Instore Share Discussion Threads

[nvwhayes] 06/7/2008 10:32

Thanks for supportive comments. I am determined to pursue this one, and yes there was a typo - I meant Ayub and Wiese, so I'll send a corrected version. Thanks too for your comments Dirk. Like you I wonder what's in it for Tradegro since on the face of it they'll take a hefty loss on the sale of their 20% stake, so it makes me think something else may be going on. We should be told, and yes I don't understand why Seaham wasn't required to bid when its stake passed the 30% mark in February.Also why the offer price doesn't match the highest price paid for stake acquisition over the past 12 months. I am hoping the Takeover Panel will tell me.
I am also puzzled about Tradegro's remaining 15% stake, and would be interested to know the source of your information on Seaham and Tradegro's intentions. I haven't seen anything in public and the offer document as far as I know has not yet been published.
Will let you know of anything else I hear

[nvwhayes] 06/7/2008 10:30

Thanks for supportive comments. I am determined to pursue this one, and yes there was a typo - I meant Ayub and Wiese, so I'll send a corrected version. Thanks too for your comments Dirk. Like you I wonder what's in it for Tradegro since on the face of it they'll take a hefty loss on the sale of their 20% stake, so it makes me think something else may be going on. We should be told, and yes I don't understand why Seaham wasn't required to bid when its stake passed the 30% mark in February.Also why the offer price doesn't match the highest price paid for stake acquisition over the past 12 months. I am hoping the Takeover Panel will tell me.
I am also puzzled about Tradegro's remaining 15% stake, and would be interested to know the source of your information on Seaham and Tradegro's intentions. I haven't seen anything in public and the offer document as far as I know has not yet been published.
Will let you know of anything else I hear

[dirk10] 06/7/2008 06:15

I am not sure about this, so please correct me if any of the following is wrong.
The offer by Seaham has been accepted by Tradegro for 20.4%, but the offer states that Tradegro will not be accepting for its remaining 15.4% holding. This does gives Seaham the controlling stake, but the offer only becomes compulsory if Seaham has acceptances giving it 90%, which is not going to happen if Tradegro continues to keep its 15.4% holding. The offer also indicates that Seaham has first call on Tradegro's remaining stake (at the offer price for the next 6 months). The offer becomes unconditional (but not compulsory) if Seaham receives 29.4% acceptances (it already has 20.4% from Tradegro). Seaham is not intending to de-list Instore, but reserves the right to do so (does it need 75% to do this?).
If Seaham made the offer any earlier then the offer price would have to be at least the same price as its original purchase last year (I think it needs to be the highest price paid over a year for 10% stake & it has only topped up by about 1% in the last 12 months).
I do not understand why back in Feb Seaham was not required to make a mandatory bid as it crossed the 30% mark, but I am assuming Tradegro could not give control to Seaham without triggering a bid. There is obviously a deal going on between the two parties for Tradegro to sell "on the cheap". With Seaham pitching the bid so low and not getting an approval from the board, the chances of all the remaining shareholders accepting is slim. So maybe it is not Seaham's intention to buyout the whole company merely to take control and keep the listing (and possibly use it as a vehicle for its other assets). I would like to know what Tradegro is getting out of this deal. More than the other shareholders I suspect.

[ialwayswinatmonopoly] 04/7/2008 10:39

Great letter NH.

It's nice to see someone with a bit of technical know how putting it to good use with and for the benefit of the common investor.

[leadingladies] 04/7/2008 08:53

Echo storyboys praise of your letter NH. I think most of us have had concerns for sometime now about the relationship between Mr Ayub and Mr Wiese. I believe Mr Tayub has for sometime been involved in influencing what appears on the shelves and who knows what his true intentions have been in doing this. Clearly tho' if such a small price wins the deal then this is an absolute disgrace. Combined with the continual pressure on prices applied by short sellers generally over the past few months I think we are in danger of being well and truly sh__fted with this one

[storyboy] 04/7/2008 07:30

Small report in The Sun this morning,

reporting Directors Reject Takeover offer as to low !!!!

[storyboy] 04/7/2008 07:25

Good letter NH, raising important points, reply will be interesting !

Just one note , the very last line, should it not read,

Mr Aziz and Mr Wiese !

Would be grateful to see the reply you get... Thanks

[storyboy] 03/7/2008 20:19

Well if there was another bidder we may well see a very sharp rise in the share price .
moved up late today on only 100,000 odd traded....

Could get very interesting... 2 Directors think its being well undervalued at the offer price....

Letter coming soon should be an interesting read.....

[crumppot] 03/7/2008 17:04

I understand that but why would he increase his bid or why would anyone else make a bid, as with Aziz getting Tradegros shares he would have over 50% of the company plus any other s/hs who r happy just to get out.

[ialwayswinatmonopoly] 03/7/2008 16:51

No I'm not. he really is the person behind the bid.

[crumppot] 03/7/2008 14:47

You are just talking up vslue!

[ialwayswinatmonopoly] 03/7/2008 14:37

Aziz will not have to sell out. He's the buyer!

[crumppot] 03/7/2008 14:23

so are you a buyer then?
Who is going to make a counter offer? Aziz owns nearly 30% and he is not going to sell out at 8p having bought at a much higher price.

[ialwayswinatmonopoly] 03/7/2008 10:43

The price of 5p is only the start of things.

A counter offer will come in at approx., 8p and Seahams (which is part owned by Aziz) will have to increase their offer to the true worth of 9p.

Unless I'm mistaken INST have £3.2M cash in the bank so a valuation of £11m is ridiculous!

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

[storyboy] 25/6/2008 07:18

Low budget end stores now seeing an up lift in sales, as customers shop around for bargains... reported in the times this morning....

Wonder how Instore are doing... ?

[wunderbar] 17/6/2008 23:34

Be it by going bust or being taken over I always knew INST's days as a listed company were numbered. Whoever it be making the bid I can't see them paying more than 10p for a business seemingly in terminal decline. The Telegraph are suggesting a buyout price of around 8-9p which seems perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. I've been following this share for many years and as an ex-shareholder I can honestly say this business has been a complete disaster despite many efforts by numerous management teams to turn it around. It didn't matter what plan of action they put in place they consistently failed to deliver but succeeded in destroying shareholder value.

I first got involved back in 2001 when it was known as Brown & Jackson. My biggest disappointment was the Angus Monro era (Sep 02 - Feb 06). The market expected great things from the ex-Matalan boss and within 18 months of his arrival the shareprice had rocketed from 30p to over 150p, but alas his tenure turned out to be all hype and no substance. It was he who instigated the Instore brand and splashed out millions on a new distribution / HQ in Huddersfield. Unfortunately the distribution centre turned into a huge fiasco costing the company millions due to all sorts of teething problems. I bailed out shortly after a profit warning in Feb 06 which incidentally cost Angus Monro his job. Since then things have continued getting worse. More management changes, followed by more profit warnings, accompanied by a destruction of the shareprice. I consider myself fortunate that I bailed out when I did, approx 45p, opposed to 8p now!

Whoever takes it over has an almighty challenge on their hands. The business has been failing for many years despite numerous management attempts to turn things around. Personally I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear in the next couple years that the business has gone into administration. Some things you just can't mend.

[colonel a] 17/6/2008 09:10

If the bid is internal and the third party is purely notional {as seems likely} then it is probably a done deal.
Given there is only really one holder to convince.

The timing {it will be > 12 months since the block was bought at 14.6 does not give reason for optimism on the price.

[only who?] 17/6/2008 08:25

Probably be nearer 10p.

[801710245] 17/6/2008 07:20

The news in the Telegraph suggests the bid would be 3p higher than the price was over the weekend - but then they're hardly likely to proclaim "10p higher" are they?

"3p" then, just opening gambit hopefully.

[lukic] 16/6/2008 22:56

15p would do :-)

[yoda5442] 16/6/2008 22:44

lets assume it was Aziz that was planning to buy, what sort of bid would you expect him to make?

[only who?] 16/6/2008 20:42

Wow. All it needs to do now is go up another 600% and I'll break even on the shares I bought a few years ago!