 Who cares about Friel? Just you and a couple of other posters who cannot seem to let go...CF last sold in July at 29p, the share price remained around that level for 3-4 months, his selling hardly precipitated an immediate crash.
I have been on the end of unenforced large sellers and the share price can drop massively as they get out and that often wipes out investors who are on margin or with stop losses, CF sold and now the price is a lot lower, that is investment picking the right time to buy and more importantly the right time to sell.
I would say the way the share price reacted to CFs sale that he did his best to mitigate any fall and he did sell his shares at 29p so he must have created liquidity or at least have buyers wanting to pay that price for them.
Since then we have had IIs buying and others selling and the share price dropped due to worries over the slippage in orders. I think this is undervalued at the moment and once the market jitters abate this will go back into the 20's |
And I suppose Friel really sold to 'create liquidity'????
Bogus!! |
He sold to cover the tax, if he didn't do that he couldn't have afforded to exercise them, it is a perfectly usual way of dealing with an exercise of that size. What you should focus on is the shares he continues to hold after the exercise, he could have taken the money, he didn't, he is holding... |
Yep stocks have sold off but the good ones generally bounce back on up days in the markets.
Hvivo sold off long before Trump's chaotic mess fyi!
What must Octopus be thinking when they filled their pockets north of 28p based on Mo's projections and then sells at 17p. |
Absolute rubbish...
If you haven't seen the tumble in the markets as Trump wields his economic sledgehammer and coinciding with the run up to tax year end, so people selling to balance their books, you are blinkered. We knew CF had got your goat, but Mo exercising options and selling a portion to cover the tax on that exercise hasn't caused this recent blip. Blame the markets... |
Mo selling has killed the share no matter what way you look at it.
Shareholders have gotten a double whammy from the Chairman and the CEO.
I'm not buying either excuse! |
DONT FEED THE TROLLS IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM! |
DONT FEED THE TROLLS IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM! |
DONT FEED THE TROLLS IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM! |
The biggest red flag was the Chairman dumping all his shares just 4 working days after the July TU.
I believe the chairman knows more about the company than any II/PI.
Now the CEO starts exercising his huge options.
The company is being talked up... |
burton - thanks :¬) |
HVO tipped uphttps://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/page/85ba232bb1def98962d9b897d0b7b479 |
Options would be taken at the highest price the execs think they can get.
I think the CEO believes the current price was right. It then follows the forthcoming newsflow is likely to disappoint again and share price will fall.
As per my assertion, we're closer to my 10p target than the 30p....as predicted.
The rampers have been proven wrong.
1gw and his mates were ramping at 30p... they keep changing the metric to whatever looks the best. No consistency....
Don't take my word for it... Look at Byot 10p to 0.1p, down 99.9% delisted!!
1gw claimed the house broker was being 'conservative' despite the company themselves showing sales had slowed.
sikhthetech - 11 Dec 2024 - 12:32:22 - 8962 of 9143 hVIVO plc - HVO
Trout,
"At 30p and with £62m revs expected the mkt cap was £200m (just over 3 times revs).
So does that mean current price giving us £150m mkt cap is pricing in just under £50m revs for 2025? There seems to be a good cushion there"
Wrong.
The expectations were the same when the share price was 10p, only 2 years ago, weren't they?
The share price rose on the back of the company being talked up, CEO awarded the huge >7m options, back dated a year and exercise from < 2 months time, in FEBRUARY.
A new red flag is the fy2024 TU has been pushed back to Feb (coincidence!!!).
I'd expect the share price to be nearer to 10p than 30p.
The newsflow here has been as predicted. |
Yet still buying is being overwhelmed by selling. |
For any who didn't click on burton's link it was to a Proactive writeup, published today, of Shore Capital's bullish initiation on HVO.
"Shore Capital has initiated coverage on hVIVO PLC (AIM:HVO) with a bullish outlook, setting a 'fair value' target of 35p per share — more than double its current trading price of 17.22p." |
Even less do we need badly-written ones :¬( |
There you go, true to form, 1gw posting in hindsight...lengthy well written posts after the event... Obviously 1gw and his mates have sold....
Nobody needs lengthy well written posts to understand what was happening
Similar happened at Rthm(now nexn). CEO also had huge option awarded. Yet 1gw/his mates were ramping them. They crashed from c590p to 100p on company/sector newsflow. I posted company/sector newsflow, with links to back up my comments.
1gw, given you portray yourself as a well researched poster, why do virtually all your and your mates shares crash? Why do virtually all your and your gang's stories turn out to be BS/false?
Byot, down 99.9%, Trmr down 80%, rthm down 80%, SLN down 80%, NTQ down 80%, Nano down 80%
You make a dodgy 2nd hand car salesman sound honest.
How many multiple ids do you use and why? |
1gw - I certainly agree with your comment about the complexity of these schemes and the potential for misuse. The classic example is use of cash for share buybacks in order to improve apparent shareholder returns.
They've become a necessary evil - which CEO worth his salt is going to accept a position without them these days? - but simplicity is surely key. I'd stick to a quarterly share handout for exec directors, with a 3/4/5 year lock-in - that way they have a steadily-increasing incentive to look after the share price with less of the risks a tly situation brings.
burton - no offence, but I at least don't click on anonymous links... |
35p p/thttps://t.co/X1Jv45mbLr |
And in terms of the HVO scheme, by not achieving the max 22.5% CAGR TSR Mo has missed out on some of the award. The performance element vested on a straight-line basis between 10% CAGR and 22.5% CAGR.
At one point it looked like he would easily hit the max, and then I agree there was no incentive to juice the shareprice further. But until he knows the max payout is secure then he is incentivised to get the shareprice up. |
super - I'm thinking of what happened at Tly. There was a minimum shareprice threshold (so the equivalent of the HVO threshold 10% CAGR TSR) measured over a very short period in June 2022 and it looked like they might not achieve the minimum meaning no payout under the option scheme.
Tly announced the acquisition of Pioneer in March 2022. That acquisition would have been a long time in the making and I'm not suggesting they bought it just to hit the option target. But they chose to pay for it almost entirely with cash (some immediate, some deferred a bit), running down cash reserves on the balance sheet despite already having net current liabilities. So the reaction to the acquisition announcement was very positive - a strategic acquisition of what appeared to be a fast-growing company paid for without a placing. The shareprice started going back up and stayed above the option vesting threshold over the measurement period. I would argue it has come back to bite them in a big way as the risk of the net current liability position materialised as they lost contracts which were financing the company through that position.
That's always the difficulty with designing option schemes. If management are incentivised to hit targets they often find a way of hitting them, but there may be unintended consequences as the things they do to hit the targets can create problems elsewhere or in the future. |
1gw - thanks - interesting analysis. I'm not sure what benefit would accrue to Khan by 'juicing' the share price What he needs is to get to the vesting targets, after that a higher share price only increases his immediate tax bill, and, since he's clearly adopting the 'pay-as-you-go' approach for tax, reduces the number of shares he's left with. He wants the growth in share price after he gets the shares, not before.
If all goes well, he'll then have a bigger cgt bill when he comes to sell, but that's down the road, and who knows what the rules (or his personal tax position) will be then?
But I do agree that in general this looks like one of the better-designed schemes I've seen. |
Better prospects here than on that garbage TLY |
A few observations on the options.
Max award was 7,227,273. 25% vested on service and 75% on performance, with a single performance criterion being CAGR TSR over 3 years from an 11p reference share price.
It was not clear how long Mo had to exercise the options once they vested. Usually I think a company will say they are exercisable between dates A & B (A being the vesting date and B often being several years after they vest) but in the original notice and in the annual report they give only the vesting date (23/2/25). My guess is therefore he had a relatively short period to exercise them.
Afaics he exercised all that had vested which was 89% of the max amount, or all the service-related amount plus 85% of the max performance-related amount. To hit the 85% of performance-related vesting I think the CAGR TSR must have been calculated as 20.7%. This was from an 11p reference share price.
Stephen Pinkerton has a harder job to get a decent proportion of his award, which is measured against a 17p reference price with a 10% CAGR TSR threshold and has a vesting date of 1 February 2026.
MO's current options have a broader set of performance criteria, being 40% CAGR TSR, 40% CAGR EBITDA and 20% ESG/sustainability (again being 75% of total award). They are measured over 3 years ending 31 December 2026 and will vest on 30 June 2027. TSR element has a 10% CAGR hurdle and 18% needed for max payout but reference share price and measurement period for calculating achieved shareprice are not clear in the original announcement.
I would say the incentive scheme appears to be doing its job. Having exercised the first award Mo now has more equity skin in the game. Although there have been a couple of recent acquisitions, it doesn't look as though MO took any unreasonably risky decisions in order to try to juice the shareprice ahead of the vesting date, although it's not entirely clear what the measurement period for the final shareprice calculation was. Both Mo and Stephen are incentivised to get the shareprice higher over the next couple of years, and Mo's performance criteria broadening out to include EBITDA provides a bit of a check on making decisions which favour short-term shareprice growth over longer-term earnings growth. Having said that, shareprice and EBITDA criteria still provide something of an incentive to make "risky" acquisitions which boost EBITDA (amortisation of the acquisition is excluded) and are well-received in the short-term but may expose the business in the medium-term. It is the board's job to ensure that risks are properly considered and staggering the performance periods for CEO and CFO awards provides some mitigation here. |
'Really careless of you/your mates to lose 99.9% at Byot, 70% at Nano, 40% at HVO etc etc all within the last 2 years.'
Not me, tikh, sorry :¬) Have you ever considered sticking to facts you actually could know? |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
