Indigovision Share Discussion Threads

[brummy_git] 15/4/2016 08:39

Hi Paulypilot

Presumably New Pistoia's recent disposals and purchases could just be a bit of yearend tax planning given 6th April cut-off - ie selling to crystalise losses and then buying back (after 30 days) to avoid being caught by the B&B rules?

[paulypilot] 15/4/2016 02:31

What the hell has been going on here????

I've never seen anything like it - a 29% shareholder trashing the share price, then buying it all back again. No idea what they are up to.

If I upset anyone with my silly comments here late on a Fri or Sat evening, then please accept my apologies. But don't take any of it here too seriously - this is the wild west of the shares world. I'll take the criticisms in return on the chin, no hard feelings.

I just want to see IND do well, and it's infuriating when the share price seemingly gets trashed by clumsy sellers.

Pity I didn't get my chance to back up the truck at 100p. Was readying funds from the family portfolios.

Anyway, there we are. Let's see what the company says next.

Regards, Paul.

[zoolook] 14/4/2016 09:47

Assuming normal market forces prevail and the company returns to profit then the they look very good value

[cjohn] 14/4/2016 08:21

So is the share price likely to fall back again, now NP have done buying, assuming they have?

[spectre03] 13/4/2016 01:49

A couple of questions....if NP are buying en masse, then who is selling to them.. short term opportunity traders?

And do we have a confirmed date etc for the upcoming shareholders AGM?

[gengulphus] 12/4/2016 16:26

If New Pistoia do cross 30%, don't they then have to bid at a price equal to the highest share price in the last 6 months......or am I thinking of something else ?

Roughly right, but only roughly. They normally have to make an offer ( rule 9.1 of the Takeover Code ) but there are some exceptions (e.g. I think I've seen one somewhere in the Takeover Code for genuine mistakes, quickly put right). And rule 9.5 sets a minimum offer value, but it's not the overall highest share price, just the highest price paid by the potential offeror - though it is the previous 12 months rather than 6.

It is noticeable that their original big push up to 29% ended with the purchase on April 28th last year that they announced in . So if they do want to make an offer by any chance, they should be freed from the obligation to make it at the much higher prices they must have paid then within the next few weeks. But that might well be a case of putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 or more!

Gengulphus

[dangersimpson2] 12/4/2016 16:10

yes,

In cash at highest price paid in last 12 months




9.1 WHEN A MANDATORY OFFER IS REQUIRED AND WHO IS
PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING IT

Except with the consent of the Panel, when:

(a) any person acquires, whether by a series of transactions over a
period of time or not, an interest in shares which (taken together with
shares in which persons acting in concert with him are interested) carry
30% or more of the voting rights of a company; or

...

11.1 WHEN A CASH OFFER IS REQUIRED

Except with the consent of the Panel in cases falling under (a) or (b), a
cash offer is required where:

(a) the shares of any class under offer in the offeree company in which
interests are acquired for cash (but see Note 5) by an offeror and any
person acting in concert with it during the offer period and within
12 months prior to its commencement represent 10% or more of the
shares of that class in issue, in which case the offer for that class shall
be in cash or accompanied by a cash alternative at not less than the
highest price paid by the offeror or any person acting in concert with it
for any interest in shares of that class acquired during the offer period
and within 12 months prior to its commencement; or

I make it probably about 270p based on purchases on 28th April 2015.



Makes a bid highly unlikely IMO and it's why NP seem to have stopped at 29.95% but then I have no clue what on earth they have been up to over the last few weeks!

[cockerhoop] 12/4/2016 16:05

They would have to pay at least the highest price that they have acquired shares at, not sure the timeframe.

[gengulphus] 12/4/2016 16:03

My best guess is that they attempted a 'tree shake' manoeuvre - something that market makers are often accused of but anyone with lots of buying and selling power can try. And it didn't really work on this occasion...

I.e. basically you sell a lot of shares, trying to trigger a lot of other people into selling and then being able to repurchase the shares at lower prices than you tried to sell them for. A look at share prices on the days of the transactions suggests to me that on average, they probably repurchased at the prices they sold for and so roughly broke even (unlike the earlier and much more minor episode that exotic pointed at, where it looks clear that they managed to repurchase more cheaply).

Gengulphus

[extrader] 12/4/2016 15:55

Hi all,

If New Pistoia do cross 30%, don't they then have to bid at a price equal to the highest share price in the last 6 months......or am I thinking of something else ?

TIA

[iain123] 12/4/2016 13:34

which is 60000 more shares than they started with....odd.

[fangorn2] 12/4/2016 13:22

New pistoia raises stake to 29.9576%

Quite some turnaround from the dribbling out of stock.

[goonerd] 12/4/2016 12:40

Maybe that's the point, move the shares down before making a bid!

[sharw] 12/4/2016 12:15

They won't be able to buy another 200k shares without making a bid!

[dangersimpson2] 12/4/2016 12:13

30-day rule isn't for holding disclosure it's tax regulation.

[fangorn2] 12/4/2016 11:33

@Huge,

Might want to pass that on to the likes of M&G then! :)

Apparently there are a plethora of loopholes such that some funds take 2+ months to report.

Why they can't do it at the end of each trading day beggars belief.

[hugepants] 12/4/2016 11:29

Perhaps this New Pistoia shower do not understand the 30 day rule!

[fangorn2] 12/4/2016 11:02

@Kiwihope

Ask Paul Scott, aka know it all Paulipilot who was calling the FM a muppet only the other day.

Given he's a know it all he'll know why..perhaps Mr Scott's vitriolic attack baited the Fund manager into buying(instead of selling!)

[kiwihope] 12/4/2016 10:29

They're at it again this morning (transaction on the 8th). It does seem weird to simple people like me. Could it be something to do with personal tax realisation of capital losses? I know they're a fund and not a person but it seems a big coincidence that they were selling before April 5 and now buying afterwards. At least it looks like they have not lost faith with the company or were distressed sellers...

[balcony] 12/4/2016 10:27

Now added a further 200k taking them to 28.6%

[dangersimpson2] 12/4/2016 09:48

I'm sure New Pistoia have their reasons but it does seem slighty crazy to an observer. They were selling down to 132p so even if they bought 195k off Liontrust lower than this they are still 240k short of where they started the selling and there is no way they could buy back that in the market without moving the price much higher than when they started.

Also by selling so aggressively they kill their own mark to market investment performance. Unless they really have permanent capital this usually causes big problems with redemptions. If the example of Michael Burry in 'The Big Short' is typical at the very least people shout at you and sue you.

[exotic] 11/4/2016 21:55

Can't see accurate trade price data for that period, but looking at an ADVFN 'date range' chart, it seems their 'selling' RNS had the effect of reducing the share price, which was over £4.00, and allowing them to pick up more around £3.40 - £3.50:

[exotic] 11/4/2016 21:17

Yes - 17/06/2013 New Pistoia reduced from 457,500 to 449,000:


Then just one month later - 17/07/2013 New Pistoia increased from 450,000 to 460,000:

[exotic] 11/4/2016 21:02

I'm sure we've seen New Pistoia do this before in IND.