverse merge with a larger company like they were trying to do with Panda. They could buy back shares. They could raise enough new capital to get on the radar of institutions. They could be bought by another company at or near NAV. They could move to another exchange that isn't held hostage by market makers and a lack of participants. But I can't predict the timing. One of the problems I forgot to mention in the last post (as if you need more problems) is the fact that the number of small UK individual investors are fewer and fewer. Baby boomers are retiring and melenials don't buy shares. The aging punter, long the mainstay of small caps, is now spread betting or buying index funds. Many institutions are also moving away from active management and into passive ETFs or index investing. I fear all small AIM companies will be orphaned because the secondary market investment capital will no longer be available to any shares not in an ETF or Index. This doesn't really bother me because I am a value investor. I invest in listed and private companies and real estate. I look at all companies the same way regardless of if it is listed or not. A share is a percentage ownership and claim on a company's future cash flows. I don't trade shares, I purchase a minority interest in a listed company just as I would a private company. My average holding period for shares is over ten years. My largest holding I have owned since 1992. My second largest I have owned since 1999. When I find something that trades at a big discount to its intrinsic value I try to buy as much as possible and then do nothing else unless it either goes on sale or something negative changes that makes me want to sell. I try to find the out of favour shares where sentiment is supremely negative. For example I bought as much Glencore as I could right after the rights offering because it was clear the value was there and management were the biggest participants in the offering. On the other hand I sold Coca Cola which I owned since 1989 two years ago because I feared that sugar will be the next tobacco. Both times people thought I was crazy. KO has gone up since I sold so no timing points. I probably make only five trades a year and three or four would be buys. I don't trade for entertainment. I am not sure this helps. Value investors are a strange breed. CRV is definitely not for trading but maybe for value investing?