Jarvis Securities Share Discussion Threads

[saucepan] 20/10/2020 20:03

By the way, I know for a certain fact that the "delay" problem can and does occur with the trading platforms of Halifax and AJ Bell. I do wonder if they use the same underlying tech.

I can also confirm that it never happens with IG share dealing, so HL is not the only company to have had instantaneous updating for years.

[saucepan] 20/10/2020 20:00

tenapen: no, the platform simply reports back "insufficient funds available" to make any further trade.

Thanks, Shanklin, noted. I'll try that, if I don't get a reply: but basically did the same as you suggested, but marked for the attention of Mr Grant.

[tenapen] 20/10/2020 19:52

Saucepan,
Would it matter that the funds from the sale have not shown up ?. As long as you took a note of the value of the sale you could buy in the knowledge that the sale was before the buy, so covered !.

I could be wrong ! usualy am :-)

[shanklin] 20/10/2020 19:38

I sent an email to JIM re the share split and marked it FAO: Jolson Head, the FD, identifying that I was a shareholder with a question.

Received a reply from Mr Head in under an hour.

Perhaps worth doing the same as that is definitely a deficiency/bug that should be resolved immediately.

[saucepan] 20/10/2020 18:55

Thanks trident5. I am aware of that and used that ruse. But it is a ridiculous state of affairs. If it is a bug, it could be easily fixable.

I did raise the matter for the umpteenth time today on the phone when I was through to the dealing desk as a result of wanting to make an urgent trade with funds that had not appeared. I seriously doubt, however, that my feedback ever gets kicked "upstairs" to those who can make strategic decisions.

Anyway, the exchange here has prompted me to write to the Company just now, for the attention of Mr Grant. If I get any sensible feedback, I'll post it here.

[trident5] 20/10/2020 18:48

Saucepan - I've had this on another site. But found that logging out of the account and logging back in again produces the cash.

[saucepan] 20/10/2020 18:31

Yes, to some extent Jarvis is a "cracking little company", but I wish it would listen to a long-standing gripe I have had with (and expressed to) the Company [and I am a shareholder]. It concerns its dealing platform.

Place a sell trade, and it typically takes several minutes for released funds to appear back in the portfolio for further trading. This can be very frustrating if one is wishing to sell a stagnant holding to buy into something that is moving quickly (perhaps, for example, responding to a positive pre-market RNS).

With a Hargreaves Lansdown dealing account, by contrast, funds raised from trades show on the account instantaneously. If HL can do this, why can't Jarvis?

The more important question, I would add, is: "why does this matter"?

I know it affects my behaviour, and I think by a process of aggregation it must affect many other account holders, too.

As a result, I tend to use my Jarvis account for a portfolio I regard as "investments", and where I thus trade much less frequently. I use my HL account far more for "trades" and thus transact far more frequently. It must make a significant difference to the trade revenue each Company generates, if my behaviour is repeated by others.

It could be such a simple fix, with a bit of technology investment. The Jarvis trading platform has not been noticeably updated in years.

[tenapen] 20/10/2020 18:14

Yep,

Jarvis is still a cracking little company, and we hope it will continue to perform going forward.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out going forward.

[steelwatch] 20/10/2020 15:50

The major shareholders must be on board, otherwise the split would have been strangled at inception, so it's going to happen whether we like it or not. It's a case of suck it and see.

[trident5] 20/10/2020 15:24

I was going to shut up on this.

But the proof is evident:
- shareholders in a private company would be worse off by the cost of the exercise - there would be no upside.
- so the only possible upside in public markets comes from the perception of people considering buying or holders considering selling which cannot be measured.
- So, you can only revert to whether the exercise incurs costs or generates profits for the company. It's just the former.

[maddox] 20/10/2020 15:07

Trident you state:

"There is apparently evidence that prices tend to rise after a split, but no evidence that the split is the cause; more likely that companies split their shares when they are doing well."

Yes precisely, the firm does well the share price goes up - it then looks expensive - it splits - and is apparently a better price. It's a well known phenomenon Traders such as Robbie Burns the Naked Trader buys into splits 'because it works'. And because its a known phenomenon other do the same thing - it becomes a self-fulfilling prediction.

Evidence? Well I can no more prove I'm right than you can prove that I'm wrong.

[squeamish1] 20/10/2020 14:48

Seems like a pointless re-papering exercise to me but whatever. I’m holding AZN at £80 a share and FLTR at £130 and don’t really give a flying one at the nominal value of a single share - although at those levels it does mean your average punter loses the ability to DRIP properly. In FLTR for example you have to hold over £20k worth for the interim divi to buy you one more share.

So perhaps there is a minor argument for it being accretive to share price and liquidity on that basis. I’d love to see the spread come down on JIM, won’t lie about that.

[cwa1] 20/10/2020 14:27

Well, whatever the reason, I'm happy to see it gently nibbling upwards :-)

[trident5] 20/10/2020 13:44

Agreed. I'm not a holder, but it was on my watchlist.
It was the canary warning in the Air Partner mine, which saved me a bundle.

[shanklin] 20/10/2020 13:00

t5

Well at least we don't have to worry about share based payments to management here.

I agree its a largely pointless thing to be doing but if this, at minimal cost, is the most wasteful thing management does in many years, I think I can live with it.

[trident5] 20/10/2020 11:30

They don't work. There is apparently evidence that prices tend to rise after a split, but no evidence that the split is the cause; more likely that companies split their shares when they are doing well.

If they worked you could set up a company that does SFA and just splits its shares every six months.

I've also read that buying shares which haven't split and are trading at high prices is a good strategy - Judges, Games Workshop, Bioventix spring to mind - all with great managements.

Also read that splits are good at muddying the waters of the true costs of share options and other share based payments to Boards.

[maddox] 19/10/2020 23:29

Splits work - they shouldn't but they do and it'll more than pay for the minimal cost - that's why JIM are doing it - it works for shareholders.

[tenapen] 16/10/2020 17:33

No fancy brochure for Jarvis, A4 paper and a single staple :-).


As for the reason, it does not seem to me to be worth the time and trouble and I'll vote against. I work as a builders trowel hand and do not see the price of any given share as a barrier to buying. Even a nugget like myself would look at the market cap & p/e and make a discission based on.

Best Wishes all.

[flowc] 16/10/2020 12:49

There you go sell price gone up 5p 7.30

[steelwatch] 15/10/2020 19:28

Proxy form arrived today. I'm voting for, though it is likely to be a foregone conclusion anyway.

[poacher45] 15/10/2020 19:03

Greed is a fact of life. Would you rather have 4000 shares than a 1000 shares?
The share price when it happens in my opinion will go to £2 a share in a very short time. Thank you directors.

[flowc] 15/10/2020 18:55

I doubt if the directors of Jim would wish to jeopardise their shareholding

[shanklin] 14/10/2020 14:34

FWLIW, and whilst I would prefer it not to be happening, my understanding is that the cost of the share split is minimal.

[shanklin] 14/10/2020 11:08

Hi MJ,

The fact that JIM have tight control of the share register is a huge plus IMHO.

The share split just seems so out of character, and so pointless.

[melton john] 14/10/2020 10:26

"Illiquidity is a feature of 3 shareholders controlling 60%+ of the equity" that may be true but digging down, the reason the shares are tightly held is that there has never been a dilutive share issue since JIM were spun off from Sion Investments nearly twenty years ago. I held some Sion shares when they were traded on a platform for unquoted companies called OFEX and these were swapped 4 for 1 for JIM shares which were then floated on AIM at somewhere between 50p and a pound. I've never met Andrew Grant, I've emailed him occasionally, but I've always felt that his interests and mine are aligned and I trust him to decide the best way forward without splashing lots of shareholder funds. I'm sure our friends in the City have lots of ideas on how to make money for them.
If there are any errors or omissions in my post, I'm happy to be corrected by another long term holder.