Member Info for Skindle

Have now sold their holding back below notable levels. Were they merely acting as market makers ? I have lost count now as to who has what. I agree with 1GW_, the board should serve notice on all larger shareholders to declare their holdings.

Apologies, I misled slightly in my previous post. The major share trading activity started just after the trading statement was released on the 17th October, which may account for why this statement contained more information than usual. My guess is that Toscafund had already informed the board of their intention to sell.

Well, that is a surprise. I think in this instance the notifiable threshold is 3%. Let us assume that Toscafund have sold all of their shares. That accounts for 18.3%. If you include the 1.46% increase of Schroders and the acquisition by the four new larger shareholders, 29.058% has changed hands since the half year report. So there is still 10.758% of shares whose seller we have not yet discovered.

Toscafund and Schroders both colluded to sell a large part of their holdings to Sports Direct to involve them back in September 2015. It certainly looked at the time as if SD were interested in acquiring the whole business but when SD proposed that Mr Ashley take over as chairman, both Schroders and Toscafund voted against the move. The relationship between the three shareholders appeared to cool after this.

Without wishing to tempt fate it looks like the selling might be coming to an end. If it is Sports Direct reducing its position as we suspect, what exempts them or whoever it maybe from reporting a change in their holding to the market ?

Between them Bank of America, City Investment Company Limited, Ennismore Fund Management Limited and Credit Suisse have acquired 27.466% of the total number of shares in Findel. Schroders have recently increased their investment so it is unlikely to be them, Toscafund normally release an RNS when their position changes so by process of elimination the seller can only be Sports Direct although our learned friend DRFK (doesn’t really f......g know) says it is not Sports Direct. To add weight to this claim, Sports Direct have not declared any reductions to their holding.

Despite this heavy buying, the price is still falling. Well, if it is Sports Direct at least they have only 2.434% left to sell !

Another new investor Columbo, but I ask again, where are all of these shares coming from ?

This has been the pattern in recent weeks. We start the day today with a trade of 10,690 shares at a shade over 187 pence even though the bid price was 184.5 pence. We assume this to be a buy. The bid price as a response to this has been lowered to 182.5. There is no chance of the share price rising when all the market makers do is mark the price down as soon as someone buys the shares. I am completely baffled by this strategy.

A new investor was announced today. Where are all of these shares coming from ?

Credit Suisse didn’t reveal their hand until the 15th November. So there is a possibility that Sports Direct could have sold some of its overweight position.

Mr Ashley is obviously an extremely sharp entrepreneur but allowing him to engage with the media live is not a sensible move. The man clearly displays a consistent disconnect between mouth and brain that results in dire consequences for both his own business and those in the same sector. He cannot be trusted when he is permitted to speak from the heart.

We await further notification as to who has increased and who has decreased.

Approximately ten per cent changed hands again today. Given the current problems at Sports Direct, could it be that our biggest investor is divesting from Findel ?

Morgan Stanley got involved in a similar way as above where they quickly built a holding up to 10% made up of shares and swaps and disappeared again as quickly as they arrived but this was at the same time as Sports Direct were making their move. Are Credit Suisse acting in the same capacity as Morgan Stanley were.

Is it possible that Credit Suisse are acting on behalf of Sports Direct as market maker to assist in SD’s attempt to acquire the business at a reduced price ?

Now up to 11.493%. The share price is still showing no signs of turning positive though. I remember the share price sliding uncontrollably when Sports Direct were building their position. The question is which of our large shareholders has been reducing to facilitate the Credit Suisse purchase.

Still a large overhang Columbo, maybe another nine million shares to tilt the balance ?

As I understand it a TR 1 must be submitted to the company if a shareholder buys in excess of 3% of the total number of shares/voting rights in issue, and for every single percentage point thereafter within two days of the transaction. The same rule applies when a holder reduces a holding. The company must then release an RNS to the market by close of business on the next working day. Where is the low point of this dreadful slide ?

If this is a single seller, it can only be Sports Direct, Toscafund or Schroders. No one else holds this amount of shares.

The way the share price is being kicked around and manipulated at the moment reminds me of the bad old days of 2015/16. For no reason the share price now looks fragile and capable of dropping at any moment despite the solid report and director buying. I don’t think this is just a consequence of the wider market, the market makers are intent upon pushing the price down but for what reason ?

I take your point 1GW_. That extra two weeks could make a significant difference. I have studied the Edison report in closer detail and accept that 8% could have been achieved post the half year report. What concerns me more is the suggestion in the report that the wider sector is undergoing a re rating. Despite the solid buying as Columbo has pointed out, the price has been marked down with the reporting of each new trade. At this moment I believe the company has done as much as it can to halt the recent twenty per cent diminution in value.

I don’t think this was a mistake 1GW_. The board will know their revenue and PBT virtually to the minute. To release such a detailed trading statement on the 17th October was unusual, when in previous years they have merely confirmed the half year report release date. What concerns me is the claim of an 8% revenue increase at Express Gifts was not even close to the truth. In all other respects I am very happy. The all important PBT was way beyond what I had expected mainly thanks to the currency hedging and Credit Suisse must be happy because it would appear that they acquired their stake in the low twos. Even if the company repeat their second half performance of 17/18 we can expect revenue of around £485m and PBT of approximately £31m. Exceptional figures for a company currently valued at under £200m.

“Express Gifts, trading as "Studio", is the Group's largest business and grew revenue by 8% in the first 28 weeks of the year (a period which takes into account the changes to marketing activities across the half-year in 2017 due to the implementation of the Financier platform in early October 2017).” I lifted this from the trading statement released on the 17th October 2018. Having scrutinised the half year report I cannot find an 8% uplift in Express Gifts revenue. I conclude that this was a mis representation of the facts. From the 22nd October the price dropped rapidly from 275 pence to its low of 199 pence. Was this detailed trading statement on the 17th October for the benefit of Credit Suisse ?