Member Info for Stupmy

Obviously, there are discussions ongoing between representatives of Sidara and WG. But, at a guess, with 95% of shares held by institutions, there are likely discussions ongoing between Sidara's representatives and at least some of those institutional SH's. The way I understand it, the takeover needs SH support. So at least some of those institutional SH's would seem likely to be party to discussions and therefore unlikely to be in a position to be buyging/selling on the open market. That could be another reason for there being not a lot of movement in the SP at this juncture. Some of the II's are likely part of the process that will fix the price for any t/o should it come to that.

Again, from interactions with a few posters on this board, I'd suggest we have a few here that are capable of shedding some real light on this area to avoid there being too much speculation.

I'm not sure I've been clear enough. But is it possible that the dominant shareholders are largely in control of the SP and they don't have a great deal of interest in buying more (risk) or selling (cyrstalising losses in many cases) until they have more clarity on current discussions between management and Sidara. Is that why the SP is currently static between 38-40p?

The large drops were probably big holders (II's included) derisking, we've had a PI frenzy of bargain hunting and now there is little further demand and only 3-5% of the shares might be in the hands of PIs and maybe many of them also want to wait and see what comes of the current discussions. If that were true, then maybe we don't need to invoke 'manipulation' by MMs etc.

I'd genuinely love to hear from people with specific knowledge/experience to understand better?

With an estimated 95-97% of shares held by institutions and 3-5% by PI's, how does that market structure impact SP movements? PI's tend to be over exceiteable on the sell side and buy side. That often leads to exagerated SP movements. How much impact can PI reactivity (not sure if that's a great word) have on the SP with only 3-5% being in PI hands. You'd imagine a lot of the institutional holdings are underwater (just like many PI holdings). Personally I'd imagine that the II's would be pragmatic, but would want to part with their shares only at a profit or a substantially reduced loss. What I'm getting at is that I think they would have some sway in the price that a suitor would have to offer here, which would support the view of many here that any offer price would likely be well north of 38/39p.

Does anyone actually have experience/knowledge of this kind of situation? That might be a lot more valuable my speculation.

CS, volume has dried up. 1st 2 15 min periods had reasonable, but not exceptional volume, since then the volume has trended down. Why do you think it's manipulated? Is it not just consolidating. Chart pattern could easily be a bull flag/pennant. Typically the price leaves these triangle patterns the opposite that it enters it, hence likely bullish in this case?

I just checked that SYN, AI search (probably out of date) shows 96.36% of shares are held by institutional investors, with only 0.02% held by individuals. That 2nd figure is not correct!

Boyo, what do think about the volume this week? Seems unusually high and favouring rising prices (15m clearer than 2h)?

In fact, it's still bouncing about and lumpy now. I thought it would be continuously liquid today, but the SP is stuttering a bit. I find it very hard to imagine that it won't continue to the upside for a while yet though.

I don't think it was you then AIM, pretty sure the instant pull back and buy up was above 40. Seemed odd in the current market.

AIM, I saw the price fall back and then get bought up, did you close a large position? Big enough to change the market?

Looks v positive. Logic might suggest a positive read-across to EZJ and I thought that this sentence in particular plays to the Xhita's view on the strengths of EZJ holiday proposition.

"On the Beach's enhanced strategy, coupled with its asset light, low fixed cost operating model with no committed inventory to fill, naturally mitigates the wider inflationary macro pressures experienced across the broader sector, while allowing for competitive pricing to capture share in a growing market."

Obviously correct me if I've misinterpreted something Xhita. Of course, logic often isn't obvious when it comes to SP's or at least it's often not easy to understand the logic behind SP movements. Let's see how this unfolds!

Another wave of new 'posters' to be filtered. ffs.

It's not strange ColdS, I think this has been a very stressful situation for many bargain hunters (not to mention those who've endured more). Many who were trapped (leveraged/overexposed) by greed when the believed the bottom was in, are deleveraging now, that's my guess at least. But if this story holds water and who am I to argue with the FT, as you say there's further to go with this rise.

We were discussing how useful a fund raise would be to WG now, bearing in mind that the company has been in decline (simply judging by the SP) since 2017. Obviously my own concern is dilution as a SH, with the risk (that you underlined) of the SP falling below the RI price. PC thought that a fundraise might very well be useful if the WG was close to the bottom of it's business cycle.

Wow, what caused the rise in the SP?

Sorry SG, for clarity, are you talking about the timelines there for a potential RI/placement? Would it be different (substantially) for RI or placement.

Thanks for that response SG. I'm aware that the SP often falls below the RI price. That fascinates me as PI's who are not eligible for the RI often moan they don't have access to the 'cheap' shares, then don't buy when the SP falls below the rights price as they now believe that there must be a fundamental problem with the company that wasn't addressed by the RI. Funny world. Placings are an even clearer example.

"Until the business turns fundamentally and starts to generate a sustainable cash flow, I don't think rights issue itself solves a lot to warrant substantial recovery of share price." This talks to a previous question I asked and it's the way I was thinking. PC thought it might be useful at this point in the business cycle. I have no expertise in business cycles, but I tend to agree with what PC is saying there. What do you think. Sounds like you have much more experience?

Timing's important here. From my understanding a RI could actually happen 10-30 days after a company announced it. Looks like RR took 28 days from announcement to opening up the offer to existing SH's. That was a 2 billion pound RI, so substantially more than we're currently discussing here. Part of the reason for the raise was to give the company time to reach positive fcf, but there were also other probably more significant reasons (COVID related collapse in travel demand). I don't know how long it takes to organise before announcing it, but WG didn't spot they had a problem on thursday the 13th and start working on a solution on monday the 17th. Or at least if they did, the management team is even worse than I currently think. They could have been working on this as a possibility for quite some time.

Do they have to pass such a fund raise by the SH's to get agreement?

PJ, I had a problem on HBR board with many posts removed despite having nothing offensive in them. I mailed II to get an answer as to why. I got no answer. Others said they'd had a similar experience. Maybe slightly different to your issue as you say your posts are not even being published.

Please explain your set up and why you are confident about this rise that you are expecting?

I don't understand this bit SG

"Also, if the company will do a rights issue, shares will depress further at that time, and makes more sense to wait for a better opportunity."

As theoretically, if there is a RI then the numbe of shares increases, SP decreases but MCap stays the same. Although often the SP falls below the TERP. Am I missing something there?

Fog, something seems to be happening. I noticed it first on friday, but we've another little pop in volume today. Fingers crossed we'll rise a bit.

In jenashon's video Gilmartin is very proud to say that they're taking on staff at quite a rate 800 to 1400 in one example, but he also said it's the same across much of the company. I'd say that comes with increasing costs at a time when FCF is negative and debt is coming up for renewal. So, if you view it positively, then at a time that the company is turning a corner (business cycle perhaps as suggested by PC), they are taking on staff (consistent with business cycle argument and with a longer term positive outcome). But that seems to be coming at a time where they have a cash crunch at this turning point (if that''s what it is). That still suggests they need cash quite quickly to me.