Henderson European Share Discussion Threads

[she-ra] 09/2/2006 15:45

Peter Gyll-what ever his name is, never buys companies. Infact some of the companies he has invested in have been turkeys and they have gone belly up. Face it, the city scribblers can only pump it for so long. Hard facts such as the dwindling revenues at the rental outlets (Someone said that they dont just sell rentals - well who the hell would go in there for the premium price confectionary????? they are complimentary goods!) and the overall downturn in DVD sales (HMV is just one example) which is seeing price and margin erosion his going to hurt HEC without a doubt.

[nick] 09/2/2006 15:20

you speculated that the 1.2m purchase was filled from the free float of shares. Presumably these free float shares are those that have been around since the company was listed? Anybody care to enlighten me on that?

[sporticus] 09/2/2006 15:03

Just for info, HEC do have a channel islands operation behind the scenes for their fulfillment business. I think its the usual penny in, penny out deal with no tax to pay.

[nick] 09/2/2006 15:02

Yes the last tick up on a buy of 809!

[bletherer] 09/2/2006 14:57

I have a suspicion the ticks up are more a delayed reaction to 2 days ago - it was quite fantastic that buys of 1.2million did not impact the price as these must now be in very short supply. The thought occurred to me then that MM's might prefer to walk it up in dribs and drabs to avoid a stampede and a wild spike. Whereas a rising share price should, other things being equal, attract more sellers and fewer buyers, a rapidly rising share price can have the opposite effect in the short term, inspiring momentum buyers and discouraging sellers, who think it will go higher. Just a theory, but you must admit it's pretty hard to explain why buys of a few thousand have an apparently bigger effect than buys of over a million.

[nick] 09/2/2006 14:37

with each successive trade the offer price creeps up.

[nick] 09/2/2006 13:40

and the march up continues.

[scumdog] 09/2/2006 12:59

she-ra will not be pleased!

[nick] 09/2/2006 12:45

Not taking much to move this baby a couple small trades and up she goes.

[scumdog] 09/2/2006 10:49

Interesting point as to where the Gyllenhammar shares originated. share price was at an all time low I believe. Still time for anRNS to enlighten us.

[bletherer] 09/2/2006 10:13

insidenews - of course he must have bought them from other shareholders. The question is whether he bought them from a MAJOR shareholder. If he bought them from one of the existing major shareholders we would have another RNS showing the change in their holding (any holder with a stake of over 3% must declare a move of +/-1% or greater change in their holding - see AIM rules). If that is not forthcoming we can assume that they came from the free float and the figures in my previous post stand.

[nick] 09/2/2006 09:17

Filling the gap up you mean?

[she-ra] 09/2/2006 09:09

nick - No, just the effect of city scribblers filling in the blanks.

[nick] 09/2/2006 09:01

Price up this morning on a delayed trade perhaps.

[she-ra] 09/2/2006 08:56

"As for movie downloads if I hear this one more time. Mass market is years away and companies have yet to find a way to make music profitable let alone movies."

You really dont have a clue. Music downloads has paved the way for Movie Downloads. New technology is being embraced at increasing rate today. And since when has losses ever put off companies from entering the music download business. They all wanted to be one of the first to pitch their flag. Really Mr Business Speak Man, dont you know anything about business. Profits are not immediate from the off there is a whole 'infrastructure' to lay. They want to penetrate the market early on and gain brand loyalty.

[goonertone] 09/2/2006 08:30

She ra

At work now so will answer fully tonight. However quick response is:

Yes video rental is outdated but now shops are more retail stores than dvd rental stores.

If you think infrastructure is a big word then so be it, I see it as a fairly commonplace word in the business community. You seem to see it as relating to the retail sites etc whereas I was referring to the back office set up.

As for movie downloads if I hear this one more time. Mass market is years away and companies have yet to find a way to make music profitable let alone movies.

8 track is dead long live the cassete. Vinyl is dead long live the CD. Video is dead long live the DVD. DVD is dead long live UMD, blu-ray etc etc etc

GT

[she-ra] 09/2/2006 08:16

goonertone - "Upside potential over 2 years 3 to 4 times current share price"
Video downloads will have replaced what this company offers by that time.

As for their DVDs, more often than not they are one of the most expensive when using price comparison search engine Kelkoo.


Infrastructure! All companies have infrastructure. Think using big words will impress us? Its their infrastructure that is going to let them down- A)Theyre not in Jersey, B)They have an outdated concept in the shape of 100+ rental stores.

[goonertone] 09/2/2006 08:07

Had been waiting for 50p(no reason other than a nice round support figure) to buy in but Mr G scuppered that so brought in yesterday. The company has an infrastructure that is capable of generating large profits and is trading profitably on most parts of the business. If they can turn the retail around then the current share price is ridiculous. Flip side is that if they can't then its a long haul to restructure.
I personally think that as mentioned in the interims most of these sites can be made profitable but just not to the levels enjoyed in the early days of the rental market. Other areas like teleshopping and internet can take up the slack.

Upside potential over 2 years 3 to 4 times current share price downside 25 -30% before taken over. Most importantly cashflow positive now with no major capex forseen.

GT

[she-ra] 09/2/2006 05:03

Funny people resort to making insinuations about posters motivations when they are presented with the hard facts and choose to ignore the facts, those being:
1) Video rental shops are out-dated
2) HEC are refitting an outdated concept
3) There are copious amounts of onlne DVD rental sites
4) ChoicesUK.com are expensive when compared to Jersey-based competitors
5) DVD piracy is growing rapidly
6) Movie downloads are on their way
7) HEC's revenues are clearly falling
8) HEC are stuck with over 100 shops where revenues are dwindling


Personal attacks cannot remove the hard facts.

[insidenews] 09/2/2006 00:16

Yes, but he must have bought the shares from one of the existing shareholders!!

Don't get too excited. Shares in companies Gyllenhammar buys into often continue to fall for three years. Only then will you know if he has helped to turn it around; or in two recent cases the companies went bust and he lost a few millions. A third, Jarvis Porter (JVP) currently trades at about 2.75p and also looks like going bust - and he bought 29% of it a few years ago at prices far exceeding that.

Existing shareholders could use the short term bounce to sell more shares.

[bletherer] 08/2/2006 21:36

Just recalculating on the free float it's even tighter than I thought. Add Gyllenhammar to the existing principle shareholders and it's now 84.75% owned by a mere 7 individuals/institutions, all with holdings of 5% or over. That leaves just 2.75million floating shares, or about £1.5m worth at current prices. Unless the major holders turn sellers (and presumably they are all sitting on hefty losses right now so would not be likely to offload much) this looks very tight indeed. Relatively light buying volume could propel the share price upwards in these circumstances - just needs the demand to start coming in...

[michaelmouse] 08/2/2006 18:31

bletherer - I am surprised that you are entering into a dialogue with she-ra. Posters such as she-ra appear on most BBs. IMO it is best to ignore them entirely. He/she has his/her own motives for posting negatively and you will never get an honest answer from such posters. Your own posts are sensible and thoughtful. She-ra and similar posters think they are being clever but are in fact deceitful and pathetically transparent.
Gyllenhammar and others perceive value and I tend to agree. Of course we could be right or wrong only time will tell. You've clearly done the mathematics so good luck!
Cheers Michael.

[she-ra] 08/2/2006 17:19

bletherer - He doesnt have a history of chasing up share prices.

[bletherer] 08/2/2006 16:35

She-ra - Is this not a company that could do with a bit of "disruption"?
+ You didn't answer my earlier question - if you are a holder why do you not sell if you are so negative on the stock? If you are not a holder why so interested in it? I would like to understand where you are coming from. To declare my interest: I have a small long holding on valuation grounds - if this company ever turns any kind of profit ever again the share price will rise handsomely, and at least some parts of the business are profitable even now.

Regarding Gyllenhammar - one technically positive factor is surely that if he decides to increase his holding it could put a real squeeze on the float of shares, which on my calculation is only about 4m (not held by major shareholders). Unless some of the big holders decide to offload, market makers could surely be rather short of shares to sell him?

[she-ra] 08/2/2006 15:23

neutral. Some might even say he is disruptive to companies.