Ip Share Discussion Threads

[rambutan2] 29/11/2020 19:44

bamboo2, I'm also keeping a careful watch on the two big Invesco UK Inc funds as they hold a giant position in PRTC, which they need to jettison.

[bamboo2] 29/11/2020 10:15

rambutan, thanks for the recent contribution to the bb.

Invesco produce a report in March/April 2021 for the year to December 2020, so their situation with regard to IPO and ONT will become clear then. I guess they are hoping to announce a completion of the reorganisation of the fund, since Mark Barnett was replaced.

Will update if and when I get a reply.

[bamboo2] 26/11/2020 22:49

rambutan, whatever the facts, the outcome is that Invesco are now below 10%. I think this was a stated aim [no holdings above 10%] when the new management took over the portfolio. It is now possible that, even if they choose to offload more, they are no longer classed as a forced seller.

Just Lansdowne to sort themselves out now! lol

It would be nice to know who the new holders are as well.

IPO produce an annual report on 31/12/2020 and there should be an up to date list of all holders above 2%

[rambutan2] 26/11/2020 22:14

Yes, big trades at same price do happen, occasionally. If it was a mistake trade then it would have been corrected by now and not still showing, in my experience.

[bamboo2] 26/11/2020 21:52

hi rambutan, Yes, that's a possibility, but both trades were at the same price. Is it likely that the broker would forgo their cut?

I agree that Invesco are normally good at informing the market what they are doing. It could also be possible that it's a typo or fat finger trade.

I'm quite interested in following this up, as it is a useful learning process!

[rambutan2] 26/11/2020 21:35

bamboo2, the 2nd 44m would be the buying party. Long experience has taught me that sometimes you can tie yourself in knots trying to work out who's sold what to whom. Invesco are pretty good at putting out rns stakes, so they sold just 44m which means the 2nd trade was a buyer of some description. The share price tells us that there is not a loose 44m shares in the mkt. Imho.

[bamboo2] 26/11/2020 19:51

Update.

I had a reply from IPGroup, words to the effect of "we can only notify that which we've been notified of."

After allowing a few days for another rns to surface, I have emailed Invesco for clarification on the amount they sold last Friday. I have pointed out the unlikeliness of another institution also selling 44m shares, within seconds of their transaction.

[rambutan2] 23/11/2020 20:44

That's good news. I'd assume the 44m was picked up by a yet to be revealed insti, with an rns t/c.

[p1nkfish] 23/11/2020 20:33

A mystery to me. So long as positive trend intact then such a reduction is no bad sign. They were absorbed, found a home. New holders unlikely to sell around this price.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 19:59

Since no reply here I have emailed company for clarification.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 17:32

I guess 4,443,330 could have been sold separately in dribs and drabs, then rns'ed with one lot of 44m.

So there could be another RNS on the way for another 44m shares?

Double checked the Friday trades,
763 81.0
16:18:04 44,000,000

762 81.0
16:17:57 44,000,000

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 17:15

20/11/2020

Invesco go from 13.66% to 9.10%, a reduction of 4.56%

They now hold 9.1% or 96,691,584 shares

=======================================
Something not quite right about these figures!

Two lots of 44m shares were sold on Friday.

Assuming 1% of the co is 10623537.34 shares,

4.56% of the co is approx 48,443,330 shares

Edit, happy to admit not being very comfortable with large figures, so if anyone fancies double checking, I would be grateful.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 11:11

The 88m trade on Friday is logged at the LSE on their trades data.

Obviously delayed. I can't remember the maximum delay time for a very large trade.
The place of execution was SITA. This is different to most of the other trades, but I was unable to find out the whereabouts of SITA.

Since Lansdowne are closing the fund that holds IPO, but are also opening a new fund, I did wonder if it could be some kind of transfer?

[p1nkfish] 23/11/2020 10:41

Don't really care if buy or sell as the trend is still intact and even if trend breaks down my average is low enough to exit in profit.

Fact price didn't collapse is very promising.

[pierre oreilly] 23/11/2020 10:33

Pink, which part of the reasoning i gave indicating the big trade was a buy do you disagree with? What's your reasoning that it was a sell?

[p1nkfish] 23/11/2020 10:28

Where the transaction price sits relative to mid-point of the spread but that's not always a perfect indicator of where balance of power is.

Does it matter for an 88M transaction where one party needs out irrespective of the fundamentals of the company they are exiting?

Someone picked up the shares at what the acquirer thought was an attractive price. Seller needed out and in all likelihood wasn't optimising for return.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 10:05

Pierre and Benchmark, thanks for the input, I am always keen to try to understand. As I said "I find the market confusing at times."

To me, if a deal is done and money changes hands then both a buy and sell has taken place. The identity of the buyer and seller doesn't really matter to me, but then I am really just a trader.

Perhaps, as a trader of shares, I am more like a market maker than an investor!

[pierre oreilly] 23/11/2020 09:44

687

You are putting your own definition of a buy and sell, and not accepting the stock market's definition.

The mms didnt take on £70m of stock, they passed it to the buyer's broker, and got paid a couple of days later. I'd guess they had a buy order for 70£m a week or 2 or 3 ago, and picked them up in dribs and drabs rising the price to get them, completing the order at some stage, after which the delay for reporting the completion started after which the trade got published. The price rising during that period means it was almost certainly a buy.

As you say, the lack of a holding rns is strange

[benchmark] 23/11/2020 09:39

Bamboo, with respect, it is NOT the case in stock market dealing that "all trades have both a buyer and a seller" as you have stated in post 685 and implied previously. The role of the market maker is to buy/absorb shares that are being sold into the market and to sell to buyers. Buyers may or may not exist depending on how the market views a particular stock at any given time. Market makers are supposed to adjust the share price based on the balance of selling and buying demand. In short, in normal dealing ("O" trades) sellers do not offload their shares directly to buyers.

[p1nkfish] 23/11/2020 09:29

Someone wanted out at volume, someone took the stock at volume. We will not know where the balance of power was.

The trend tells us something. It appears upwards and intact.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 09:17

Pierre we are overdue a holding RNS or two.

Huge volume has changed hands over recent months, so I can only guess there is accumulation going on, in the background, and when the order is complete we will get a note.

I find the market confusing at times. If a large tranche goes through, as happened sometime last week with the 88m shares, even if it is a the kind of price level that could be interpreted as a sell, it still has to be paid for by someone else, or it's not a trade! I realise that market makers sometimes take on stock, but not £70m+

[pierre oreilly] 23/11/2020 08:47

No, in terms of the stock market, 'o' trades are either buys or sells, not both. The reporting delay means it's sometimes very difficult to determine whether any trade is a buy or sell, especially with the long delays for large trades. The trade status isn't public information and isn't published. Why we haven't had a holding rns is hard to fathom, but when or if we do, it'll be easy to see the trade status then.

[bamboo2] 23/11/2020 08:32

Pierre, surely all trades have both a buyer and a seller?

One of the major forced sellers is out. I vote for Lansdowne.
They are closing the fund that held IPO.

[pierre oreilly] 23/11/2020 07:44

Bamboo, could you explain your reasoning for making that assertion?

[bamboo2] 20/11/2020 19:42

Pierre, it's both.