The Artisanal Spirits Share Discussion Threads

[darkdogs] 31/1/2007 09:24

for every 6000 shares held you recieve 1 new share
for evry 1 new share held it was then multiplied to give you 150 new new shares
If you held any number not divisable by 6000 then the company forced you to sell at the old price of 3.25 pence ie if you held 5999 shares you now have no
shares but about 195 quid cash. if you held 11999 you would have been given 1 new share which would then have been made up to 150 new new shares and 195 quid cash. The company have reduced their shareholder base from around 10000 to about 5000 by doing this and have propsed a div of 1.2 p for every new new share
hope this helps

[judijudi] 31/1/2007 09:09

DD,
Are you being serious? Split by 6,000 and then multiplied by 150!
Seems very strange to me. What do you mean split by 6,000?

[darkdogs] 31/1/2007 08:57

no consolidation, he is now a multi millionaire


























only joking shares have been split by 6000 and then multiplied by 150

[judijudi] 31/1/2007 08:52

Can anyone help me.
I have a friend who is away backpacking around the world. He asked me to check this companies share price. He says he paid a few pence each for them. When I phoned him with the price he nearly dropped dead!
Would anyone be good enough to let me know if there has been some form of consolidation or am I/he going mad
Thanks in advance

[bylow] 30/1/2007 21:58

Take a look at the Developments website, which has been redesigned and updated.

[sll] 29/1/2007 17:57

gj - I would rule nothing out, not joking. steve

[gjabrj] 29/1/2007 15:40

Can we get you on the board Steve?







Only joking

[sll] 29/1/2007 15:34

apologies - duplication

[sll] 29/1/2007 15:11

gj - there will be lots in Barclays (indeed mine are) and I would guess that they (BSL) are a tad late in making this particular disclosure. It was actually due when they crossed the 3% threshold, which I should guess was a few months back, and not last week. Mr T may be in there, as may other Mr T's. Also, I was not aware of the rule that Bylow has pointed to, but it does not seem at all unreasonable. I have not personally breached the 3% rule, but I have kept the company informed from time to time as to the size of my beneficial stake - purely as a matter of courtesy when keeping in touch with them. steve

[bylow] 29/1/2007 14:44

Artisan can require Barclays Stockbrokers to disclose the identity of all the shareholders in the nominee accounts and Barclays have to notify the nominee account holders if they have complied.

[gjabrj] 29/1/2007 14:23

Or one large investor ready to bid

[gizzimodo] 29/1/2007 14:19

would this just be those held in nominee accounts on behalf of small investors ?

[gjabrj] 29/1/2007 13:58

Mr T unveiled as Barclays.

Very interesting, any thoughts Steve!

[gjabrj] 24/1/2007 16:27

Plenty for our T trader today.

[jfishy] 24/1/2007 12:27

HSDL have done it correctly.

[shawzie] 24/1/2007 10:54

addas99
yes - have advised Selftrade accordingly

[shawzie] 24/1/2007 10:42

If all the shareholders who are unhappy with specific issues, communicated their concerns to the company by email or letter, then perhaps the directors would be more sensitive towards shareholders. Collectively small shareholders have a better chance of being heard.
I have never failed to receive a reply, even if the answer was to be found reading between the lines.

[gjabrj] 24/1/2007 10:33

passed by 98%

[jjr] 24/1/2007 10:29

addas99, that's not so good!!!
I'm curious to know if any other shareholders missed out on the paperwork and therfore the opportunity to vote on the capital restructuring?

[addas99] 24/1/2007 09:14

No jjr, I didn't receive any papers whatsoever.
Furthermore Selftrade have divided my holding by 6000 full stop and have had to go away and check if my claim that they then should have multiplied this lowly figure by 150 is correct!
Any other Selftrade held accounts suffered similarly?

[jjr] 24/1/2007 08:03

Just out of interest did anyone else fail to get the papers relating to the capital reorganisation?

[swiftnick] 24/1/2007 01:18

I would certainly agree that Mr Stevens should be remunerated appropriately for the work he does for Artisan. His remuneration is currently payable in accordance with an agreement with Jermyn Consultancy Services Limited for the provision of his services. This amounted to £60,000 in the year ended 31 March 2006. I have no issue with this.

However, I think that the manner in which he has secured a paper profit of £167,092 at the expense of other shareholders warrants a closer look.

On the face of it, everything looks above board. As Bylow points out above, the price for the fractional entitlements - 3.25p in old money and 130p in new money - was based on the average of the closing prices in the five days prior to the announcement of the reorganisation.

What could be fairer than that?

Let us examine the position of Mr Stevens during those five days: 5,6,7,8 and 11 December 2006. Mr Stevens knew that on 19 October 2006 Artisan had issued a downbeat trading statement, which had described the difficult market conditions at Rippon. "Each sale is proving hard won. As a consequence of relatively static sales prices and more recently purchased land being utilised, the margins achieved by the Group are affected adversely."

"...For both residential and commercial sites, obtaining appropriate planning
permission within reasonable timescales continues to be difficult and
consequently slows the acquisition and development of sites. Whilst both
divisions have made progress, for this very reason some sales expected on new
sites for the current period will be deferred and we shall seek improved sales
on existing sites. The outlook for the remainder of the 15 month period also
remains dependent on attracting new sales reservations, particularly new
residential reservations in the first quarter of 2007. The recent rise in
interest rates has not in itself significantly affected the market, but future
decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee on interest rates could yet be
decisive."

Hardly surprisingly the share price fell following this statement and remained depressed during the run up to the announcement of the interim results.

We now fast forward to those five days in December. Sitting in his office Mr Stevens already knew the interim results and was writing the words of his Chairman's statement. As well as the numbers themselves this included the fact that Artisan (UK) Developments had seen a considerable boost to the next quarter's revenues by contracting a forward sale and a forward let on the new Business Park in Peterborough. He would also, of course, have been aware of the capital reorganisation itself and the proposal to restore the dividend. In short, he was uniquely placed to see that the current share price of 3.25p was significantly undervaluing the company in a way that the market did not - and could not - yet recognise.

Armed with this knowledge he offered to buy the fractional entitlements at more than 40% below net asset value knowing that he could present this as reasonable and based on the current quoted share price.

Does any of this matter? No loss was incurred by the company itself and, as shawzie points out above, the transaction does not impact on the ART's balance sheet.

I think that it does matter. The fact that the company's shares trade at such a large discount to NAV is partly a reflection of the market's perception towards the company's management and corporate governance. If these events reinforce the perception that the company Chairman has not been even-handed with his own shareholders then how can the company expect to attract new investors? And for existing investors this can only serve to hold back the re-rating of the company's shares.