Chesnara Share Discussion Threads

[jonwig] 17/12/2016 15:07

pvb - I seem to have got about the same percent as yourself (with TDD). Mind, I applied for loads more than that, and the money committed seems to have been frozen in a suspense account. Could be after Christmas it's released.

Looks as though each broker has its own processes.

[blueliner] 17/12/2016 14:09

I think you had to be brave and use your entitlement to the full.

My actual awarded excess new shares amounts to 1.1% of my end Nov holding, but I only applied, due to weightings and ISA headroom, for 11% of the said holding. Meaning I received just 10% of the excess I asked for.
'Don't ask don't get'

or it wasn't my brokers Christmas party.

[daveofdevon] 17/12/2016 02:49

If the actual excess that was awarded was 3.8% and my excess awarded was 55% then something strange has been going on. Either it was Christmas party day at my brokers or they have done something rather clever.

Maybe they tried to grab extra shares for clients by applying for excess shares on behalf of clients who did not make use of their entitlement and then, having secured an extra tranche of shares, doled these out to clients who wanted more. I can't believe they did that so I wait to see if my allocation is going to be adjusted.

[pvb] 16/12/2016 23:41

My excess was 5.45% of original holding, in a nominee account.

[shaunproberts] 16/12/2016 16:25

OK, here's an idea. Suppose the issuing brokers gave each Share Dealing broker their 3.39%, and within the pool of their shareholders, they each scaled back applications to dish out the shares not applied for by their clients? Then the allocations would depend on what broker you're with, and explain the different allocations. However, I'd expect some similarity, in this case, between two applicants using the same share dealer, and no two figures seem the same here!

By the way, count yourself lucky if you've heard what your allocation is ... I'm with Alliance Trust Savings, and haven't heard a thing as yet ...

[sogoesit] 16/12/2016 15:34

Seems to be all over the place; I got 7% of my excess subscription.
Doesn't appear to tally with others here.

[al101uk] 16/12/2016 15:23

3.8% of my elected received... not a happy bunny!

17.4% of my total requested allocation, which is still less than some got in just elected :-(

I'm with TD Direct.

[velod] 16/12/2016 14:52

Turns out I didn't receive 80 odd % of my allocation but 13.3% - Had elected to apply for 1,000 shares (even though I was eligible to apply for far higher) but received only 133.

. . . Broker explains that the bulk of the cash set aside for the potential sale will be returned to me in "about a week". Sounds like that applies to all of you.

. . . So, a bit of a help with averaging in the task ahead to rebuild my holding in CSN but am uber ultra confident of returning to the shareholder list with a hugely reduced buying-in price than my original holding held, that was sold in parts completing in full sale by last week. Patience will be the prime part of the plan, in carrying it out.

[lizafl] 16/12/2016 13:54

I received 22.222222% of the excess shares that I applied for. This is with iWeb. Much less than I hoped for.

[alter ego] 16/12/2016 12:48

looks like I got 15% of the total I applied for.

[daveofdevon] 16/12/2016 12:46

In the last hour from H-L

Entitled 110
Applied for 400 in total
Got 260 in total

So 160 out of 290 excess applied for means I got 100% of my entitlement and 55% of the excess

[velod] 16/12/2016 12:32

Not sure what's going on in my account but it's showing like I've received well over 80% of my allocation request.Total value in my portfolio is not reflecting that though, so couple of jobs to do and then phoning broker.

[sogoesit] 16/12/2016 09:05

My (full) allocation of excess subscription has now been reversed... and previous debited funds now re-credited.
Oh well, have to wait and see I guess.

[velod] 15/12/2016 20:41

Checked my broker's acc and still reading NA against Csn. My cash us still absent though. Thought today was the day to learn if additional shares application was succesful or not? Will phone broker tomorrow for info. Bet they say - oh they've stuck a yellow post-it note on your application.

. . . It says: "We've read your derogatory post on the internet and decided not to sell you, any at all - so there!"

[jonwig] 15/12/2016 14:40

JoA - yes, thanks.

This would be about 2.5% cost I imagine. (No, not 10%, that's for the wild west of AIM). They haven't said how much, I think, but the next accounts might give a clue.

VCT launches have an initial charge of up to 2.5%, and new investment trusts 1.5% - 2%. These are fairly cheap as there are no existing assets. The last IPO of an existing company I took part in was JLG. I'll try to find the charges percentage.

[joan of arc] 15/12/2016 13:39

Valid points, Jonwig. I think you can understand my point that as this falls into the 10% cost category it could probably have been done cheaper as an RI but with more work and time needed. Let's move on.

[alter ego] 15/12/2016 13:27

jonwig, good post. At the risk of appearing to take sides, I think it's up to anyone who still thinks you're wrong to provide some facts rather than the assumptions we've been given so far.

[jonwig] 15/12/2016 12:38

JoA - thanks for your response. I expect my views to be challenged - you only invest successfully if you avoid mistakes, so I'm happy to have mine pointed out.
The only factually incorrect thing you say is that I support CSN management. I'll leave that to the end.

I have two brokers, one advisory, and I've discussed the way things work with him, though not CSN.

The admin costs for rights offers are very high, with a fixed cost element. 3% is typical, and for a small AIM rescue issue I've seen figures around 10%. (Can't cite, sorry.) Think prospectus, underwriting, admin of take-up, sale of surplus and payment back. A non-pre-emptive placing is cheapest: fund managers expect a phone call and know in advance how many shares they are willing to take. The top three own 26m shares between them, and I expect the next ten down would cover it. A private investor with 100,000 might get a call if his name was on the register. It's all sorted by lunchtime.

Why that particular structure of the fundraising? As I said, they wanted to raise more than the rules permit, hence the open offer (cheaper than a rights issue).
Why not raise more debt? I think that's simple - an insurance company has minimum capital requirements and the higher the gearing, the greater the requirement as a proportion of equity. hence the riskier the shares, and the CSN boss said he wanted CSN to be the safest company in a portfolio. I'm sure the company actuary and the FD looked very closely at the balance of funding here.
Why not less debt, and more shares? Well, as I said, the share price was pretty droopy at the time of the issue. They were probably warned against it.

So we can agree to differ on the structure of the issue. What I don't accept is that I'm a supporter of management. I'm simply being realistic about the way the City works and the underlying rules. For what it's worth, I think city fees are far too high, but I don't think that will change in my lifetime. The government are desperate to retain City jobs (think of all the tax) and won't dream of acting, though Corbyn might!
If every IPO and fundraising were made to the whole public or shareholder base, charges would be higher, and these frictional costs would be reflected in higher charges for all of us.

[essentialinvestor] 15/12/2016 12:19

The Maid of Orleans even- Catholic upbringing.

[essentialinvestor] 15/12/2016 10:15

Hopefully a bit of indigestion giving an opportunity to add.

[velod] 15/12/2016 10:14

Reading your post Sogoesit, I hurried over with high expectations to my broker's site expecting similar for my excess subscription but everything's got NA next to it. The money's showing as moved from my cash account but everything is nilled out next to the CSN entry

. . . Humpff!

[joan of arc] 15/12/2016 10:10

Jonwig, nice of you to support CSN management . However by doing a fixed placement for 18.6m shares instead of a rights issue they have given over £6m away. I do not believe the admin cost of a RI would have come anywhere near that. I maintain they have short changed share holders for the easy life. As I said in my post a rights issue would still easily have got the whole float away.

You assume that it goes to pension funds, etc. How do you know and who says they aren't happy to take a profit.

I stand by what I say.

[sogoesit] 15/12/2016 09:42

Received my excess subscription in full; in books today value date 13/12 (albeit I am a very small player).
Maybe there's a threshold below which existing shareholders receive full allocation?
Regards,