Caffyns Share Discussion Threads

[miikke] 12/12/2016 17:21

What does this effectively mean?

[beazer2] 12/12/2016 16:54

Company purchase of 101,500 shares to be held in Treasury is the answer.

[miikke] 11/12/2016 23:13

Does anyone think something could be happening here? Reason for my question- high trade figure on Friday- when was the last time 100,000+ share were traded in one day.

[coolen] 11/12/2016 18:31

Muckshifter and NTV are both correct.

A Circular dated 21 December 2015 outlines certain circumstances where the Second Prefs can no longer vote (Pages 8 & 9).

In practical terms, the voting ban would come into effect only when voting on a either a large ("Class 1") or a related-party acquisition.

Page 49 of the same document suggests that, in all other respects, the Second Pref do retain full voting rights. Accordingly, I consider that Second Pref shareholders would have a strong hand in the event of a take-over bid for Caffyns.

[ntv] 11/12/2016 16:01

that was taken from their website

[muckshifter] 11/12/2016 11:28

I think you're wrong about "full voting rights! NTV. If you read the company's RNS of 18/12/15 and the premium listing rules. I gave an extract from that RNS a few posts ago.

[ntv] 11/12/2016 09:08

Bruce- smith selling as well or are David Barry and value investments picking up is stock hence earlier sells

[ntv] 11/12/2016 09:06

Mr S G M Caffyn and Miss S J Caffyn are directors of Caffyn Family Holdings Limited which owns all of the 2,000,000 6% cumulative second preference shares which have full voting rights.

[coolen] 10/12/2016 23:03

Having just opted to retain a "premium" stock exchange listing, I guess they are prepared to suffer the red-tape costs of staying public.

Even so, I think that's a fair question you've raised, especially if they can keep buying in shares cheaply.

[miikke] 10/12/2016 22:42

Could this be going private then or is that highly unlikely too?

[coolen] 10/12/2016 21:40

In the wake of 20%-30% falls since Brexit in the shares of previously acquisitive groups such as Vertu and Lookers, I'm guessing David Barry judges that any bid propects with this one have vanished for the moment.

Even if he is proved wrong, the shrewd Mr Barry will be happy to bank a small gain and move on to his next target.

[miikke] 10/12/2016 19:49

Why would they sell at 525 if there is any reasonable likelihood of an increase in the coming weeks?

[coolen] 10/12/2016 18:36

Yes, a sale by David Barry, a well-known professional investor, reducing his stake to 81,500 shares.

But I expect that holding has now dropped to nil: there was a further large trade (101,500 shares) just before the close on Friday.

More intriquing is who was the buyer: the Company itself ?

[miikke] 10/12/2016 15:31

Any ideas if the recent notification was an acquisition or a disposal?I do wish this was made crystal clear on the submission forms- LSE should update their forms for quick information checking for shareholdersThanks to all who comment/respond or clarify

[coolen] 07/12/2016 20:25

Muckshifter, thanks yet again for that further information. After reading the new Listing rules, I was intriqued by new references in the takeover code to "comparable" offers being required for non-votiing equity.
If I am not mistaken, none of the above has yet been tested ?

[muckshifter] 06/12/2016 16:38

This was the important bit, imho, in the RNS dated 18/12/15, which indicated a change in status of the family held 2nd Preference shares as far as I can interpret listing rule 10, from early in 2016. The only purpose I could see for those 2nd prefs was to give the family absolute control in the event of an unwanted T/O attempt, as the shares only yielded a £12K or £24K pa dividends (can’t remember which). Having held the shares for a couple of years, I felt that they were at last more vulnerable to a takeover at a big premium by one of the big groups needing more presence in Caffyn’s neck of the woods. But then came the VW scandal and Brexit, both of which I feel are negatives for CFYN, so I sold out for a modest profit which combined with good dividends wasn’t too disappointing

----------------------------------Changes to the Listing Rules----------------------
In May 2014, as part of a package of measures, the FCA introduced new provisions in relation to the governance of companies with Premium Listed securities. In particular, the FCA introduced Listing Rule 9.2.21 which requires that in certain circumstances where a shareholder vote is required by the Listing Rules that vote must only be decided by a resolution of the holders of Shares which have a Premium Listing. As at the date of this announcement, only the Ordinary Shares have a Premium Listing.
Listing Rule 9.2.21 applies where the following circumstances require a Shareholder vote to be taken:
-- cancellation of the listing of equity shares as per Listing Rule 5.2;
-- a transfer of the listing of equity shares with a premium listing into or out of the category of premium listing as per Listing Rule 5.4A;
-- approval of an employees' share scheme if the scheme involves or may involve the issue of new shares or the transfer of treasury shares or a long-term incentive scheme in which one or more directors is eligible to participate in accordance with Listing Rule 9.4;
-- the transactions set out in Listing Rule 9.5 including an issue of equity shares in specified circumstances;
-- any significant transaction, which is a class 1 transaction as set out in Listing Rule 10

[coolen] 06/12/2016 16:06

Muckshifter, that's an interesting angle which I admit to having been unaware of.

[muckshifter] 05/12/2016 19:53

I don't think the family held prefs have -full- voting rights. My understanding, fwliw, of the premium listing rules makes me believe that the right to vote them does not apply in a major event ie. a takeover bid. But I would be interested in the opinion of anyone who is familiar with the operation of those rules.

[coolen] 05/12/2016 17:33

The family-held Prefs have full voting rights and effectively, with the family holdings of Ordinary shares, make the company bid-proof.

As you rightly imply, this is a negative for some investors.

[cjohn] 05/12/2016 10:44

See previous comments on the board.

[miikke] 03/12/2016 07:55

Do the preference shares and their associated rights put off many investors?

[cjohn] 02/12/2016 11:02

As does the fact that freehold property revaluations haven't been recorded on the balance sheet, which thus understates assets.

[gifted] 30/11/2016 14:55

The future does look less bright for motor dealers but at least the net asset value of Caffyns is around £8.30 despite the increase in potential pension liabilities. Also there is nothing in the balance sheet for goodwill or intangibles. This should provide a buffer as does a yield of over 4%.