Informa Share Discussion Threads

[mw8156] 16/11/2008 15:52

times points up value in Reed and Pearson; doesnt mention informa but is in the same sort of business
pity we did not accept the 600 or 450 bids.

[kenmill] 16/11/2008 13:01

25cent
No I didn't. What I said was I thought that the price should be north of the indicative bid in 18 months time. The indicative bid was just something around 620p at that time - 2 years ago. I then said that a bid around £7 would be needed to get shareholder approval and the price should be north of the indicative price (around 620p)within 18 months. As it turns out, I was wrong and the world has changed rather dramatically in the 18 months. I don't feel at all embarrassed at that because nobody else saw this coming at the time either, including you.
I have checked the UBS downgrade and it is from 550p to 500p. They retain their buy rating. Perhaps you should have told the full story rather than trying to imply that UBS were agreeing with you. You were also (otherwise you wouldn't have taken the punt) valuing this at over £4 4 weeks ago. It is very easy to be very clever with the benefit of hindsight.Let's see what happens over the next 18 months. I will still be around to comment on news about INF, I just don't see the point of endlessly talking about short term movements in the share price. We could both end up being right. It may go down to 150p in the short term if the market gets really bad. And it may recover well at the end of my 18 month period. Don't forget that there is another pre-close trading statement next month, their $ earnings have received a 25% boost in the exchange rate and the next 3 months is a massively positive cash flow period as the advance subscription payments come in for 2009. Until then i don't think there is much to say and certainly not in the tone that you like to adopt.
Perhaps, when there is real news, we could have a RATIONAL discussion.

[25cent] 14/11/2008 20:01

LOL rather convenient Ken, just one last question did you not give a £7 prediction for 2008 18 months ago ,would you care to comment on that or is that now erased from your memory?

[kenmill] 14/11/2008 14:25

The UBS downgrade I saw yesterday was down to £5 - is this a new one ? Anyway, as I said, for me, I am not interested in the short term and you are so there is no point in continuing this. Speak to you again in 2010.

[25cent] 14/11/2008 13:13

It was a line in the Telegraph, why should i question rumor and say so from a newspaper ? To me it was worthless and baseless.
The very same newspaper told us the next day across its front page that Regal petroleum was getting taken over by BP at £3 per share, yeh exactly!

The unmoving fact is Ken is that it is actual FACT that shareholders were not consulted about accepting the bid.
If you accept this then you maybe will be at the start of your recovery from delusion.

Meanwhile....
Once it breaks down below the last low of a few weeks back , the slump should be swift to 150p.
This share is ill, UBS downgrade today.
The ftse has recovered 700 points and this has totally ignored the rally just hanging around waiting for the next 12 point ftse fall to drop another 5%.
Ken i note that your reproductions of my previous posts missed quite a few out, you know all the ones about my predictions about this falling ? I wonder why?

£7 is as likely as you admitting your hopelessly out of touch on Inf Ken.

[kenmill] 14/11/2008 12:46

I didn't edit anything - I just reproduced someone else's post (Post 122 from Liquidkid - why don't you check it yourself) I didn't even know at the time where he had got it from - therefore no editing by me at all. The point is you responded to it at the time without challenging the fact that shareholders had been consulted - as you have endlessly challenged it recently.

[25cent] 14/11/2008 11:41

"I have stated that I think it will take 18 months to recover, so any further comment on day by day movement, for me, is irrelevant."
Hold on a minute you said that in 2006? is this rolling 18 months prediction again Ken? i am confused?

Lol that's convenient Ken i suppose that's how in your mind you discount the pain of seeing exactly what i predicted happening in front of you.

Gosh i don't think he liked that post of yours Rugby LOL
meanwhile guess what INF is yet again doing exactly as i predicted.
Great work ken But the worlds not listening to you.
But they seem to be listening to my 150p prediction.

What i find really amazing about you Ken is that you are exactly what you spend your whole time trying to prove i am.
Look at your posts they are full of personal attacks rudeness and lies?
Ken get a grip its just a bulletin board relax Kenny baby you will bust a pile or something ranting like that.

(pity about the grammar) tell us another one Ken!

BTW Ken the actual newspaper story is as follows (we all know that this means its fact don't we)

Peter Rigby, chief executive of Informa, said the offer, which was tabled yesterday morning, was promptly rejected following soundings from larger shareholders. Mr Rigby said: "The business going forward is well positioned to grow and deliver value to shareholders."

I dint see any mention of Standard Life or Fidelity or any other shareholder do you Ken, did er you add that bit by any chance Ken LOL ??????????

Ken i wonder why you felt the need to edit the above newspaper story when you posted it in your dull rant above?
Just why did you add your own bits to that story and then somehow try and pass them off as not only part of a official RNS but also what Peter Rigby said.
You have reached a new low!

[25cent] 13/11/2008 10:32

Hello again snake,against their better judgment they act so spiteful and petty, they wont have anyone have a bad word against their dear baby INF,that's the whole crux of this.
Meanwhile yet again it does exactly as i said it would do, but HUSH ,they never mention that bit do they.

ref post 216, same old pulp over and over again, tell me Ken about this £7 price prediction how soon will it come?
I will tell you about £1.50 huge debts, falling sales, shrinking margins and just how soon now is!

[the_doctor] 13/11/2008 07:37

snake,
You clearly dont actually read the posts then.


snake - 13 Nov'08 - 00:47 - 215 of 216
25cent i think you have found the nut house and the two nutters above are in for life.
I dont think i ever read a bigger load of rubbish from two posters in my whole life

[rugby] 13/11/2008 01:00

Check this gem out 25cent, Kens been at it for years on this thread, read this below,does it remind you of his recent posts on this thread? ;-)
I make that 18month prediction about now?

kenmill - 4 Nov'06 - 15:46 - 32 of 215


I don't think the premium was high enough.With the company firing on all cylinders, the share price should be north of the indicative bid price within 18 months. Institutions in INF are long term holders and I think a price nearer £7 would be necessary to convince them to bail out now.

==================================================
As for ken not claiming to have lost any cash,well well well what have we here then?



kenmill - 18 Mar'08 - 17:24 - 74 of 216


I bought some more yesterday at 289/290. I don't think they would let the academic side go on its own as it leaves the rest too exposed to a downturn. The main attraction of the larger group is its blend of exposure.


Whoops a daisy

[snake] 13/11/2008 00:47

25cent i think you have found the nut house and the two nutters above are in for life.
I dont think i ever read a bigger load of rubbish from two posters in my whole life.

[kenmill] 12/11/2008 18:58

the-doctor
I agree but I think enough is enough and if he wants to continue to rant - let him do it on his own.

[the_doctor] 12/11/2008 17:59

Ken, the chump knows you are right but doesnt have the spine to admit it. Quite sad really!

[25cent] 12/11/2008 14:55

Yes SURE you did ken LOL
Ken yet again i will break it down to the simplest form just for you.
Inf was going up (recovering) 4-10p per day on say 100 point ftse250 market up day when it was falling 20-30p on the same point falls on the way down.
Get it ken? do you understand yet Kenny baby?

[kenmill] 12/11/2008 12:14

25cent
Your post said
"Indeed, although it certainly is not recovering at the rate it fell, well not yet anyhow."
Assuming "it" refers to the INF share price, that implies that you are comparing the recovery rate with the rate it fell because that is EXACTLY what your post says. You do not mention the market at all. The "recovery" has to be from the bottom to the point you made the comment -what else can it be?
Regardless of this, it is still pretty irrelevant per my post 205 so this is the last time I shall post on this subject.

[25cent] 12/11/2008 11:46

Just tell me who earth uses that your technique of measuring a share against that one that i used, you know the the method i used being that every other single normal person/unit trust/pension fund ect ect uses to measure a shares performance?
Doc you obviously hold more grudges than the average INF fat cat board victim, but hey open a short and enjoy the ride down to 150p with everyone else.
You never know it may lift your spiteful spirits.

[snake] 12/11/2008 11:25

LOL 25cent...

[the_doctor] 12/11/2008 10:47

When you made the comment at 245p, it was rising (from the bottom to that point, 245p!) at a faster rate than it had fallen from 245p to the bottom.
It really is very simple!
"bog standard "against the market" comparison?"
Riiiight. Silly of me not to realise that when comparing the rate of a stocks ascent vs descent, the usual thing to do is to instead compare to the market? Perhaps you should then have used the term outperforming/underperforming the market. You may then have been right.



25cent - 12 Nov'08 - 10:42 - 206 of 206
Bubbles in the sky again boys.
When i said that Inf was not going up at the same pace it fell it please someone explain why that means i was using 245p as the basis of my claim and not the bog standard "against the market" comparison?

[25cent] 12/11/2008 10:42

Bubbles in the sky again boys.

When i said that Inf was not going up at the same pace as it fell it please someone explain why that means i was using 245p as the basis of my claim and not the bog standard "against the market" comparison?

If i am right your saying i meant 245p because it was around that price on the day of my comment?
That's just barking mad, who would use that as a comparison of performance?
What unit trust or pension fund/ investment firm uses that measure of performance?
None! they all use exactly what i was referring to, that being the performance against the rest of the market ie the ftse 250 index..

Doc knows this Ken you probably do as well if you even buy shares once a millennium as you claim you do.
That hence is why the Doc's post was spiteful because he then tries to spin my comments to "prove me wrong" probably because he is so enraged by seeing everything i say on INF come true in front of his eyes.

No i will tell you why you made that spiteful comment Doc, it was because you love INF so much you really can not stand someone like me who says it how it is, and what makes it even worse is that i have called it right that must hurt you.

Actually NO i give in your right, i am 100% wrong Ken and doc your so right INF has massively outperformed the market on any basis its shot back up a lot faster than it went down and its fall from 450p to 203p is just academic, its not real.
Is that better? stay deluded at least you will both be happy
Amazing!

[kenmill] 11/11/2008 16:07

25cent
Any put down, if it is true, is good - the old ones are the best!
Your whole argument with the doctor seems a bit pointless. He is factually correct that, if you take the point at which you made your comment and draw a straight line accross the share price graph, the rise was about as steep as the drop from the same time frame before the bottom as afterwards. So what? The drop from 450p occured after the withdrawal of a bid at the same time as the full consequences of the banking fiasco became apparent, combined with hedge funds having to sell to stay afloat. The rise will be much slower as the recession will probably last 12 months and growth will be slow afterwards. So, in a way, you are both right. Again so what?

The source of the comments really was back to your beef about the directors not accepting 450p and others' views that the company is worth more in the long term. You endlessly point out that the share price is less than half the bid price which is a blindingly obvious fact but the real argument is about short term interests versus long term. As I have said before - that is what helps make a market. You would rather have had your money because you had made a short term bet and lost and others are long term holders (such as the institutions who hold nearly 50% and have been net buyers in the last few weeks).

I can't see why this should get you so aggravated as this scenario is played out time and time again all over the market.