Member Info for StarBright

Oh yes - it’s 1%, with all subsequent transactions disclosed. My mistake. Thank you.

“Hostile” has a different meaning in bid situations Wolverine. It would be usual to see “competitiive” used to summarise what you describe. One of Evercore’s key tasks is to stoke a huge bonfire of competitive tension. Value is maximised through competition - it’s like going to sealed bids on your house sale....

It is no surprise to see that Virgin were “flushed out” via Mark Kleinman. This is a well trodden route. Although Evercore couldn’t possibly have been involved in any such flushing, they will have been pleased to see it happen...

Potential bidders are able to buy on the open market, but with the Panel involved and such low-level disclosure thresholds I doubt their buying will be a factor. We saw last week how easily/quickly SL were able to take their stake past the 3%. Disclosure every 1% from then on.

Yes - fascinating situation. Very much all to play for! I am invested, and buckled up for a turbulent flight.

Wolverine - what do you mean by hostile bidding?

moniman - it won't be the management of Flybe that decides its fate in terms of accepting an offer. That decision will be made by the major shareholders - including SL who have built a position in recent days. Whilst you may see the BOD "recommending" an offer, you should understand that they will be doing this essentially with knives held to their throats. You don't need to worry that management will sell you down the river in exchange for feathering their own nests - they can't.

Ba-boom ching...!

[See what my subconscious did there..?]

There's a short explanation here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/why-short-selling-illegal-some-countries-legal-us.asp

If you hold individual equities using one of the major share dealing platforms - HL, Halifax, Fidelity etc - then your shares won’t be being lent out. You can check this for yourself in the relevant T&C document, which will contain details of your platforms stock lending policy.

Shorts don’t impact upon the business operations of a company, only the value of its shares. There are some adverse impacts (eg if shares have been used for employee incentivisation schemes) but none that affect day to day operations directly.

Shorting is valuable for us as investors, even if we don’t participate ourselves. It stops bubbles from forming, it promotes the efficient allocation of capital, it provides liquidity and it helps ensure that valuations adjust quickly to reflect fundamentals and changes in circumstances. The ongoing process of price discovery is inhibited in markets where shorting is forbidden, this acts against investors interests in the long run. Shorting is not the ‘droid you are looking for...

Even if this was an AIM stock, there is no such rule. Pure nonsense!

As per which AIM rule...?

One is real. The other is imaginary - generally an invention of share bulletin board walts...

Thank you. Trashed is a good description. As a newcomer to the story here, I have been shocked by the huge volume of trash posts. It's nice to see something with value.

Wolverine007 - it won't be the BOD who make the decision. The major holders (now including SL) will be the ones saying yes or no. Whilst the BOD may "recommend" an offer, you should understand that they will effectively do this with a knife to their throats...

Well I just peeked at L2 (generally even more of a waste of time than the billys trying their dummy trades...) and can see that taking out the 3.25m at 12.50 will be the key. I don't think that is imminent.

You may have somewhat misunderstood the role of market makers.

As pointed out earlier, the fund with the FLYB position is the SL UK Equity Recovery Fund. It is a daily traded UCITS with a concentrated portfolio in UK stocks, many of which meet the definition of "special situations". It has a volatile track record - consistent with its mandate - and is rated 6 out of 7 for risk by SL themselves. It has lost nearly 15% in the last 6 months. It is anything other than a risk averse fund.

To suggest otherwise here is either a mistake or an attempt to mislead. Posters should draw their own conclusions as to which applies.

To be fair Julian38, the fact that a rule 8 disclosure was filed last week would stop me from dismissing completely the idea that a bid might be coming.

As you wish Scully. But remember, wishes exist only in your mind...

Scully12345 - the evidence suggests that this isn't a risk averse pension fund. Rather a UCITS fund that "...aims to provide long term capital growth by investing in UK equities. The fund is primarily invested in 'recovery' shares listed on the UK stock market..."

https://uk.standardlifeinvestments.com/O_M_UK_Equity_Recovery.pdf

It's actually quite a concentrated fund with a healthy appetite for risk as indicated by it's 18.67% 3-Yr Std Dev.

Agreed. 3000bopd to ANGS will support an sp in excess of £1.

Whichever SL manager has made the decision to invest here will have one fundamental belief - that the company is undervalued by the market. Their calculation is that the probability of this being reversed X the potential value is materially greater than the price today. It doesn't mean they think it's a great company, only that it is an undervalued company...

It looks like SL were holders already - via the SLI UK Equity Recovery Fund - so they are likely adding to an existing holding. If this is the case, then here's the fund manager making the decisions... https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/16251910.andrew-hunt-responsible-saving-and-patient-investing-are-virtues-but-why-have-they-fallen-out-of-fashion/