Member Info for zoolook

This is my largest holding by a significant margin. My only direct contact is participating in one investor forum. Strategy wise the company has gone off piste as the original modus operandi was to buy into distressed companies turn them around and sell them on for a vast profit within a shortish time frame and they had an excellent track record doing so. They’ve had Shire for a number of years now and grown it and not made any substantive acquisitions because of their conservative approach. Presumably you know about Jonathan Landers premature death? Clearly him and his brother Nick had a great business partnership but Nick’s intentions going forward are far from clear. There are regular statements in the RNS’s about realising shareholder value but how is unknown. Taking Shire private or selling it and winding the business up would seem to be the obvious thing to do. It’s been undervalued for quite sometime so don’t know what’s been driving the share price lately.

Quiet here considering developments. Current price well below sum of parts notably the Lawyer so downside limited. CEO recently ‘retired’ when there isn’t a replacement! - pull the other one. Hard not to conclude that activist investor Harwood is shaking things up behind the scenes to out the value. Not quite a farm bet for me but still a substantial investment.

Couldn’t have put it better myself ;-)

Ceiling is 17.3p. How close will we get to that?

Highly unlikely to reach 20p

“ the Company intends to implement a discount management policy, targeting a share price discount to net asset value ("NAV") per share of no more than 15% in normal market conditions.
The Company's net asset value per Share (the "Net Asset Value per Share") is currently 20.4 pence per Share”

You don’t even need to tender your shares for an even bigger return. Maybe many won’t given how much more concentrated the value per share will be post tender assuming nothing nasty happens with Tamdown.

Disappointingly low tender price announced of 163p per share with a basic entitlement of 5 out of 6 shares.

BTW they’ve said in the share buyback they will
target a share price discount to NAV per share of no more than 15 per cent. Anyone know (or guess!) what NAV figure they will choose to use?

They’ve said it’s to reduce the discount for shareholders seeking an exit, not specifically PI’s - why would they?

Eh? Are you confusing this with another share? They aren’t paying a dividend but are intending to pay back GBP65m through a tender offer subject to a vote. The price per share for the tender hasn’t been disclosed.

If DBAY wanted to extract full value they would wind use their influence on the Board and their vote to get an open offer at a price near P/TNAV of about 20p or force a wind up. I’m frankly confused why it was in their best interest to dump a portion of their holding at about 16p. If they buyback at current prices that will increase the cash per share which is good for shareholders not looking to get out. At some stage value will out here one way or the other. Those chasing a quick buck might be better off gambling elsewhere

They passed the authority to buyback up to 62,544,552 shares. That’s exciting enough for me.

Lau has been hovering up the shares and now has 49.95% of the shares

Hi Patshare

Sorry - I misunderstood your sums. Yes about 20p per share (before running costs) up from last declared 19p in November so 5% improvement in 5 months.

Thanks Patshare,

Not following your workings. If the CTH holding is worth £14.8m at a 750p takeout price and you subtract the 340k fee that’s £14.46m to LDG.

I’m also not sure what you mean by the share price being worse. Surely it’s better if you are a buyer :-) Where else can you buy £1 for 70p?

I think the buying back shares well below the cash-per-share price was a good decision as it was an effective way to increase the cash per share price and it was the LDG Board’s ultimate decision, not DBAYs.
There is a limit to how much the Board can be held accountable for the share price. The market does what the market does and sometimes what it does is irrational leading to mispricing (long May that continue!)
Where I think the Board should be accountable is failing to proactively communicate the new investment case to the market and why investors should be interested above and beyond the asset backing and allay concerns about the relationship with DBay.

I think the more fundamental existential
question posed by the persistent low market price per share vs the price per share value is whether it should be listed at all. The appetite for a vehicle which has an inscrutable majority shareholder which is also making all the investment decisions is very low otherwise the share price would be close to the NAV.

I’m very tempted to go to the AGM

Patshare - where did you get your £23m from? That would mean they paid an average of 16.4p per share - which they haven’t.

Also the Caretech investment of £13.1m is likely to be worth £14.8m (with DBay taking 20% of the £1.7m uplift)

Ryno - which ‘decent company’ are you referring to?

Bizarrely looks like DBay was a big seller from the last RNS. Personally I think it’s positive if they become less dominant but I’m sure it will add fuel to conspiracy theories..

Chesterinvestor - that doesn’t tally with the reality that the SP moved up when the buyback got underway and has now dropped when the buyback finished. PI’s seem all too quick to jump to the conclusion of market manipulation when SP’s don’t move they would wish.