Raven Prop P Discussion Threads

[cc2014] 09/2/2021 13:10

I guess a bit early to say with confidence but the share price seems to be turning up which is nice.

[irish_neris] 05/2/2021 21:16

Thought as much

[cc2014] 05/2/2021 15:46

All the major shareholders have agreed to it.

[gary1966] 05/2/2021 15:33

11_percent19 Nov '20 - 08:25 - 282 of 388

Thank you for mentioning STCM as I too looked into it at the time and bought some a couple of weeks later when funds became available. Have added a couple more lots since.

Approaching a 5yr high now and possibly a 4p final dividend, making 5p for the year. Boring business with net cash at 30/6 and will have grown substantially more since.

Apologies for O/T

[igbertsponk] 05/2/2021 15:16

Yup - had to have my own thread as someone (the first for RAVP) on the other one really seems not to like me. I've had many of his posts removed and despite my offer to buy him a drink he seems not to want to move on. He's very welcome here.
As I've been a large holder for eons and still accumulating I'm not going to remain quiet.
It's much better on this board anyway ;-)

[montyhedge] 05/2/2021 14:18

You can't see header from iPhone.

[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?