The Artisanal Spirits Share Discussion Threads

[gjabrj] 12/1/2007 15:22

SLL, still holding (since 1999) built up a reasonable stake over the last six years and I am confident I will make money either by takeover, MBO or re-rating.

[sll] 12/1/2007 15:15

gj - I see that (shares at 3.25p) as an incidental consequence of the EGM (which is avoidable if holders sell or buy their requisite fractions first, and which may not amount to much in total) rather than as an objective of the EGM. Those of us with larger stakes - who have a vested interest in the resumption of dividends and a reduced admin cost base going forwards - should welcome the EGM, and hope that all resolutions are passed. I have voted in favour and hope that others will too. There was ample opportunity for people to top up to the nearest 6,000 (as urged above) and average down - after the announcement, and before the recent price rise. Indeed, many people doing so has maybe nudged the price up, although it looks to have also been driven by some larger buys. Now the opportunity is poised the other way - sell down to the nearest 6,000 before the cut-off date at better than 3.25p. I see no grounds for complaints - other than from those who bought in pre-Aspen at levels higher than the initial Aspen entry point. steve

[gjabrj] 12/1/2007 13:44

so he gets shares for 3.25p

[swiftnick] 12/1/2007 13:35

If Stevens was contemplating an MBO then why go to all the trouble and expense of restructuring the share capital and restoring the dividend?

[gjabrj] 12/1/2007 11:04

Aspen would have to issue an rns re stake if it had purchased anymore.

[jfishy] 12/1/2007 11:00

I'm more inclined to think that an MBO is on the cards (I.E. I'm inclined to believe the stakebuilder is Aspen).

Which would at least suggest that management knows what a great position the company is in :-)

[gjabrj] 12/1/2007 08:44

May explain the increase in activity yesterday there were alot of batches of 250,000 shares traded. Looks like we are attracting a more serious type of investor.

[sll] 12/1/2007 08:41

At last, a forward-looking post! Thanks Iroll, steve

[iroll] 11/1/2007 23:08

Another indication of the present Management's expansionist plans.....

Builder looking for land in region
Simon Page

RIPPON Homes has stepped up its search for land to build new homes in Yorkshire.
The Mansfield-based firm has announced a multi-million pound house-building programme for 2007 to meet growing demand for property in the region.
The programme is bolstered by an expanded land department and backed by Rippon Homes' parent company Artisan Plc.
Since the summer the land team has grown to three full-time members, headed up by Mark Hughes and Karl Edwards. The team was also joined by Anabel Rooksby.
The firm is currently developing a site in Castleford called Chapel Gate, where 24 new homes are being built.
Managing director John Jones said: "This is a very exciting time for the company. Already a number of deals are in the pipeline and more than eight new projects have now been agreed.
"We will consider most types of sites, regardless of planning status and ideally look to extend our portfolio of family homes.
"In addition we hope to be able to open a regional office in Yorkshire at some point next year.
"We have a large land budget in place and with our new team on board we are well placed for future success."
The company currently has 10 developments across Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

Yorkshire Post..11 January 2007

[sll] 11/1/2007 11:03

J - That is my view, as stated above. S

[julianm] 11/1/2007 10:34

Hi all

Just a note on institutional investers. As far as I understand your balance sheet and turnover must be far higher than Arts before they even consider investment. So they would not even look at this company, which is much the same for most AIM listed co's. Be grateful if someone could confirm?

[jim22] 10/1/2007 22:25

Hi all, just a note to add to the debate above, I have been an invester in Artisan for a number of years , having first bought shares in the co. at between 14 and 18p. After attending Michael Stevens first AGM I was confident enough to continue to invest and have now accumalated a reasonable (non-disclosable) holding.
I don't see this as a 'get rich quick' investment, however the company makes a reasonable return on it's capital and the shares can be purchased at a significant discount to the value of the companies assets. This gives me potentially a much superior return than I can get from cash, and I am comfortable with this as a medium to long term investment.
The Steven Dean era is now finished, for those people following the company the last couple of years has been a good time to accumalate shares, I am sure that in time the opportunity will arise for investors to make a decent return.
The current capital re-organisation is good move by the co. No co. of this size can deal with its shareholders efficiently , or be attractive to other companies when it has so many small shareholders and such a large spread.
As always only time will tell!. Jim.

[sll] 10/1/2007 17:29

Thanks for your detailed post above, LionelH. Naturally, you do have a point of view (not analagous to mine, as you know, but there we are) and you are entitled to exit this stock, as you plainly have done, if that is your wish. Best wishes. One specific issue that I must take up concerns your point on 'institutions'. In my view - 1/ it is very hard to get them interested in stocks of this size (at all) and the recent malaise in the AIM area generally bears some testament to that fact. if PIs can exit at will, when the wind and 'their wind' changes, and there are no institutions to pick up the slack you get an share price in retreat (as has been the case here) to illogically below TNAV, for no reason other than a/ past odours & trends, and b/ lack of meaningful current demand. 2/ to be fair to your point, the SD factor would have put such people off (even if they had been minded to be interested, which I believe they wouldn't) because his name was a 'question raiser' some 'very long while ago' and certainly long before I got involved here. 3/ the fact that we don't have any institutions 'now' might change 'a little' with the advent of Brewin Dolphin and once/if dividends are resumed by a sustainably profitable and growing company. 4/ in my experience, institutions like to come 'on board' long after the bandwagon is already well proven and rolling and (in many cases) way to late to get the returns that serious PIs would typically seek. In essence, I see an absence of them (here & now) as an opportunity, and not as a problem. By the time one or more of them wakes up, certain PIs here will have meaningful stakes to trade profitably at much closer to TNAV. I don't expect that scenario to mature any time soon, which is why I would be inclined to buy more on any dips and not to sell. Your view (and actions) have been different and I respect both. best wishes, steve

[lionelh] 10/1/2007 16:48

Steve and Nick: I wish all investors in art well. I am merely presenting a counter view and do not merely seek to rain on what appears to be a very optimistic parade on this thread: my concern is that the change in sentiment is in no way justified. All professional investors, Nick, look at past performance when making an investment decision, as many years as is possible: it is the only tangible thing that can be examined by a prudent investor. All financial institutions who invest large sums of money for clients examine turnover, cash flow, gearing, balance sheet liabilities and EPS before investing. You will note (page 11 2005 Artisan Annual Report) that there are NO large institutional investors. That's because they exercise rigorous checks ant art fails them. Art was ever a hyped minnow that appeared in just about every penny share tipsheet going and its performance since its incorporation has proved that. Past performance is not always a guide to future performance it is true but nothing has changed as far as I can see except a cost cutting exercise recapitalisation to clear off a lot of loyal long term shareholders from its books. The problem is more fundamental than that: it is the business model that has failed. You cannot blame it all on Steven Dean: he was one of several other directors over nearly a decade.

Nick: "asset stripping" is taking value out of a company which belongs to other stakeholders, often long term, for your own benefit. Aspen is hoovering up stock on the cheap (NAV nearly 6p per share) for little more than 3p for people who happen not to want to buy new tranches of shares to make up to a multiple of 6000. That's taking money out of the company for your own benefit which is "asset stripping" which = "an agenda".

"A property development company and property holding company", its main stated mission, which cannot make money in a time when property has gone up in value
three to fourfold since its inception, is a company to be very wary of.

I wish all art shareholders well but feel glad I'm no longer in.

[james dean] 10/1/2007 15:59

Well after some years I've cut and run today. I think I'm wrong as I feel something is afoot for the better. I'll bear the loss thanks to SD.

Regards and good luck.

DYOR

[bsg] 10/1/2007 15:40

What would happen in nominee accounts, I have a 2000 share remainder from my holding. Would the broker lump all the shares together held in all accounts or treat each individual holder as a seperate entity ? I have had another occasion of consolidated shares falling below the minimum holding but not being sold.
Any views welcome.

[sll] 09/1/2007 20:38

LionelH - Thanks for your note. In response, I simply can't comment on a past that I was not part of. I view ART as it is today, for where I believe it is going today, and from here - not from a past (much higher) departure point. The SD past significantly predates Michael Stevens, and Aspen, and both predate my own involvment in the stock (that started with this thread). All my comments since starting this thread are based on "Now and Forward". All your comments appear based on "Past to Now". Sorry as I am to say so, we simply can't reconcile our disparate viewpoints - nor our perceptions of this stock, today. The name of the game in investing is to buy cheap and sell expensive, not the reverse (which we have pretty much all done somewhere else). regards, steve

[hosede] 09/1/2007 17:23

Agree with Swiftnick and Bylow
I bought at 8 or 9p but after Dean had gone continued to buy in the 1.5 - 3p so my average is now about 3.7 and I am in small profit. To all the whingers holding less than 6000 shares anyone who buys less than say £1000 worth of a company(unless its highly speculative) is simply enriching their broker - its just not economic. Buy a unit (or better an investment) trust

[mach10] 09/1/2007 15:05

I got out at 4p today having bought a 2.75p.good luck to all holders but my main concern was that having sold there was a bid in the offing. Looks like it hasn't held on to the early tick-up. Art moves painfully slow and I didn't want to risk a tick down with the spread being a killer already and an interest rate hike next month. Will monitor in case it falls in the wake of consolidation.

[bylow] 09/1/2007 14:07

I agree with Swiftnick. Steven Dean used Artisan, as he used every other company he controlled, purely as a vehicle to enrich himself without regard to the long term interests of the company or its shareholders. It was his private fiefdom in the guise of a publicly traded company. He needed the private investors in the company to sustain and fuel his avarice as was demonstrated by the constant issue of new shares simply in order to keep the company from going under, and the dubious intercompany transactions to massage the profit and loss account. He was very good at it and fooled a lot of people, including Michael Stevens who effectively saved Artisan from bankruptcy.

[swiftnick] 09/1/2007 13:37

Lionel,

Why the obsession about viewing the performance of ART over a ten year time frame? We all know that the period when Stephen Dean was at the helm was a disaster, but this is a different company now.

As for Aspen "asset stripping", it seems a strange accusation to make given the amount of money that Aspen has pumped in. Aren't asset strippers supposed to take money out?

[lionelh] 09/1/2007 12:31

There have been relentless demographic pressures and demand far-outstripping supply for over a decade, SLL, resulting in house and land prices going up three to four fold in the same time; yet in that same time art share price has fallen over 75%. Is it not perfectly reasonable to look at the performance of the company over that period when making an investment decision? Most people would call that a dire performance. If someone said to you in 1996, SLL, each pound you invest in art will be worth barely 25p in a whole decade's time ( a lifetime in invetsment terms!), would you have taken it, really? The "serious" shareholders you talk of, SLL, if anything like Aspen, just want to take value from long term shareholders and probably get out. It's called asset stripping.

[sll] 08/1/2007 17:18

Let's hope so, fewer and more serious shareholders is what this group needs. Not that 2007 will be without any problems - in terms of possible economic slowdown and interest rate rises etc. That said, the relentless demographic pressures and all available analyses still point to demand outstripping supply (certainly for houses).

[gjabrj] 08/1/2007 16:55

I think someone is hoovering up all available shares, as a t trade goes through at the end of each day.

May see an rns soon re major shareholding.