The Artisanal Spirits Share Discussion Threads

[gjabrj] 08/1/2007 15:11

SLL - do you think someone is stake building here as a few T trades of late.

[sll] 08/1/2007 14:58

sorry - 4p, now can we stop talking about 19/1/7 and look beyond that?

[sll] 08/1/2007 14:25

ps - it just gets better! - you can now sell out and get 3.75p. Over and out.

[sll] 08/1/2007 14:24

davidosh - of course Aspen can vote, they hold shares after all. The Nomad (Brewin Dolphin) has cleared all of this (the reorganisation et al) which is definitely in the interests of most, if not all, shareholders for the reasons quoted in the circular and the associated comments. This is now becoming tedious, as explained many times before. If small holders don't want Aspen to buy their (fractional) shares at 3.25p then they can sell them in the market, now, at 3.5p or better. The most in question is 5,999 at 3.5p = circa 210 pounds per commission. Not megabucks. If however people want to top up to the next 6k ords level, to avoid any fractions arising, then buy (max) 5,999 at (or just below) 4p = circa 240 pounds plus SD & commission. I first made this point above, when the pricing was even cheaper than it is today. We are still however talking about 'peanuts' with TNAV sitting somewhere between 5.5p and 6.0p come the June 2007 finals. Oh and divs are restarting as well on the back of the reorganisation. Not maybe a 10 bagger from here, but otherwise a 'no brainer' really. Next?

[davidosh] 08/1/2007 03:24

Just out of interest is Aspen allowed to vote in this deal at the Agm as surely that is like voting for yourself to receive cheap shares...I prefer the buyback to take place and for the shares to then be cancelled or held in treasury which effectively benefts all shareholders equally.

Anyone going to the egm?

[sll] 05/1/2007 17:36

I would guess that the late 500k T trade at 3.5p was a buy from earlier. At least some investors are looking forward, and not back. steve

[sll] 05/1/2007 15:03

I 100% agree with your points, Nick. The Aspen support last year (worth 1.1m straight into the company's balance sheet with no/low placing costs) was a material show of Board support necessary to secure/underpin the uplifted level of RBS land-bank funding support to the group which, in turn, will enable ART to grow its businesses steadily and organically. I think we need to focus much more on ART's future than its (arguably) distant past which becomes less relevant with every passing milestone. The past may be less of a guide to the future than many on here seem determined to believe - despite most recent evidence to the contrary. steve

[swiftnick] 05/1/2007 13:56

Thanks Lionel.

A couple of points. First, you mention the decline in the share price over the last decade, but it bottomed out a couple of years ago and the long term chart is now showing tentative signs of pushing higher. Since 2005 we have seen the end of the downwards momentum and what will hopefully prove to be the beginnings of an uptrend.

Secondly, I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing that the directors have a large stake in the company. On the contrary, I would be more concerned if they didn't! As things stand both the directors and small private investors have a common interest in getting the share price moving up.

I was not uncritical last March that Aspen acquired shares so cheaply in the placing, but on the other hand it is good to see a director backing the company with his own cash and the alternative of financing the land bank acquisition through debt would have raised the risk profile of the company and increased the level of interest charges.

As I understand it Aspen can't go above 30% without making a bid for the company.

Please edit your post to remove the blank lines at the end.

[lionelh] 04/1/2007 16:49

You are right about the dangers inherent in aggressively averaging down, Nick, as the share price is normally falling for a good reason. When it is a precipitous fall over nearly a decade you really do have to wonder whether the share is ever going to do anything. That NAV is nearly twice the share price takes some of the risk out but you can chase shares to oblivion sometimes and all that happens is that predators buy the company on the cheap to strip out the best bits or if it goes into administration everything gets gobbled up way before the shareholders at the bottom of the food chain. You are concerned Nick that Aspen want to get your shares on the cheap - does it not worry you that they are now a major shareholder who have their own agenda? In the meantime you have been pressured into buying more just to stand still. That's not averaging down, that's something worse.

Good luck, anyway, hope you're right.

[sll] 29/12/2006 13:01

nick - many thanks, well done (at 3.375p) and good luck, steve

[swiftnick] 29/12/2006 10:34

Steve,

I am one of those who has followed path 3, i.e. originally bought at higher levels and aggressively averaged down. I am aware of the risks of this kind of strategy, but with net asset value around 5.8p and the dividend about to be restored the risk/reward profile looks attractive.

I topped up this morning at 3.375p. I now have a holding exactly divisible by 6,000. Aspen is not getting any of mine on the cheap.

[sll] 28/12/2006 13:25

L - What I have to say to the people who invested at much higher price levels, ages ago, before my time here, is that we are now in a quite different situation. ART is a tale of two shares, the 'then' and the 'now'. 'Then' has no relevance to 'now' other than in terms of the heavily depressed sentiment, 'now'. For me, that spells 'opportunity'. For those who arrived at 20p, that spells disappointment. In their place, I would do one of three things - 1. Sell up entirely and move on. 2. Tactically increase the stake to be 6000 divisible and treat it as a small carried interest (ie 20p lost and circa 3p salvaged to maybe become 6p later). 3. Aggressively increase the stake (6000 divisible) so as to materially average down. I am not telling anyone what to do (their call and we all have to do our own research) but I have followed all 3 paths elsewhere, many times before - while the wider markets were in wholesale retreat from 2000 to 2003. 1. is painful, but the pain goes away faster, when you are 100% dis-associated and you get the CGT relief. 2. may work, but there will still be (the 20p type) niggles. 3. is only available to those who have the cash to do it and it also breaks many of the golden rules in the book. People must review their own strategies and elect to sell, hold or grow their stakes based on the envisaged price to earnings and assets now, and not then. p.s. - could you please edit your last post to remove the large blank gap, thanks, steve

[lionelh] 28/12/2006 10:59

Disappointments 5 and 10 years ago, come on SLL, what about the disappointment in 2006 of losing half of the value of your holding if you do not hold a tranche of shares exactly divisible by 6000? The only thing I agree with in your post is that it is a "no-brainer": it is most definitely that but for the opposite reason you give. Why on earth should you have to go to the expense of buying a further tranche of shares to make it to a total divisible by 6000 (that's expense of shares themselves, broker's fee and stamp duty - not a small sum!) in order just to MAINTAIN the value of your holding? That's daft, SLL. If you had to do that with every shareholding in your portfolio you would never make any money at all. You'd probably lose a lot! You do realise after buying and selling for some time that you make the worst buy/sell decisions when you make that decision under pressure. Giving you no choice but to buy in again to maintain the value is such a pressure and it is immoral as someone is seeking to benefit from the pressure applied.

You haven't begun to explain why the performance of the company has been so bad against a backdrop of rising property and land prices over a decade. What have you got to say to people who invested at 20p, 14p and 11p over a decade ago and have been exceedingly patient? Don't you look at performance when you make investment decisions? It's what most people do!!!!

[sll] 27/12/2006 11:30

j - many thanks, let's hope we can look forward, post January 2007, and reappraise this stock on its future potential and future performance and future earnings (and dividends) rather than keep it marked down for disappointments that happened between 5 and 10 years ago.

[luderitz] 26/12/2006 21:23

Envesta-Dean-Aspen...The whole thing stinks. Spending anything In this doomed outfit will be like good money going after bad. IMHO.

[jfishy] 26/12/2006 18:56

Incorrect, I *did* own 5000! I now own exactly 6000.

I didn't buy more because I can't justify the purchase - If I wasn't going to purchase before then why now?

I.e. What you are saying is correct, I just don't believe in the company enough to justify spending money here - I have had too many dealings with Stephen Dean companies (he was long gone from EVS - they still acted in the same way & shafted shareholders, perhaps the current management here will do the same).

If the company thinks it is OK to jump into bed with "Aspen" so to speak then I am uncomfortable & not prepared to play. At the same time with the NAV being what it is I do wish to hold for the present so I have bought a small amount to make 6000 shares.

I have no idea what the TNAV was when I bought - it was on the back of 5 "free" tips from RHPS many years ago (that had of course already been tipped on RHPS). My first purchase after listening to a tipster with no other research at all...deserve everything I get!).

[sll] 23/12/2006 19:49

j - I assume from the above that you hold circa 5000 shares at circa 20p = circa 1k cost. Why not buy another circa 13000 shares at a cost of 455pounds+dealing+SD to bring your holding to 18,000 (i.e. no forced sale to Aspen). This would average you at about 8.2p being about 1.5 x TNAV. By the way what was TNAV when you paid 20p per share? steve

[jfishy] 23/12/2006 11:33

I think that there will be an MBO otherwise ART would have purchased the odd shares for cancellation rather than passing them to Aspen.

There are a lot of small shareholders out there that have been around for nearly a decade due to tipsters - I bought approx 1k's worth years back for around 20p IIRC. I've never bothered selling as the amount is so small.

Force these small investors out & admin costs less but also an MBO will be easier to achieve.

Just my opinion of course. Either way though, to sell the fractions of shares to Aspen is immoral in my opinion - they should have been cancelled - especially if the company believes that NAV is higher than the share price at the moment.

[sll] 21/12/2006 13:08

The worst case for a holder whose present shares don't divide exactly by 6000 is that he/she is 5999 short, at whatever level. Taking the point (immediately above) that NAV is about 6p (I make TangibleNAV at least 5.5p at the next year end) then all you have to do today is buy up to 5999 shares at 3.5p (or a tad less) to achieve 2 things -

1 To buy 5.5p of essentially land assets for 3.5p
2 To avoid the need to have your present holding compulsorily purchased at 3.25p

It is such a no-brainer that I have already done it myself. Steve

[lionelh] 21/12/2006 12:43

Plast is right. I'm out of this share too now and feel grateful that I didn't get in at 11 or 14P. What have they been doing since 1998, getting on for a whole decade? Property prices have tripled since 2001 alone so why has this business consistently gone backwards over so many years? I am grateful not to actually have lost any money in Artisan as I got in around 3-4p but I have learned something from this investment and that is not to invest on sentiment: I looked at several annual reports and really liked the quality bespoke niche nature of their business in what is a safe defensive sort of industry. It really has not worked and primary responsibility for that lies with the management. The really sad thing is that a lot of smaller investors have shown a lot of faith in art and taken a very long term view exactly as they should. If you do not have a share tranche exactly divisible by 6000 (unlikely) you are being shafted here as you are being given little more than 3p per share where NAV is 6p. Someone is benefitting here at the expense of small shareholders. Aspen are certainly win win here surely - 3p for shares with NAV 6p? The thing about investing in small property companies is that they are always likely to be gobbled up by predators wishing to make a quick buck, as I guess Art itself did with Rippon Homes.

I have come to view share consolidations as what directors do who haven't got a clue how to increqse the value of their companies. It appears to be pro-active but in reality is a sop as it has nothing to do with their core-business. It is purely and simply cutting costs by eradicating small shareholders many of whom have shown great faith in them. Pretty shabby really. I head for the exit door every time I see one. Never good news for a small investor as all they are doing is deliberately making your package of shares "unmarketable", a subtle way of telling you to get lost really. Good riddance art.

[superglide] 21/12/2006 12:43

So the 6000 figure relates to pre reorganisation number of shares held as of now not post. Which would have meant a holding of 240,000 now?

[plast] 19/12/2006 23:07

thanks lud, art have made me happy now ,,,,,not.
screwed as always, i got these at 11p and 14P i think ive got it wrong
with this one,understatment, must admit its taken art a long time to catch me but they made it in the end, 7 years well done art you sh,tters, ive waited so long for this to get going and hopfully make me some profit, well it was not to be and now im finally out thank christ, good buy all.

[luderitz] 19/12/2006 18:11

Yes.

Ed. Thanks Van....just about says It all about this lot.