Inland Homes Share Discussion Threads

[shanklin] 21/10/2015 07:29

LOL. It would still be helpful to have the results issued sooner rather than later.

[dt1010] 21/10/2015 07:20

this will start moving up again now just all you doubters see ;))

[ravin146] 21/10/2015 05:59

Lucky, that is effectively individual private holders via share brokers. At best dt1010 should be classed as institutional with all that buying every other day?!

[luckymouse] 20/10/2015 22:52

trewinney - 20 Oct 2015 - 09:38:08 - 780 of 792
"I think it is significant that there are no institutional investors"

???

==> 34.53% Per cent of shares held by top holders
Data from 31 Dec 2014 - 05 Oct 2015

Institutional Shareholders
Holder Shares % Held

Barclays Bank Plc (Private Banking)
13.65m 6.73%
Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers Ltd.
12.21m 6.02%
TD Direct Investing (Europe) Ltd.
12.18m 6.01%
Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd.
6.57m 3.24%
Henderson Global Investors Ltd.
6.30m 3.11%
Clearance Capital LLP
4.49m 2.21%
GlobeFlex Capital LP
3.93m 1.94%
Ennismore Fund Management Ltd.
3.74m 1.84%
Lazard Asset Management LLC
3.62m 1.78%
EdenTree Investment Management Ltd.
3.36m 1.66%

[dt1010] 20/10/2015 19:09

ravin146 20 Oct'15 - 18:56 - 790 of 790 0 0 (Filtered) arhhh, lovely.

[ravin146] 20/10/2015 18:56

Lollll orange

[dt1010] 20/10/2015 17:53

Haha true, I love the management!!

[davidosh] 20/10/2015 17:26

orange1....lol lol lol

I have no idea whether the results are tomorrow or not but as you say one of the few certainties in life is that DT1010 will have topped up come rain or shine !!

I am surprised there are any left by now ...

[orange1] 20/10/2015 16:19

It´s a win win situation. If we get the results all well and good. If we don´t DT1010 will top up. If the results are good, DT1010 will top up and if they are bad, DT1010 will thank the idiots who are bailing and top up.

[shanklin] 20/10/2015 16:14

Perhaps we will get the results tomorrow morning??

[retsius] 20/10/2015 16:11

Do I see blue?

[igbertsponk] 20/10/2015 13:52

DT1010 20 Oct'15 - 13:50 - 783 of 783 0 0 (Filtered)

That's better.

[dt1010] 20/10/2015 13:50

When people start writing unfounded rumours on here about the company, it is THEY who should 'moderated'. And reported to the FCA.

When the results do come out, this will bounce back and more, just you see ;)
Hence keep buying as short termists sell.

[manrobert] 20/10/2015 09:41

good point/

[trewinney] 20/10/2015 09:38

I think it is significant that there are no institutional investors.

[manrobert] 20/10/2015 09:36

obviously not a very close relationship between auditors and directors.i find it hard to buy in to the idea tat having auditing the books for several weeks the auditors suddenly said the day before the results were due that we don't agree with the format,

[impvesta] 20/10/2015 09:22

PJ1 - without knowing who said what, when, that is totally unfair on the auditors.

[pj 1] 20/10/2015 08:58

I'd be looking for a change of auditor after this. They should have been fully aware of this pending situation and acted accordingly without delaying Results.

[shanklin] 20/10/2015 08:54

ravin

ROFL. You also used the word "likely" and the phrase "thought they'd got away with it". Both of those are a lot more definitive than "may".

The whole situation in terms of the delayed results do not paint INL in glory but IMHO we don't seem to have any evidence of wrongdoing by INL. We just have one accounting treatment of a set of transactions, previously viewed by the auditors as acceptable, being replaced with a new accounting treatment which the auditors now believe to be more appropriate.

Cheers, Martin

[igbertsponk] 20/10/2015 08:49

I don't see a "standoff position" at all. As often with new IFRS's, the initial view on who needs to adopt can change as practice develops. INL obviously thought they were OK with the treatment they adopted, but industry standards must have gone the other way. So the auditors will have drawn a line in the sand and said "Sorry, you'll have to change".
This will then have made a mess of the current results, and meant the prior period needs restating too. Which will take time, as will need to be re-audited and the various JV and financing partners will need to agree to the accounting treatments and disclosures. And then they'll have to have a good look at it to make sure it doesn't have tax consequences. If you tell the taxman its a duck, but it looks like a goose, he'll treat it as a goose, especially if it lays him golden eggs.

[winsome147] 20/10/2015 08:46

Bizarrely, (and on a slightly different topic) Michelmirsch Bricks shares plummeted yesterday on the news their orders for bricks are slowing down. The dubious excuse is planning applications taking longer than ever. Is this the sign we are possibly near the top of the current cycle? I hope not. I want to play the annual housebuilders share price rise Jan-Mar one more time.

[ravin146] 20/10/2015 08:43

I did say 'Igbert' you 'may' be correct, the specialist accountant can answer that, amazon and Starbucks not the best examples to use to explain the tax payers lol, but ownership is certainly a reasoning too.

[joe say] 20/10/2015 07:11

Ravin - have to say that's nonsense imo

What the accounts show, and how the tax is calculated are totally different for most companies as certain costs are added back or are non tax-deductible.

An off balance sheet model merely "hides" ownership but does not alter the economic/taxable flows that result

I know this, cos a guy at Amazon (or was it Starbucks) told me

[shanklin] 20/10/2015 07:07

ravin

Perhaps you could explain how INL's presentation of its results could affect a third party's tax obligations??

Cheers, Martin