Raven Prop P Discussion Threads

[zangdook] 05/2/2021 13:33

dates are in the header

[montyhedge] 05/2/2021 13:25

When is news on the 3p dividend I think 11th Feb. Payable 31st March is that right boys?

[cwa1] 05/2/2021 12:55

LOL. There's some bad blood between a couple of the posters here. Best left as is!

[bench2] 05/2/2021 12:53

We seem to have two very lively threads for RAVP is there a reason ? Can we merge with the other thread ?

[irish_neris] 02/2/2021 11:02

Looking at the release they did earlier on the placement of shares it has to be voted by the shareholders. Im assuming everyone will vote against but it,ll be passed that the directors & management get the dirt cheap shares to add to their holdings while we're turfed over

[igbertsponk] 02/2/2021 11:00

Reason I assume was they really wanted out, as it was a Woodford investment so tainted. And the other institutions knew this so waited until Invesco really had to get rid to pick them up on the cheap.

[irish_neris] 02/2/2021 10:57

Probably had to many shares to shift and would have driven prices down either further if they sold massive chunks

[hindsight] 02/2/2021 10:51

Was there a reason why Invesco didnt keep selling in the market, rather than get 90.8p

[hindsight] 02/2/2021 10:51

Was there a reason why Invesco didnt keep selling in the market, rather than get 90.8p

[irish_neris] 02/2/2021 10:15

I don't know how in less then year a management team can destroy the value of a business thats operating during covid19

[yieldsearch] 02/2/2021 10:12

disgusting

[spectoacc] 02/2/2021 09:55

So would we at those prices!

[igbertsponk] 02/2/2021 09:43

Directors (Anton epecially) put their hands in their pockets to the tune of over £5m

Director No. of preference Total no. of preference
shares acquired shares held following completion
of the Placing
Anton Bilton 5,000,000 11,162,188
------------------ ----------------------------------
Glyn Hirsch* 522,026 4,201,856
------------------ ----------------------------------
Russell Field 250,000 250,000
------------------ ----------------------------------
Sir Richard
Jewson 189,600 265,060
------------------ ----------------------------------
Mark Sinclair 165,000 1,456,305
------------------ ----------------------------------
Colin Smith 75,000 979,198
------------------ ----------------------------------

[tyranosaurus] 02/2/2021 09:17

Directors buying loads of shares at knockdown prices.
5m RAVP shares at 90.8p for one director.
And that`s in addition to their high remuneration.

Small investors screwed once again.

[flyfisher] 28/1/2021 12:01

Yes, witness the high vote against the directors remuneration report at the last AGM.

[kenny] 28/1/2021 10:59

I think a delisting of RAVP pushed through by a cabal of the major fund managers is unlikely. With the experience of Woodford and all his unquoted holdings, fund managers are probably fairly adverse to holding anything that is unquoted, let alone voting to have their holding become unquoted. Also bear in mind that it was fund managers who requested Article 2.6.11 be inserted.

I agree that the joint venture is skewed in favour of the directors who are and always have been extremely greedy.

[renewed1] 28/1/2021 09:42

Thanks for the clarification and clear explanation Kenny.

[flyfisher] 28/1/2021 07:00

I can see several reasons for the directors of the j/v to be keen on the idea but none for the company, therefore i see it as only being in the interest of the directors and question whether they are appropriate directors for RAV.

The 100m ord that the j/v are purchasing could easily be bought by RAV itself, which would improve NAV for all holders.

It will be interesting to compare the income of the j/v to the income that RAV derives from it. In order to study any cash drain.

I have been looking at RAV for a while, but this is a red flag.

It will be interesting to see the result of the ravp rump placing.

[zangdook] 28/1/2021 01:50

The only loophole there is if a cabal got together enough RAVP to vote through a delisting. Unlikely but, given the large holdings which exist, not completely impossible. It's nice to think the institutions will defend us, but ultimately that's not their role. I particularly don't like this new joint venture which doesn't just allow the directors to benefit disproportionately from the Invesco purchase, but raises questions such as - what is the purpose of the JV? - what is it going to do once it's got its hands on all these cheap shares?

[kenny] 27/1/2021 18:14

Just to expand on the answer above.

On a takeover, a preference holder is entitled to ask the company to redeem their preference shares (Article 2.7). The company cannot force a holder to tender his shares for redemption and the wording makes that clear. It is clear from the fact the Articles state that a holder can only tender all of their holding and not part. Therefore, if a holder has to make a choice, it is clearly a right which is the holder’s option.

There are also other indications of this. A holder has to, on a takeover, give notice of redemption within 14 days - there are no provisions to force a redemption for those who give no notice. This Article 2.7 has been in existence since the first issue of RAVP.

Note that the par value of the preference shares is 1p. The above Article states that the redemption is to made at the “Fixed Amount” per share, which is defined as 100p.

In 2020, Article 2.6.11 was added. This article basically states that the consent of preference holders is required to remove the preference shares from being listed on a recognised stock exchange. The effect is, that even if the company is taken private, or otherwise acquired, the company must maintain the stock exchange listing for RAVP. This was introduced at the request of RAVC holders who were being converted, mostly, into RAVP. I imagine this was because they were being switched from a preference share with a fixed redemption date, to one with no redemption date.

At the time of the Aviva preference share debacle in 2018, the company introduced what is now Article 2.6.10. This basically states that any “capital reduction” scheme, as Aviva proposed, or any variation of rights of the preference shares requires a special resolution, importantly, passed by RAVP holders alone, voting as a separate class.
==================================================================================

Because of the terms attaching, I believe RAVP can be regarded as a permanent preference issue and I hope the above information assists in reassuring other holders that the facts support that view.

[gary1966] 27/1/2021 16:40

No the holder has to agree to selling, they cannot be forced. See the other thread for the actual wording of the articles.

[flyfisher] 27/1/2021 16:35

Is it the case that if this company were subject to a successful takeover, then the prefs could be redeemed at par?

Thanks.

[tyranosaurus] 27/1/2021 14:15

This stinks.
Will be voting against if I still own any at that time.
No chance of getting any at these placing prices.
Seriously considering dumping the rest of my holding.

[kenny] 27/1/2021 11:48

The common view seems to be that all this spending/support by governments around the world will create inflation, which in turn will increase interest rates.

The less common view is that inflation will not be created, a view I subscribe to. This article gives a good explanation of why inflation will not result – open the article – “Quarterly Review and Outlook - Fourth Quarter 2020” at:

I think the example quoted, from economic literature, of the brick thrown through the bakery window, precisely explains why no inflation is likely to arise from this particular governments expenditure.

[igbertsponk] 27/1/2021 09:45

No bad forcing - on a takeover the holder, not the company, has the right to their £1 back. Plus any outstanding divis.