Batm Advanced Communicat... Share Discussion Threads

[shareholder7] 21/6/2022 19:31

Looks to me that they have lost interest as I would go Bizzerk if my web site was like this and viruses in LinkedIn plus no updates Think we will get a sale soon

[fse] 21/6/2022 19:10

carpet. Its not an odd request seeing as Shore are BATM company brokers and advisors they are not any old broker. Shore also issue updates on BATM.
All Shore needed to do was to pass it on to the appropriate contact.
I fail to see how thats so hard.

I have more e mails to Shore on various topics. One particularly bad one was when they issued a brokers update on BATM which used part of the wrong years figures. It caused quite a bit of consternation at the time. I contacted them and they would not even agree to review it.

[car1pet] 21/6/2022 18:40

Shareholder7 I also got a warning when trying to access BATM.COM. I thought the same as you that contacting the broker with a sales enquiry was an odd thing to do. I'm not surprised there was no reply.

[shareholder7] 21/6/2022 18:03

I have come to the conclusion that BATM lacks sales and marketing.1. Their web site comes up with a warning that it could be impersonating another site and you should not visit www.Batm.com2. LinkIn links have viruses3. Zvi has 63 connections in LinkIn I was trying to find a sales person to direct the Canadian enquiry that was sent to shore capital Oh dear ! What have I invested in

[fse] 21/6/2022 16:33

Sent to Shore Capital March 7th 2021
Re, BATM. Canada Govt

As you are BATM brokers I am approaching you with respect to contact information for BATM Medical,
We are aware of the various departments so were unsure where to direct our inquiries.
We have tried the contact information on the website but have not received a reply as its probably gone into a basket of general inquiries.

I am contacting you from Canada, we have been chatting with two MP’s here with respect to the government taking a more encompassing role in dealing with infectious diseases.
As you may have read Canada made a slow start to the vaccination program and has inadequate testing facilities and equipment.

We need to put the government in touch with the correct representation from BATM. English speaking.
Our inquiries are from Agricultural sterilizers to Testing kits.

If you can point us in the right direction that would be appreciated.

FSE comment>. This was completely ignored by Shore Capital. It was particularly embarrassing as we had the ear of the Canadian Procurement MP.

[shareholder7] 21/6/2022 12:20

Thanks and agree. But something very strange is going on. From announcing on a regular basis on the deals they have signed to nothing, is not normal. We might all look back on this time and wish we would have bought, which I have been doing. If you can hold for the long term and there are no banana skins to come this must be one of the best investments out the We shall see !

[car1pet] 21/6/2022 12:20

My guess is that Marom will buy out the pharma division which is what he seems to be personally interested in and sell the small telco division.He would not want to buyback any shares as the cash will stay on the balance sheet and be part of his buyout. So the timing delay could be the time to find a buyer for the telco division and negotiations with LO and the other major shareholders to agree a buyout price

[echoridge] 21/6/2022 11:15

No one is arguing that the buyback is over, shareholder; It's hardly even started obviously. The discussion right now is just over whether the Company has any obligation to explain why. As to cancel/stay in treasury, I'm not sure that's any guide. The Company has not made any declaration as to their intentions on that front. If I had to guess however, I think they'll keep them in treasury for a reasonable period and probably won't cancel them in the end.

[shareholder7] 21/6/2022 11:00

Normally after a buy back has finished the shares are moved from treasury to being cancelledDon't think they have done this yet so it's not over. there must be another reason maybe a sale of one of the divisions but price is probably falling as the stock market is now way down

[kooba] 21/6/2022 10:35

The thing is ultimately the wording of the buy back permission leaves it down to the discretion of the board so ultimately they don't have to use it , so they are not breaching anything approved by their shareholders legally.However they said it was part of strategy and value enhancing and went to the trouble and expense of calling a general meeting that many shareholders representing 276m shares ( out of 440m) overwhelmingly voted in favour.To not exercise that authority by choice would be very odd , so that does leave the question of why.But from a regulatory point of view unless you think that the company has misled in its intentions that has ultimately had an impact on the price I'm not sure there is anywhere to go with it.I suppose one could write to the brokers Shore and say that the company has mislead and needs urgent clarification but from what FSE says that would be a waste of time too.

[echoridge] 21/6/2022 10:32

Interesting theory carpet, but I think it's the simpler explanation that they simply don't feel they have such an 'obligation' as per a strict reading of the RNSs and/or any rules that might cover this kind of situation. I reckon any legal advice they've taken on this has come back that the wording of the RNSs on the buyback was sufficiently vague that it did not create the obligation to begin the buyback immediately after it got approved, so they have nothing to really clarify. On top of that however, if a significant enough transaction/deal has indeed been in the works in the background from around the same time, that would have created prohibitions on most public communications full stop. That then would further strengthen some corporate counsel's position not to try and put out an RNS that attempts to thread that needle but then risks creating a problem with the regulator. Like most here, I disagree with much of that reasoning, but I can see where it might make sense to the Company.

[car1pet] 21/6/2022 09:26

Maybe their lawyers told them they had to initiate the buyback as it was mandated at the AGM so they did one trade on 1st April so they can't be accused of reneging on a commitment. I would have thought that as a plc they are obliged to inform shareholders of corporate activity. Is there a regulator we can contact who gas the power to obtain a statement? Has anyone got any contacts at lombard odier? They must know what is going on.

[kooba] 21/6/2022 08:59

No reply to email.
I was not expecting anything not in the public domain..but when you serve at the gift of shareholders you might expect a response even a standard.
“Thank you for contacting us , we are aware of our obligations to keep our shareholders informed and will clarify the position around the share buyback when we are able to do so.”

Some sort of fluff like that..at least it is respectful if a shareholder asks a very valid and reasonable question.
Not sure if augurs well for the company’s consideration of the owners of the business!

Must gather others have received no reply ( i emailed FD) from company or its brokers.

[car1pet] 21/6/2022 08:53

The only buyback purchase was 200,000 shares bought for 52p on 1st April. Was that an April fool!!

[oakville] 21/6/2022 08:26

Added a few more this morning...

[jackson83] 20/6/2022 15:18

I will top up at 30p or wait for 25p ... the trend is down but not out

[james dean] 20/6/2022 14:04

After adding last week it would be pleasing to see some upward movement.

[oakville] 20/6/2022 13:50

Simply Wall St

19 June 2022, 8:02 am·4-min read


Every investor in BATM Advanced Communications Ltd. (LON:BVC) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. Insiders often own a large chunk of younger, smaller, companies while huge companies tend to have institutions as shareholders. I quite like to see at least a little bit of insider ownership. As Charlie Munger said 'Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.

BATM Advanced Communications is not a large company by global standards. It has a market capitalization of UK£149m, which means it wouldn't have the attention of many institutional investors. Our analysis of the ownership of the company, below, shows that institutions are noticeable on the share registry. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner, to discover more about BATM Advanced Communications.


What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About BATM Advanced Communications?

Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index.

We can see that BATM Advanced Communications does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see BATM Advanced Communications' historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story.

BATM Advanced Communications is not owned by hedge funds. Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited is currently the company's largest shareholder with 27% of shares outstanding. With 22% and 4.2% of the shares outstanding respectively, Zvi Marom and Herald Investment Management Limited are the second and third largest shareholders.

[pockstones] 19/6/2022 18:31

Dan Goes through the behaviour characteristics of a fraud and there are a lot of parallels

[echoridge] 19/6/2022 15:02

Nice price action on TASE today. LSE close on Thursday would have indicated a 3/4% fall today in tel aviv, but instead it seems to be settling up 1.25% on decent volume. A pleasant surprise

[echoridge] 18/6/2022 22:26

Still, a tender is a heck of lot more likely than a management buyout

[echoridge] 18/6/2022 15:42

There's unlikely to be a tender, not because of anything to do with a judgement on advantageous prices or anything like that, but mainly because managements don't generally like them as they prefer to keep the flexibility of going in and out of the market when they so choose and/or to be able to have the option to stop and conserve cash if necessary, which I reckon very much applies to BVC. The reason I put it out there at all is because if you are ever going to consider it, it's exactly in a situation like this one where a buyback has been approved but not begun and during the interregnum, the price falls materially, in our case from around 50p to the current 33.75p. As a result, the Company - assuming insiders and the dominant shareholder are persuaded to declare they won't participate, as happens sometimes with this type of tender - could price the tender at a small premium to that original 50p, and provide an attractive, partial exit for smaller, weaker holders and hopefully jolt the share price to a new range going forward. As far as any notion of paying 'disadvantageous prices', management can easily justify the 50p price since they have no idea the average price they will have to pay over an entire year (or more) if they go in the 'normal' way and buy say 25% of a day's volume at 105% of VWAP. Completely defendable but I certainly don't think it's likely for the reasons I mentioned, though management would be well advised to consider it.

[kooba] 18/6/2022 15:01

Was going to buy the book looks like quite a thriller ...and all true!

[kooba] 18/6/2022 15:00

Yes I agree ..the company thought it value enhancing back in Feb when they called the GM the stock was over 50p then and they then made a purchase at 52p ..i doubt they are just holding off to get the price down to get them cheaper..that would be gaming their own shareholders to an extent.Most company's just crack on with a program within levels and subject to volume so trying to get them cheaper is not really a thing...imagine if they got approval held off to get them cheaper and the price rallied and they had done nothing despite shareholder approval? Wouldn't look that clever having convinced shareholders of the merit.Your point on getting the shares at the most advantageous price though is fair , which is why a premium tender where many for some reason don't take part makes no sense.