Like I have previously stated...I do not fully understand the ignoble art of shorting, JBTHISTLE; I understand, as you have touched upon below, the basic mechanics of it all...but, in all honesty, certainly not the finer details.
But regardless of all that -- I am quite sure Kretinsky does!
He must have a specific reason for buying in when he did...and, obviously, he would have been more than well aware of any short positions.
As I am fond of saying - intriguing!
Everything about this man's modus operandi convinces me more and more that Kretinsky is in it for the long term, JBTHISTLE.
Would he have heard on the grapevine about Rico Back's imminent dismissal or his stepping down? I would have thought so.
Did he have a hand in Rico Back going? Doubt it myself.
With his initial buy -in, and single biggest acquisition of stock so far, when the s.p was in the £1.50's he has positioned himself nicely in the middle of the court so to say.
As I suggested yesterday, is he positioning himself to mop up cheap shares when the "Shorts" start selling them off and thus forcing the s.p down?
And if he buys a big proportion of these newly available shares would not this buoy the price up somewhat?
At the very least Mr Kretinsky has injected much needed interest in this now newly reinvigorated stock.
I still think that Rico Back is the "key" here.
In this life "timing" is everything: if you had not bumped into that girl in Boots; if you had not inquired about that advert in the local paper; if you had not sold that house when you did...so on and so forth.
With all this in mind it makes one wonder about the timing of Rico Backs departure. Has Kretinksky been watching from the sidelines for some time now? Not so much unimpressed with the direction Back was taking the company in...but maybe more the case of -- the manner or mechanics in which he was doing so?
After all, as I have mentioned previously, he could have bought in at £1.18 -- but did'nt!!
Why? Why buy-in when he did at the point when Rico stepped down?
Could the answer be that, whether the major shareholders did or did not have any influence upon his decision, (and I subscribe to the view they most certainly did) the board was then taking a contrary view, not to Rico's overall plan of a parcel orientated business, but the way in which is was to be funded? And also, perhaps, how the shareholders could be rewarded with a reinstated dividend through the sale of GLS coupled with a certain amount of, as has already been mentioned by some of your good selves, asset stripping?
The possible sale of his (Herr Back's) "baby" might have been a no go area for Back; or for that matter any other possible suggestion of liquidising available assets.
One day we will all know the real reason for Back stepping down...but not for a while yet I should think.
The thing that intrigues me most (sorry for the repeated use of the word -- but it is so damned apt!) about the Kretinsky buy-in, is his entry point and the way he has apparently positioned himself, to my way of thinking anyhow, right in the middle of the court.
Firstly...a few questions.
1. why buy-in, initially, when the price was in the mid 1.50's? Why not when it sank to 1.18?
2. Why buy-in when the short position was already relatively high...and increasing?
3. Why buy-in when there, yet once again, is a very high chance of an industrial dispute which may well lead to strike action?
4. Why buy-in when Royal Mail had suspended the dividend?
5. Why buy-in when Royal Mail has committed to spending hundreds of millions of pounds in an attempt to modernise?
6 Why buy-in when Royal Mail has warned it could make a lose in the next financial year?
When considering all of this you do have to have the question: what are his motives for buying-in at all? At this present moment in time least ways.
Bearing in mind that, personally, I have only a layman's rudimentary grasp of the ignoble art of "Shorting", could it be that, as the Shorts start to sell, thus driving down the price, Kretinsky intends to "mop-up" at the same rate?
This would decrease the amount of shares available to buy would it not? Therefore, eventually, driving the price back up?
In other words: Kretinsky acquires cheap shares at the Shorters expense...or perhaps I should say -- our expense! :)
Always keen to be corrected and learn. Please feel free to educate me. Any thoughts, as ever, most welcome.
Oh dear me! poor old disgruntled Redceo.
Not only did he bet on a loser in Herr Back...but just as bad -- he lost his best mate in Fruitster!
Wonder which one hurts the most?
Glad your taking a backseat, Redceo...truth is, you never contributed anything of proper significance to be perfectly blunt.
Not unless you consider childish comments like "£5.50 a share in 2020" to be a worthwhile and intelligent comment that is. I am still laughing about that one. :)
No! you won't be missed in the slightest, Redceo.
An awful blow to your huge, ever-inflating ego I am sure...but, you know what they say:-
THE TRUTH HURTS!!!
According to the F.T, Kretinsky was dubbed the Czech Sphinx because of his inscrutability. Those around him say his focus tends to be long term.
This is backed up by one particular banker who says just the same. This same person goes on to say that he does not know of any other person who takes such a deep dive into every single detail of a target's business model.
Obviously, in Kretinsky, we are dealing with a very fastidious individual who dots every "i" and crosses every "t".
Renown as a "transactions guy" he likes to buy cheap using external finance. Reported as being "very smooth, very diplomatic...unlike many of the other big players".
This gentleman is no idiot. This is a highly intelligent, deeply calculating, hard working, motivated person who thinks long and hard before he buys into anything.
Like I keep reminding everyone, this sort of person does not invest into a company for the short term gain.
Everything about Kretinsky just reinforces my belief that something is afoot.
This stock now has acquired more twists than a trumpet - fascinating!!
Just managed to get a quick peek at the Kretinsky article in the Telegraph; by scrolling quickly down and up again one can briefly see the article in its entirety before the page is blocked out.
It is reported he is only 44 not 48...as I assumed; however, this given age is in fact contradicted by several articles that I read previously a couple of days ago.
The Telegraph goes on to report he only has one obvious weakness when it comes to investing: his love for football -- he is obsessed with the game! So much so that his interest in Sparta Prague costs him more than he makes. But, he is in it for the love of the game -- not profit.
As for his investing strategy (football apart), he is seen as analytic, rational, deliberate and precisely efficient...he specialises in businesses like the Royal Mail that have high asset value but failing business models; as I myself mention previously.
In other words: he is doing this for a specific purpose...denied of course by everyone around him.
Time will tell! And very soon I should think also.
Market Watch is the website I used for the shareholder information; it obviously needs updating, as PostmanPorsche points out...but, still, it gives a pretty good idea regarding the current distribution of shares.
As for your latest comments -- I could not agree more -- spot on for me!
Like I have said repeatedly on previous occasions...the Kretinsky factor is certainly most intriguing.
This makes for compulsive reading...interpret as you will.
1. Schroder and Vesa now control 20% of the company; and, could, buy yet more stock...especially Kretinsky.
2. The posties are, at present, the second biggest shareholder; more than likely Kretinsky will soon push them into second position.
3. The three biggest shareholders own nearly one third of the company.
4. Out of this one third how many would have voted for Back's re-election?
Schroder Investment Management Ltd. 147,568,478 14.8%
Royal Mail Share Incentive Plan 75,256,000 7.53%
Vesa Equity Investment SARL 60,118,199 6.01%
RWC Asset Management LLP 50,190,714 5.02%
Royal Mail Employee Benefit Trust 38,310,000 3.83%
Norges Bank Investment Management 29,184,381 2.92%
The Vanguard Group, Inc. 28,394,051 2.84%
Threadneedle Asset Management Ltd. 26,867,617 2.69%
Aberdeen Asset Managers Ltd. 25,843,000 2.58%
Aberdeen Asset Investments Ltd. 20,976,785 2.10%
Food for thought is it not?
Not "rumours", IsleworthSpy - conjecture!
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
In other words: start by asking a simple question -- eliminate the impossible -- discount the improbable -- arrive at what remains...however unlikely.
Kretinsky is a renown "value investor": he likes to seek out stocks that have a low share price, due to a failing business model, but have high asset value.
Just like Royal Mail!
This is not a man who buys in on a whim or whom is regarded as being impulsive...you do not get to have a personal fortune of £2700, 000, 000 at the age of 48 by being lucky or naive.
It is well known that Royal Mail is "property rich"; that was one of the biggest objections to the flotation price of £3.30 a share. Way back in 2013, objectors then, pointed out, that: the properties alone were worth considerably more than 3.3 billion. Can you imagine, in today's prices, what the value of all this land is worth? Then imagine how much money it would take when buying all these properties in all these major towns and cities? Wow!!! A lot of pocket money that. No one is suggesting Kretinsky is buying in for the break-up value...but the fact remains -- R.M has a lot of disposable assets. Just like Nine Elms!!
And as for influencing the board? (probably not Kretinsky) Why do you think Rico Back resigned? Answer: because the board told him he had to go; because if he did'nt then more than likely he would be sacked by just a handful of major investors at the forthcoming AGM.
This is a public company...and just like wolves said: you don't need, as an individual, 51% of a company to control it. You just require 3 or 4 big investors to agree on a mutual plan; and, together, therefore, as a group, control the company all but in name.
The board and neither the CWU run this company, Isleworth...it is run by men like Kretinsky: Men, who, collectively, control the vast majority of shares.
And whether the CWU like it or not...in the end the major shareholders will decide which direction this company will ultimately set out upon. Strike or no strike -- they call the shots now! All that the proposed strikes will achieve will be a trashed company, thousands more job losses...than if negotiated, and worse working conditions and terms of employment.
Change? Yes! it comes to us all, Isleworth. Even, dare I say it -- the CWU!!!
If Kretinsky keeps adding to his RMG stock. If rumours circulate of a possible dip into the pension funds, or perhaps the putting up of GLS up for sale...then, in the short term, the s.p will probably continue to rise.
I will concede one thing, wolvesposty: no! your average postie would not be comfortable in the very slightest with Kretinsky having a major say in how the company was to be run. Dear Oh dear me no!!
I hope to Christ the Kretinsky intrigue is not in connection with some sort of anticipated corporate raid on the pension fund?
You would have to be certifiably insane to endorse that!
Every single RMG employee, regardless of grade, would be out on strike.
The bonus payment is for all RMG employees; people directly employed by RMG...therefore does not include agency workers. The pro rata rate is just that: if you have worked your every working day over the two month period you will get the full amount...if not, you lose approx £4.50 a day for every day you did not work during the agreed two month period.
For example: you self-isolated for two weeks -- you lose £45.00; you took unpaid leave -- the amount, per each day, deducted again; you decided to book paid leave during that time -- again the amount, pro rata, deducted.
The only exception, I would think myself, would be leave that was booked before the lockdown was imposed.
Seems straightforward to me.