Ip Share Discussion Threads

[pierre oreilly] 22/10/2020 10:00

pink, yes, only the big investors have some influence over the board. But they are just humans like you and me, and may have varying views just like you and me.

I'm not happy when a quid in the company is valued at 50p. The market (probably correctly, for exactly the reasons I've given) values each pound cash in the company at 50pish. Given to you and me, that one pound would actually be worth one pound. Simples, almost magic, and at the same time obvious. Almost £200m cash being valued at £100m, when it could so easily be valued at £200m. (to pre-empt you, I'm not saying all the cash should be paid to shareholders, just a small part of it - the rest to go in costs and small company investments).

Not really sure why you think anything I say is strange or even not perfectly sensible. We both own a bit of that £200m, which is devalued to £100m while inside the company, but would be worth the full value (that's doubleish) if we got a bit of it. When they pay it to themselves, they double the value to themselves in expenses, salaries, bonuses etc, so why not treat the actual owners the same?

BTW, I see why the board are so content with their cushy easy money high cost if most shareholders roll over like you.

Also i wouldn't worry that posts such as these genuine views will depress the shareprice - they'll have zero effect with a positive bias imo. And if the large holders did exert some influence, then the share price would really motor 30/40% in my view.

[bamboo2] 22/10/2020 08:20

Bought a few on the dip.

[p1nkfish] 21/10/2020 16:02

I dont think this will ever line up with your expectations Pierre.

I've found it better to fit to a stock than to expect change to fit to me as the holder unless I already knew the change was on the cards.

Some deep pockets know the modus operandi and only they can seriously agitate for change. They look ok with it.

[pierre oreilly] 21/10/2020 15:43

My view stacks up if you realise i think it's cheap and that at some stage, somehow, some value will be released for shareholders.

I was very positive when i first invested here, and posted so. While the numbers wherever you look are great, i didn't realise the anti-shareholder stance of the basic strategy of the company, nor the dumping of the 1 in 100 companies which actually makes the big time just at the exact point of bringing home the bacon. That's the strategy! Pay for everything until the odd one is about to turn a profit, then sell!

You must admit, if nothing else, it's pretty hilarious. I think what is beginning to grind more is the largesse with themselves - ffs, they have the nerve to say 'expenses may seem very high for our company, but blah blah balh' owtte.

I live in hope that some of the uber profit and multi tens/hundreds of mill cash ipo is some time soon going to make on nano actually finds its way to shareholders, and not just the directors and managers in bonuses (they are welcome to those if they also reward the owners).

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 15:23

Pierre, no offence intended, but you'd have to be mad to hold on to a share when you have so little faith.

As I have said before, your viewpoint just doesn't stack up!

The company have set out their stall, it's your choice whether to buy or to look elsewhere. Why not take up your stance with management?

They are very open, and responsive to shareholders.

[pierre oreilly] 21/10/2020 12:30

'The primary use of the Group’s cash is for the requirements of our portfolio companies.'


That simply is not true. The primary use - as it should be - is to pay the staff. The secondary use should be to reward the business owners commensurate with the success of the company (which could be zero of course). The third should be the requirements of portfolio companies.

Obviously, the requirements of portfolio companies is pretty well infinite (ask any of them) so no cash for staff wages then if that is the primary requirement.

This lot aren't even from the 20th century let alone the 21st. They are more akin to some sort of financial social service for nascent companies - something which the government should be. Btw, they are alright jack, plenty of money goes the management's way for all their socialist and charitable words. I think myself as well as all other shareholders are to a large extent getting hoodwinked.

[p1nkfish] 21/10/2020 11:25

Investing on the basis of up-trend and momentum detection can be lucrative. Perhaps IPO need to continue to hold a %, even if much reduced, so long as both are favourable. I can't see doing so being much against the principles of the company and makes sense to have someone with that trend/momentum following responsibility.

[brucie5] 21/10/2020 10:33

Recently bought some back here, because I think we're in a confirmed rising channel, with the ON story being an obvious driver. ON is well advanced, though I'm slightly anxious that the bod will now seek to give it away just as it comes into its own.

For which read AVCT, CWR.

In fact I'm somewhat depressed to hear about the approach of the company, to sell cos that are on the cusp of greatness and buy those that are merely highly promising, and therefore equally speculative. This sounds more like a lifestyle hobby activity than a business, and reminds me of my own worst decisions around buying story stocks because it feels so good to speculate on how many times they might bag - when in reality, that success is hugely highly evasive and distant.

It seems to me that timing in story stocks, is ninety percent of the skill required. It is far more profitable to get in an inflexion point that at seeding - because most seeds die/fall by the wayside.

But that is a skill that management here seem to frown upon, at signal cost to shareholders.

[brucie5] 21/10/2020 10:33

Duplicate post.

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 07:49

Pierre, I just noticed this on the co. website, a transcript from the Shareholder AGM Q&A...

[bamboo2] 21/10/2020 07:44

FOR RELEASE ON 21 October 2020

IP Group - Investor webinar

IP Group plc (LSE: IPO) ("IP Group" or "the Company" or "the Group"), the developer of intellectual property-based businesses, is pleased to announce that it will be hosting a webinar on the role that science and innovation has to play in building resilience in health systems.

The webinar, which will take place on Thursday 29 October at 16:00GMT, will feature short presentations from Dr Gordon Sanghera, CEO of portfolio company Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Hugh Lloyd-Jukes, CEO of portfolio company Oxehealth, detailing how their companies have innovated in the battle against the pandemic.

IP Group is committed to clear and open communication with stakeholders and attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions as part of the event. For more details or to register as a participant please visit .

No material new information will be released by the Company during the webinar.

[pierre oreilly] 20/10/2020 14:51

Pink, yes I know I can sell if I want, you've told me before.

But I'm in, it's very cheap for what you get, and I'd probably buy many more if this would give me an income, as would thousands more.

The excuse that earnings are lumpy is nonsense, they have the cash to pay for a progressive divi policy for the next 20 years and fund their new prospects just with the cash on the books atm.

I hope and expect some large shareholders will at some stage exert some pressure, thinking the same as me.

[bamboo2] 20/10/2020 11:47

Pierre, there are also quite a few other co's that never got as far as listing, before they were part, or totally sold! There was a part sale recently.

Spend five minutes looking at the Parkwalk p/f news tab in the header to see how IPO now operate

It is interesting to consider how few listings from IPGroup have occurred in recent years.

Most of the co's listed on AIM had the life shorted out of them, before they achieved a commercial critical mass. Therefore, I guess there is no sense in listing anything that cannot stand on its own.

All of the darlings mentioned above, CWR, AVCT, etc, were reduced to penny shares!

Thankfully some of the listed stocks are now in recovery mode.

[p1nkfish] 20/10/2020 11:17

Perhaps you shouldn't be a holder?
Have a few where I've arrived at that point and then moved on as company and I are not aligned.

[pierre oreilly] 20/10/2020 10:35

They've stated their strategy again recently. They only want to fund startups (by the hundreds) and early stage companies, and aren't in the biz of going into commercialisation very far. Usually when one of their sponsored companies grow quite a bit and can therefor have a big cashraising (like nano), this lot usually sell some exposure, not buy more. It's their exit strategy, sell just as the company gets commercial and sees a profit on the horizon.

I think they are very old school, and look back with great pride on companies they have sold out of and are now doing fantastically. I think their focus and even strategy is completely awry.

[empoggio] 20/10/2020 01:53

Guess that was the reckoning with Avacta and Ceres sales...

[p1nkfish] 19/10/2020 20:02

Just risk I reckon.
Didn't want to increase exposure.

[empoggio] 19/10/2020 18:40

I only have one question, that links to all the others recently:
Everyone is very happy about Nanopore, quite rightly, I guess, and even the company; the company has loads of cash, and one comment is that they might be on a spree for new investments. With all this in mind, why did they step aside in the massive fundraise by nanopore and end up with a diluted holding?

[bamboo2] 19/10/2020 11:39

Pierre thanks for the reply. Re, A special or buyback, this topic was covered in the Q&A during the video based Shareholder event held after the AGM, 18/6/2020. It is also mentioned in the hy2020 presentation. Page 34.



There are quite a few intriguing options, when you consider what Invesco are holding.

[pierre oreilly] 19/10/2020 11:26

Bamboo, yes, a similar post because nothing has changed. I think I've seen 50 posts of yours each saying the same thing since i last posted so i'm a little surprised you pull me up.

Yes, i agree the setback was probably technical due to woodfords stake being forcibly sold.

Yes, i agree the business itself is doing ok - it's certainly generating and liquidating a lot of cash. (although the costs it racks up for what is quite a simple business are eye watering).

I just don't see how shareholders gain to the extent of how well the business is doing. And I can see simple things, obvious things, which the company could do to allow shareholders to reap more rewards commensurate with the income the company is generating.

I haven't heard of the options they are considering for the cash - your statement is a ray of hope. What options are they considering, could you expand on that please?

[bamboo2] 19/10/2020 11:17

Pierre, we have had this post from you before!

Surely you realise that the fall below 50p was caused by forced selling due to redemptions in II funds?

Between them, WIM, Invesco and Lansdowne had around half the company. WIM is out, and Invesco and Lansdowne hold far less than in the past. [see post 2]

As the selling pressure reduces, the share price is now trending back up. It's just a case of waiting.

Management have told us they are aware of the options for the cash, and seem to be doing a good job to me. The change of style since taking over Parkwalk is obvious.

For example, look at the number of companies recently listed[none], the willingness to do deals [quite a few], and the greater use of third parties to help in financing the portfolio.

[p1nkfish] 19/10/2020 11:05

Pretty sure there will be some relatively large capital needs in the new year. Cash pile will find homes.

[pierre oreilly] 19/10/2020 10:53

On all accounts, this should be at a much higher cap than it is. The discount to value is a crime.

If the directors considered more the shareholders' interests, it would be priced at least double imv.

Tens of millions of cash sitting doing nothing, earning nothing, far surplus to their future investment needs and sitting on several other goldmines.

Needs a new board to align their interests with shareholders'.

[edwardt] 19/10/2020 08:35

nice to see nanopore front page of the times on the weekend.