Member Info for Tricky_Dicky

The Trade Desk stock has been a world beater. It's a 15-bagger since going public three years ago, soaring sixfold since the start of last year.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/09/the-beat-is-the-message-at-the-trade-desk.aspx

scroll down down an earnings call transcript with some enlightening information.

It should all be down to their results but it isn't always the case.
The strong balance sheet and growing profits of Taptica has yet resulted in a poor sp.
No matter, as long as the new company does well that is the main thing for for now.
Market sentiment is a strange and fickle business, it seems.

I agree, it is very unlikely that two Institutions have been selling owing to their recent opinions of the company, they re-balance their portfolio's actively and many other factors may be at play.
They won't be receiving secret information about the forthcoming update either - so we can discount that too.
Mithaq may have made a move based on discussions with Tremor or for other reasons but it is all speculation at this stage and may remain that way.
At least we will find out if Tremor are motoring along well in a few short weeks from now.
I still believe there is far more upside than down.

Mithaq Holding Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, now hold 11.57%

safi123 has recently stated the following:
'As much as I’ll take the current rise in SP, it seems to be the result of just one institution buying in, who probably know as much as we do.
Otherwise nothing has changed, the sentiment IMO is still negative on the whole, and there is still risk with regards to true performance which so far has been obfuscated'.

Others have likewise remarked that the sp has risen as a result of Mithaq buying and so, stt1, your suggestion that 'all there is are posters claiming there is a change in sentiment or some sort of revaluation...' is a deliberate fabrication which you then choose to rail against.

GDPR does not affect Tremor greatly anyway and the skeletons in the cupboard, being R1's integration and past performance / accounts, as well as "industry wide headwinds across the supply chain" have already been discussed.

Please try to be honest, truthful and factual in future and stop spinning tales of doom and gloom.

Both R1 and Taptica have had to ride on huge rafts of negative sentiment in the past.
Skeletons popping out of the cupboard have been created by shady (paid) operators, deliberately and specifically to create damage. Thuswise was reputational damage engineered. Gangs of negative posters are not unknown.
Ad Tech Markets change rapidly and often today's latest trend is superceded.

For every purchase there must be a sale or the sp rises. Mithaq must have been recently buying more than the markets could supply from L.Odier selling (for example) and so the sp rose.
The effect of the recent company buybacks, however, were probably 'obfuscated' by Uber's litigation and the old CEO offloading.
But, longer term it's not just about litigation, supply and demand or shorting is it!
A very positive announcement can make the sp rocket , good results or new contracts, for example, all boost the shares. A takeover by / partnership with a multi-national at a huge advantage is another.
Anything to do with solid bottom-line profits is the best, generally speaking, and Taptica/Tremor has a good record of growth in that regard.
The only fly-in-the-ointment that can possibly be causing negative sentiment right now must surely be R1 and whether the purchase by Taptica was a terrible mistake.
I don't really see that there is more downside than upside so what's the story, morning glory - the ghost of the old CEO Hagai Tal who handed in his notice early December last year?

Thanks 1GW_
That makes more sense.

On that share register Tremor state the following:
'The total number of shares not in public hands is 45,689,602 representing 37.7%* of the total issued share capital.'
But from the latest RNS, 121,189,228 ordinary shares exist, along with 22,616,078 shares reclassified as dormant.
Looking at the number held by Institutions the sums seem wrong.
Also I am not clear what Institutional investors held shares prior to the acquisition of R1?
Surely Tosca held the lion's share all along.

Shariah-compliant means nothing unethical and nothing that involves interest on money, as in money-lending.
Historically Jews were often used and abused in Britain as they lent money to cash-strapped royalty for wars and were often kicked out when their balance was due or because they were generally disliked for profiting thus.
Catholic doctrine of the time held that lending money for interest was a sin, and forbidden to Christians. Not being subject to this, when money was needed (as above) the Jews came in handy...
Apologies for the potted history.

stt1 has an intractable ad-tech messiah complex.

Would 'they' mind awfully not doing that (selling) once Tosca/Tremor have hit their limits.
I suppose they know what they are playing at!

So he's lost twice, first his shares will have lost value, and second—because RSUs are taxed as soon as they vest he'll have had to pay taxes on their higher, original value.
I don't see how that is at odds with the interests of shareholders - they haven't suffered while he profits.
Compared to the amounts being bought under the buyback Druker's sell is a drop in the ocean.

According to the latest RNS:
"359,881 RSUs belonging to Ofer Druker, CEO of the Company, have vested and accordingly, 119,144 Ordinary Shares were sold on 02 July 2019 as part of an automatic process to cover the immediate tax obligation under US tax law that Mr Druker has incurred upon the RSUs vesting. "

Because the sp has since fallen, Mr. Druker is less well off than if the sp had subsequently risen, since the date and tax obligations of the vesting.

As far as I am aware Ofer Druker was handed a rather large package of RSU's on accepting the post of CEO. These stock options can carry a heavy tax burden as follows:
RSUs are subject to NI and income tax at the marginal rate on their value at the time they vest.
You can either choose to pay the tax yourself and receive all the shares, but most people will opt to have shares deducted to pay for these taxes. So if you are a higher-rate tax payer you will be due to pay 42% tax and NI which would mean, for example, if you sell instead of paying these taxes, 100 shares would be netted down to 58 shares, which are then yours to keep or sell as you like at the dictate of the terms and conditions set out.
If the shares are now 40% less than the time at which they were vested then it makes some sense to sell, rather than to pay the tax due on stock options when the stock was priced much higher.
I am not sure at what date and on what sp the tax was levied but it seems a shame to blame Druker for following common-sense on what is basically his choice alone.
What FundPanda seems to be saying is that Druker should meet his tax obligations set when the sp was rather higher instead of using the current 40% lower value of the shares being sold to fund his tax obligations.
Read the tea-leaves as you wish - I know what I would do.

119,144 Ordinary Shares were sold on 02 July 2019 as part of an automatic process to cover the immediate tax obligation under US tax law that Mr Druker has incurred upon the RSU' s vesting.

How is that to be construed as a bad sign?

"tricky - so in your opinion it would be disruptive to buy back more than 15% of the company's shares in a financial year?
How does that square with the buybacks buying more than 25% of the daily volume? Surely that has more potential to disrupt the market?"

I take your point but It has nothing to do with my opinion and I have not expressed one - I have only indicated there may be some general guidelines set out for buybacks, on various levels.
Which has more potential to disrupt the market is an interesting comment but it seems something of a minefield for regulation bodies (if applicable) to comment upon and what powers do they have anyway?

Replying to 1GW_

Buybacks are regulated to prevent a disorderly market for obvious reasons:

Insider knowledge, distortion of the sp, etcetera, It is therefore important that buybacks are conducted in a manner conducive to the orderliness of the market and in a way that minimizes the possibility of the market being misled or the share price distorted

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/IOSCOPD161-1.pdf

However, in a share buyback scenario, a general mandate given by shareholders to the company is normally for up to 15% of the issued share capital.
Perhaps that requirement bears some weight until the next AGM seeks further approval from shareholders.
If more shares are sought via a tender offer to shareholders, for a number of reasons, then matters become more convoluted.
I don't think that companies outside the Main Market can just behave in a disorderly manner.

I see no point in a 'moving target' idea, such that further share buybacks would not take into account the 15% rule - how would that make any sense?

"More regulation for Ad Tech Industry as GDPR & other Industry Challenges continue to bite.."

Bring it on, more opportunities for Tremor!