With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
Obviously Billionaire investor Kretinsky doesn't think we are a bad investment.
He could be one of those peculiar investors that likes to buy low and sell high.
With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
Obviously Billionaire investor Kretinsky doesn't think we are a bad investment.
He could be one of those peculiar investors that likes to buy low and sell high.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he's a really generous chap at heart and offer to
takeover at 30% above market price.
If he's going to make a takeover bid he'll do it at the lowest price he can get away with.
He'd be a pretty peculiar billionaire to be throwing money away.
With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
Obviously Billionaire investor Kretinsky doesn't think we are a bad investment.
He could be one of those peculiar investors that likes to buy low and sell high.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he's a really generous chap at heart and offer to
takeover at 30% above market price.
If he's going to make a takeover bid he'll do it at the lowest price he can get away with.
He'd be a pretty peculiar billionaire to be throwing money away.
If he wants the Shares to complete his takeover he will have to offer a premium over the current Share price to entice the instutions to sell to him.
This is what usually happens and it's not a difficult concept to understand.
Elon Musk paid a 38% premium over the Twitter Share price to secure that deal.
In January an offer was made to buy UK Funeral Director Dignity at a 23% premium.
With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
Obviously Billionaire investor Kretinsky doesn't think we are a bad investment.
He could be one of those peculiar investors that likes to buy low and sell high.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he's a really generous chap at heart and offer to
takeover at 30% above market price.
If he's going to make a takeover bid he'll do it at the lowest price he can get away with.
He'd be a pretty peculiar billionaire to be throwing money away.
If he wants the Shares to complete his takeover he will have to offer a premium over the current Share price to entice the instutions to sell to him.
This is what usually happens and it's not a difficult concept to understand.
Elon Musk paid a 38% premium over the Twitter Share price to secure that deal.
In January an offer was made to buy UK Funeral Director Dignity at a 23% premium.
I have heard a rumour we are heading into administration.
Most posties that got given free shares in the company when it was privatised (not the phantom ones) couldn't wait to sell them for cash. They are not interested in owning investment portfolio's and instead prefer to spend their money on necessities like mortgages/rent, holidays and drinks in the pub.
I can't remember where I read it but the richest 1% of the people on the planet bag nearly twice as much of the wealth as the rest of the world put together. And they are getting richer whilst we are getting poorer and is it any wonder when Royal Mail decide to award nearly all our profits to these shareholders?
I'm afraid if even if you got many posties to invest in the company it will just be a drop in the ocean compare to what certain billionaires can put in or take out
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
My line manager said last Friday that if the business doesn’t change then we’re heading for administration in June/July.
P*ss was taken of course ‘1 million a day, lump sum for line managers to become COMs, money for a managers to break strike, re-employing managers for 9 months’.
If it goes into administration we have a good job of redundancy, baring in mind I want to go and go soon, I would settle for the legal minimum so I hope your rumour is true. As for buying shares, not a fooking hope in hell would I invest a penny of mine in this place.
2 weeks strike time gone already,5 months left until the next ballot,announce strikes now ,you wont bring them back to the table until you do ,to the union ,dont waste time again,hit them hard.
I would say even less than 5 months because is there any point in striking in July or August? When instead, it's better to do it during the autumn and winter. Ballot 3 is going to be much more damaging.
In fact, the CWU could just set out the stalls and just say, this is what we are going to do, we are going to have an all out strike every single Christmas for one month for the foreseeable. Sustained uncertainty is the key
Dave Ward seemed positive about these next 3 weeks and getting a deal. Maybe he was putting it on to give us some positivity that the YES vote will resolve the dispute and that it will be worth it.
Meanwhile reps are still suspended. All reps essentially have gaffer tape around their mouths and are being shut out of everything. This needs to be completely reversed before any deal is made.
At the moment reps are almost redundant.
There also needs to be a complete 180 from these revisions. I don't understand how Royal Mail can keep delaying mail and setup the business to delay mail more often by making our rounds too big. At what point does Ofcom or the government step in. Royal Mail are charging the customer for 1st class, but providing a 2nd class service. They are charging the customer 2nd class, but providing a 3rd class service.
With regard to any takeover I believe it usually costs the buyer a 20-30% premium over the Share price.
I must say that this industrial action has been extremely fortuitous for Mr Kretinsky with regard to keeping the Share price down.
I'm not sure where you got this 20-30% figure from?
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
An offer made by a prospective bidder is usually above the current Share price as an incentive for the Shareholders to accept.
I'm quite happy for you to prove that this isn't the case.
'Usually' being the critical word in your statement. Doesn't mean always! Often a takeover will be at the market price or
a few pence above and a lot of small shareholders will accept just to get shot of a s**t investment without having
to pay dealing charges.
I also refer to my previous answer in this thread m'lud.
An organisation called The Takeover Panel ensures The Takeover Code is followed by all parties involved.
However, it is important to understand that neither The Takeover Panel nor Code decide on whether an offered price is fair or whether the deal makes sense for the businesses concerned. That is for the shareholders to decide for themselves.
Additionally if the company in question is a s**t show the prospective buyer can offer the market price or even below,
and you might find many shareholders bail out precisely because it is the best of a bad job and they just want rid.
Obviously Billionaire investor Kretinsky doesn't think we are a bad investment.
He could be one of those peculiar investors that likes to buy low and sell high.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he's a really generous chap at heart and offer to
takeover at 30% above market price.
If he's going to make a takeover bid he'll do it at the lowest price he can get away with.
He'd be a pretty peculiar billionaire to be throwing money away.
If he wants the Shares to complete his takeover he will have to offer a premium over the current Share price to entice the instutions to sell to him.
This is what usually happens and it's not a difficult concept to understand.
Elon Musk paid a 38% premium over the Twitter Share price to secure that deal.
In January an offer was made to buy UK Funeral Director Dignity at a 23% premium.
Think he'd just accumulate enough on the open market like he has been doing to get him over the line to have to make a bid and that would have to be at the max price paid in the previous 12 months I believe.
Think he'd just accumulate enough on the open market like he has been doing to get him over the line to have to make a bid and that would have to be at the max price paid in the previous 12 months I believe.
If you follow this page: https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... -Dist-Serv there's some useful info instead of what you believe to be true. Of course some of the people on that site pretend to know far more than they do, but as I say useful info from some if you sift through the bs and name calling (a bit like here strangely enough).
The takeover share price triggered by VESA ( DK )30% ownership is based on the equality principle which underpins the mandatory offer Rule. This rule requires any person who acquires interests in shares carrying 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in a target to make a general offer to all shareholders at the highest price it has paid in the previous 12 months.
A year ago IDS was around £4.14 and getting lower every day after that.
Only bet what you can afford to lose. That's all I'm going to say.
I've already told Milly this and she's ignored it mate. What Milly believes supersedes how the financial markets work. Made me laugh when she compared RM to Twitter and Musk to DK. Chalk and Cheese. One in the public eye constantly and the other a complete enigma or was it DK who turned up with a mini sub in Thailand? Trolling maybe?
Trolling maybe? 