Berkeley Share Discussion Threads

[2350220] 19/4/2017 09:59

Wow, what a lovely few days.
I was a bit nervous a week or so ago, but this has lifted my Spread Betting account into a decent profit.
Looking to hold for a while yet methinks.
John

[jrphoenixw2] 11/4/2017 08:57

Hmmm. Yesterday the share closed at +41p +1.32% [*]
Considering there was no relevant news behind that, or none that I saw, I thought that was probably induced by buy-backs. Though with Monday's open at 3104 any such buy-backs would be right around the top of the previous px range seen.
Previous buy-backs have been announced the following working-day morning between 7-7.05am and I can see why the company want their actions broadcast ASAP. But this morning no such news [yet?]. On the face of it yesterdays rise was market rather than buy-back induced... I wish I'd have checked the 'Daily vol/Avg' now...

ps. the BKG site shows vol yesterday as 441k. Yahoo shows average vol [30-day] as 708k. So, rise due to buying into a thin market... perhaps



* depending on your data source and 'after-market' trading etc

[jrphoenixw2] 07/4/2017 17:43

...and below:
'Date of transaction: 6 April 2017
Number of Shares purchased: 39,458
Highest price paid per Share: 3100p
Lowest price paid per Share: 3082p
Volume weighted average price paid per Share: 3097.1762p '
---------------------------------------------------------------
But on thin total traded volume of 423k. So again it seems they're attempting to nudge direction, or limit falls, but not straying about buy-backs of more than say 10% of daily volume...

[r ball] 07/4/2017 07:08

Now buying at £31

[fenners66] 06/4/2017 15:26

Phoenix - very balanced reply thanks.
Its good to have a sensible reasoned debate.
Something a lot of the posters on Advfn could learn from.

[raffles the gentleman thug] 06/4/2017 15:18

But gotta say I totally understand your frustrations Phoenix, the way the news came out of the blue

[raffles the gentleman thug] 06/4/2017 15:14

Thx phoenix ... I personally don't see the recommencement of buybacks being about repairing any damage myself.Think shares are just too cheap relative to deliverable earnings and the company's long term future and Pidgley is 100% committed to continuing to make this business a big success. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't buy more shares again today as think they are better off only buying on down days and continuing to manage volatility of the shares

[jrphoenixw2] 06/4/2017 15:02

Fenner: So he is NOT allowed to take advantage of the share price like you or I ?

Me: No that’s not what I mean, rather it’s that such sales are usually handled less bluntly IME, so they have less of an impact on other share-holders. But I do appreciate he is in an invidious position, being owner of a huge holding, and at his age, vs a stock that has the relative illiquidity of a FTSE-250 company.

Fenner: Perhaps you could enshrine it in his contract of employment - as long as you work for us you are only ever allowed to buy.

Me: Again, not what I mean. Perhaps my experience has been different. Where I worked [and in general in the financial industry] if a director sold such a slab it usually came together with a statement. Those often would explain that the sale was for diversification [re-investment elsewhere], philanthropy, or to release funds for the exercise of options, and so on. The explanations were never surprises, but the market observed closely and such statements signalled that the director was alert to the sensitivity of the matter. From that experience [and maybe expectation?] you can see why his sale raised my eyebrows; not least as the ‘damage’ caused will be repaired at our collective expense. It would be interesting to see a plot of the timing of his sales vs buy-backs this week.

1gw: I can understand shareholder displeasure at the very high level of his total remuneration because of the LTIP payouts

Me: Not from my side. As long as staff remuneration is correlated closely to company and personal targets, I have no problem with high pay. It’s more re: how the other share-holders got dumped on as a result, and further that the ‘damage is being repaired’ at the expense of our div. Anyway... the matter seems to have divided opinion into two pretty clear camps, and that fact alone shows that there IS a problem. Perhaps just one of perception. But I do hope the next shareholder meeting doesn’t bring questions about any perceived conflict of interest in overseeing buy-backs whilst off-loading large slabs of stock. I’d be surprised if the institutional Notifiable longs aren’t wondering what is going on.

RTGT: [they] ceased buying before the results at around 2980. Moreover they haven't yet continued with the programme at these higher levels.

Me: You presumably hadn’t seen the RNS at the time you wrote that...
Date of transaction: 5 April 2017
Number of Shares purchased: 150,000
Highest price paid per Share: 3095p
Lowest price paid per Share: 3062p
Volume weighted average price paid per Share: 3080.1710p

RTGT: And how exactly is reducing the share count in any way detrimental to the interests of any single shareholder. On the contrary it's a net positive.
Think it's important to realise Pidgley is 69 and has the vast bulk of his fortune tied up in this company, and net of this sale still has a huge interest in the business.
Personally for me I see it as a fantastic opportunity to profit from this nonsensical volatility and buy more

Me: I don’t have a problem with buy-backs, IDR now precisely but with my views, I’d have voted for board remuneration as it is and the buy-back scheme.
I take your point on age though, he’s earned it so should be enjoying it. But RNS’s don’t reveal the directors age, and until you mentioned his I hadn’t considered it, so again the risk is it’s an issue of market knowledge/perception.
I can also see that there are two camps in this regard, yours that see it as a buying opportunity, vs those like me who have no wish/need to buy more but see the impact vs their capital and div-stream.

Fenner: It might as well be up yours to the men who make the money...

Me: Again that’s not my view. But we’ll see what if any questions it might raise at the next shareholder meeting.

@RTGT-re2857: It’s good to see the share-count reduce further, but as mentioned^ it’d be interesting to know whether this buy-back in part ‘repaired the damage’ from his same-day sale. It's that lack of clarity thing again...

[All IMHO/2C etc., it's being interesting to read the spectrum of views on this!]

[raffles the gentleman thug] 06/4/2017 07:09

There you go Phoenix ... BKG back with the share repurchases which naturally would have been on hold given the planned Pidgley share sale.

150,000 share bought back paying up to a "materially undervalued" 3095p, bringing share count down to 137.7m. I'm quite happy about that

[fenners66] 06/4/2017 00:32

It might as well be up yours to the men who make the money , let the parasites make money selling shares instead!

So if he wants to buy a yacht is he supposed to borrow the money?

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/4/2017 23:25

Think your comments are wrong Phoenix (with all respect) - the suggestion that the company inflated the stock price with buybacks at the expense of the whole register of shareholders is simply not true - the company did not aggressively buy or inflate the share price with its buybacks - they never bought more than 15% to 20% of the daily volume, barely buying back 1m or so shares and ceased buying before the results at around 2980. Moreover they haven't yet continued with the programme at these higher levels.And how exactly is reducing the share count in any way detrimental to the interests of any single shareholder. On the contrary it's a net positive.Think it's important to realise Pidgley is 69 and has the vast bulk of his fortune tied up in this company, and net of this sale still has a huge interest in the business. Personally for me I see it as a fantastic opportunity to profit from this nonsensical volatility and buy more

[1gw] 05/4/2017 19:55

I really don't understand this debate about Tony Pidgley selling some shares. From looking through the FY16 annual report and subsequent directors holdings rns's it seems to me:

1. At end-FY16 (30th April 2016)
Obligation (on Tony Pidgley) to hold shares: 113,522 shares (4 x base salary / £29.95 share price)
Shares actually held: 6,463,855

Or as the annual report puts it: Obligation to hold 400%, actual holding 22,776%

2. During FY17
27th June 2016 - bought 35,061 shares at £22.69 each
30th September 2016 - option exercised on 545,368 shares vested from 2011 LTIP, shares transferred to wife
4th April 2017 - sold 1,000,000 shares at £31.10 each.

3. Current position
Shares actually held: 5,498,916 beneficial in his name + 545,368 (presumably) still in wife's name.

So in summary:

He has skin in the game (about 6m shares between him and his wife not forgetting remaining 2011 LTIP options);
He still holds way, way more than the obligatory 400% base salary in shares;
He made a purchase when the share price was struggling in the low 20's post-referendum, making a public display of confidence.

I wish the executive directors of all the companies I invest in were as publicly aligned with shareholders as he is. What is there to complain about? Oh yes, selling after introducing a buyback! Here again, I do not really understand the criticism. Assuming he believed that (1) the share price in the mid-high £20's was materially undervaluing the company and (2) he was likely to want to sell a relatively small proportion of his shares some months later, what should he have done? It seems to me that delaying the share buyback until after he had sold would not have been an optimal solution for shareholders, and neither would accelerating his sale so that he was seen to sell at a relatively low price just before he introduced a share buyback - how would the market have interpreted his comments on the share price undervaluing the company if he had just sold before the program started?

I can understand shareholder displeasure at the very high level of his total remuneration because of the LTIP payouts (although presumably shareholders were happy enough to think about the targets being met when they were put in place), but I really don't think criticism of this share sale is justified.

[fenners66] 05/4/2017 17:16

And who is responsible for the value of the company?
As you say "Directors selling material chunks of their holdings is a sensitive matter [usually/IME]. In the PLC where I spent my later career it was taboo".

So he is NOT allowed to take advantage of the share price like you or I ?

Perhaps you could enshrine it in his contract of employment - as long as you work for us you are only ever allowed to buy. Also you must do your utmost to create wealth for the rest of us to buy and sell on a whim. After all we will need to sell from time to time.

Maybe he wants to buy a new house, maybe a yacht who knows?

He's sold a whole days volume worth of shares, shock ! But what about last week , last month every days shares sold , is that not taboo that anyone should sell?

The difference is that if I sell my shares no one notices or cares even if its £m's. If I sell those shares it sends a signal to the market that some idiot who has no idea this is going higher has foolishly sold. But we read into it that if Pidgely sells he knows so much more - thats why the price has gone down - but Directors can be stupid as well.
There is a director at GVC - whenever he sells large chunks the share price goes up! Every one takes it as a contrary signal. Thus no one cares any more.

So he gets credit for hard work and timing a sale.

I would have given far more support to the idea that they should be paying dividends and not doing buy backs. I was a buyer here for yield - BUT the tone of this board for the past 6 months has been the buybacks have been a good idea and have supported the share price - no one complained at that.

[jrphoenixw2] 05/4/2017 16:09

@Fenner. We do now, if we're willing to accept a lower price caused by him. Would he have decided to sell just after any major long dumped 1mm shares and did what he's done to the px?

Directors selling material chunks of their holdings is a sensitive matter [usually/IME]. In the PLC where I spent my later career it was taboo, not quite 'not allowed' but very frowned upon.

It is taking it to another level when you have created a scheme to inflate the share price [buy-backs], at the expense of the whole register of shareholders, and then personally profited from it to such an extent whilst dumping on the share-px for others.

At what price are any further buy-backs now going to be 'morally acceptable'?

ps. The way it looks intra-day, Pidgely has probably wiped out the value of the entire next div [net of B-backs] in a single day.

[hjrose] 05/4/2017 14:25

The man is getting on. Nothing wrong in selling 15% of his holding.

[fenners66] 05/4/2017 13:58

Everyone of the shareholders had exactly the same opportunity to sell.
Also Directors cannot sell whenever they want to - otherwise its deemed they can be acting on insider info.
I get how it looks but as I said we all had the same chances.

[jrphoenixw2] 05/4/2017 10:25

First Eagle will be spewing, having increased their holding to c11% on Friday between say 3180-3210p.

I expect Pidgeley is hoping this will all be forgotten by the next shareholder meeting. Perhaps he'll use more of our div-income on buy-backs to give the illusion of a price recovery.

Director's sales are hugely sensitive, even more so when there is an active shareholder funded buy-back programme in place.

[2350220] 05/4/2017 09:58

This is utterly bonkers.
John

[raffles the gentleman thug] 05/4/2017 09:57

I'm buying - think it's a great opportunity here given recent 10% plus upgrade to 17 & 18 numbers - obviously tax related selling and not a reflection of company prospects

[redips2] 05/4/2017 09:50

Xactly RB..... don't worry about his sale .

[r ball] 05/4/2017 09:48

tax year end

[dim the bellend] 05/4/2017 09:11

Kerching. Better late than never.

[catswhiskas] 05/4/2017 09:01

Follow the directors and sell sell sell