Eagle51 says "My agenda is to post 100 times as often as I would otherwise have done - certainly every time I'm abused for having contrary views"
Just how old is Eagle51 - I guess 67 but he sounds like a 12 year old that's getting bullied at school. Eagle you have got too much time on your hands to be writing all this trash that nobody is really interested in. You have been accused of having a very sad life. To be honest I'm beginning to feel a tad sorry for you.
My agenda is to post 100 times as often as I would otherwise have done - certainly every time I'm abused for having contrary views, mostly based on experience and incorporating such nonsensical concepts as risk recognition and past history. I'll keep putting out the same messages although no-one ever acknowledges the fact I've often said it's entirely possible IQE will turn out be a real winner. I just happen to doubt it will do with present management at the helm.
What do you call past gushing by IQE's directors about what the future was supposed to hold (but it turned out it didn't) if not "brown stuff". Have they or have they not done extremely well financially (one in particular) whilst shareholders have had to rely on making capital gains by trading the shares at opportune times?
You might not like it, Eagle, but your credibility is a BIG FAT ZERO on this bulletin board with most people IMHO, just look at the number of people who DO NOT vote up your posts and actively tell you to go forth and multiply...
You deserve to be taken down, and while you persist to produce nonsense, non analysis and while the share price continues to hold at a staggering multiple of where you sold out, myself and others will give you both barrels and clip your feathers good & proper, if not put some lead in that plump midriff.
I don't bother reading your trash on other company BB's, probably the same bitter rhetoric although I hear you keep ramping loss making companies to suit your book... not interested in the slightest/sleightest in your opinions...
That doesn't go for all people who are in the NO camp on IQE, they are more than entitled to their opinions and to express them. I only take aim at the ones who deserve some guidance, and even then I choose to be as polite as I can to most people as they deserve that element of basic humanity and respect. You however do not. Manners maketh man and you have none.
Huff and puff all you like. Most of what you've said about me, whether personal abuse or a question mark over my professional competence, or indeed that of Standard & Poors to rate the small company fund I managed for 8 years as AA during my tenure, is completely untrue and pure fabrication. But that's water off a duck's back, to continue the ornothological theme.
"all imo/dyor" as you'd say, not that you do much "or" yourself to come out with the grandiose "I know better than thee" rubbish your posts always contain. I might bother rating your credibility above ZERO if you actually showed your extraordinary accounting skills with some genuine analysis. You claim you can do it but you never do. And yes, I can find/ read an intangible in the accounts without your help.
.......you're little short of a c.retin, monty. I have talked about nothing other than the accounts and what I have sought to show has been misleading information provided by the directors for the past however long, citing examples of years in which big unprovided write-offs have been made and quoting exact numbers from accounts in specific years that has imo been presented to create what I regard as a false impression of earnings per share, or (in the case of intangibles and fixed assets (you won't know what these are - I have, for instance, asked you to comment on returns on capital employed but you have studiously refused to answer.
You only arrived relatively recently on the discussion board boasting about your investing prowess and deciding anyone who didn't see IQE in the same daft light you see it in is beneath contempt. In future I'd concentrate on doing whatever it is you do wherever you now live in Asia to get your kicks, because you sure as hell aren't going to get far abusing me for understanding things you couldn't even begin to contemplate because you aren't qualified to do so.
Why not go back over my posts and see if you can spot any of the posts I refer to?Suggestion: ask someone who understands accounts, business and the ethics of a lot of AIM directors to help you, as you're clearly struggling. Page numbers won't cut the mustard on this particular occasion. You're not qualified to comment on anything about IQE or any other company as far as I am concerned, having openly admitted a while back to not understanding accounts and paying little attention to them because you used other means (probably copying others who did) to assess how you were going to deploy wealth created by others. Trying to pretend after the event that you didn't mean it doesn't fool anyone, monty.
Just because the directors and Dave tell everyone that everything about IQE is wonderful and it's a nailed on certainty to get even better in the future doesn't mean that it is and it will be. It might - but it also might not. If you'd been even a half decent fund manager you'd recognise the concept of risk - which you clearly don't. Any company whose shares are trading on a 60+ multiple of earnings has to be factoring in a significant number for future earnings improvement. Even you should know that.
You're cheering on the emperor's clothes. I'm looking at what's coming out of his backside and hoping for others' (not your) sake it isn't the same as has been coming out for the past 20 years.
I personally don't care whether IQE does well or it doesn't. I wouldn't want to be associated in any way with the people who run it and I don't need to be. I'm doing just fine without it and them - just trying to warn others what can sometimes happen when the truth isn't always told.
.... but surprisingly for a supposedly accomplished ex partner level accountant he never EVER uses any analysis of the numbers in the report & accounts to justify his plethora of wind... If he did perhaps hed have more credibility with me and others, l guess anything is an increase on the number zero which is his current level in my book... occasionally he quotes a measure of adjusted by Eagle earnings that no-one would consider a fair reflection of the underlying ongoing business performance but as we know its really not about 2017 EPS or the shares would STILL indeed be at the 30p level where our intrepid investment guru flapped his wings and made the BRILLIANT decision to sell them - such foresight. No doubt he was fixated by the need for a dividend. What a GENIUS! I look forward to subscribing to his investment tips website nearly as much as l do having my wife buy me a subscription to to that loathsome lout Tom Winnifriths non-site for my birthday (perish the thought)!!
.... and his only justification for missing out on a five bagger (to date) with IQE is: ohhhhh Monteh [Yorkshire accent], .yer dont know how well l did wit proceeds... Would have had to do extremely well to match the gains missed in IQE.
I may occasionally write long ones, especially as if, in this case its required, Shabby & Miss Molly needing some gentle guidance and hand holding.
You're a hoot, monty......... "I'm not going to be responding to any more of blah blah blah's rubbish that goes on for pages"..............then, hey presto, in you wade with another War & Peace................
Did Eagle51 really write that ??? Even by an accountants standards he has got to be the biggest bag of wind that ever walked this earth !! No doubt his headstone will read "why use 1 word when 10000 will suffice.
Eagle - AMER now striding ahead, you may loose your bet.
P>S> Should you meet OBO and/or Monty in a pub, let them
have a pint on me. Indeed, two pints each on me. If in a
Scottish pub, treat Monty also to a couple of pickled eggs,
and a deep-fried mars bar - does wonders to shift wind.
So go to the AGM, do the tour the company is inviting you to do. Meet the directors in person. Then please feel free to make such broad and sweeping statements, hopefully you'll do so with a greater element of accuracy and forethought.
Oh that made I larf - am sure they will give you access to eh risk register (that is if it is within their governance standards to have one) .
............"he so misjudged IQE as to have sold out before this party even started, somewhere in the 20's or perhaps in the 30's... what an error of judgement!!!! Clearly a fantastic investor. He can't get over it, either".............
......."dopey" doesn't even begin to describe you, monty. You don't ask what I did with the proceeds of sale of my IQE shares. If they were used to invest in other companies, do you not think it is relevant to ask how these have performed since I bought them? You also fail to understand, even as a very successful ex fund manager :-) that share prices are only ever the result of supply vs demand - certainly in the short to medium term. In IQE's case, the shares trade on a properly calculated earnings multiple of about 65 (this is called the price to earnings, or P/E ratio, monty - would you like me to explain it to you?). Is it not relevant to consider what might happen if the huge future earnings expectations implicit in the present share price fail to materialise for any reason?
I don't give a flying f*** what IQE's share price does and I'm delighted to be out. I got out because I stopped believing the bullcaca about tomorrows' prospects and earnings spouted by people who have consistently feathered their own nests whilst producing little or nothing of real substance for ordinary shareholders. I stick around to ensure that people don't get to listen only to people like you, who claim expertise they wouldn't recognise if it stood up on its back legs and smacked them in the face.
You wouldn't come across as quite as clueless if you copied what a few slightly more clued-up posters on here write - you know, a bit like you probably did when you were working (along with many other fund managers of a certain capability (low) to ensure they'd stay in their overpaid roles 'investing' other people's money. There's always safety to be found in the herd, n'est pas? Did you manage to shade the FTSE from year to year, monty? If so, hats off to you - you must have been a star.
C'mon monty - give us your take on IQE's fundamentals. You know you're dying to........OBO will help you out on the tricky accounting bits and Dave can come in on the future - I reckon he's got the best crystal ball. You can sum it all up and we'll all be a hell of a lot wiser (if we can stay awake and not laugh too much)
You're a hoot, monty......... "I'm not going to be responding to any more of blah blah blah's rubbish that goes on for pages"..............then, hey presto, in you wade with another War & Peace................
Dave - In your message last Thursday (11.40am) you write about
Shorting hedge funds relying on the 'herd mentality of Private
Investors to make their gains on their Shorts. But does that same
herd mentality of Private Investors not suit those who are Long
and put out bullish messages?
I have asked you before, were you a Doctor in Medicine of a
Doctor in psychology?
Monty - No risk of your messages being short! What a long-winded
pile of drivel, I got to halfway and left it at that. Perhaps the 2nd half
contains the sold pertinent factual information, but there is a limit
to how much a care to read. Next time you are bothered with wind
just let it rip another way....try bakes beans to assist.
With best wishes,
Without any doubt the longest message I have ever read, and I did get to the end, on any B.B. on any site. Well done Monty, I am sure you will get loads of praise from our feathered friend who will be extremely jealous as you have easily surpassed his normal excruciatingly boring epistles.
I am not a holder but like to follow the pleasant banter that takes place. If you follow the learned bird on other companies you will find it always ends in charming personal comments.
I look forward to his response!
I have to say some of your messages in the last 24-48 hours or so have made me wince with their naivety or their downright lack of fairness and forethought.
I don't compare either of you to the malign WS/Eagle, who just post either bitter incredibly long winded and repetitive rants or hopeless meaningless questions, all of which adds up to zero in terms of contributing to the wider knowledge. Eagle's senseless non analysis, his sweeping statements of his supposed accounting knowledge without a single number ever or any analysis whatsoever, render his credibility worthless. Actually I find his posts cretinous in the extreme, so quick to attack others with personal slurs and yet so vague in detail and so sweeping and righteous, actually for me he produces a stream of pure drivel. Poor Eagle, I feel so sorry for him that he so misjudged IQE as to have sold out before this party even started, somewhere in the 20's or perhaps in the 30's... what an error of judgement!!!! Clearly a fantastic investor. He can't get over it, either. But this post is not about those two and their totally boring codswallop.
I have no intention of making my response to you both anything other than respectful, I have no desire to malign either of you, and I accept that what you've posted are probably your genuine opinions. It's just a fact IN MY OPINION that they're not valid and I'd urge you and other readers to reconsider them as follows:
1) Shabby, you've written a whole piece on Thursday at 12.30 "On the issue of risks" where you proceed to discuss the risks in the Carillion reports and accounts that weren't understood and from which few investors could truly understand the pile of steaming dung that actually was in Carillion as disclosed by the directors' analysis of risks set out in their accounts. Problem is this. By implication you are comparing Carillion to IQE. I find that deeply unfair. Carillion is/was a contracting business, as such it... (as we used to say)... contracts (as in getting smaller). My personal approach in 15 years as an investment manager was never to invest in contractors. I can't think of one that I invested in, although I very nearly invested in Morgan Sindall which proved the benefit of being a fleet of foot nimble small company amidst the inefficient behemoths. We all know that contracts and the business of contracting have massive contingent liabilities, contractors operate on very low margins, and when things go wrong the investors are the last to know about it and the first to suffer. Large contractors cut their throats to write contracts at ever sillier prices and so often these have blown up in their faces. In recent times we've seen the same phenomenon with "support services" contractors i.e. Serco, Capita, Interserve. Broadly the same concept, only they don't necessarily build railways and road bridges. They contract to a long term stream of income that may not cover their costs of operation, in their case prisons, whatever. It's brought each of them to their knees too having once been the darlings. I'm not sure whether your piece was a deliberate attempt to compare IQE with Carillion but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it was not. But I really think you're not comparing apples with apples whatsoever. If indeed you're simply pointing out the lack of value in the accounts in the sections on risk, well I take your point. As I've often said (and have been regularly attacked for saying it), I really take everything I read in accounts with a pinch of salt except for the page numbers, which I believe completely. It doesn't mean I don't understand how to read accounts nor do I belittle their importance. They are amongst the best publicly available information we have, and as best as we can we should not only rely on them but also hold their authors (i.e. directors/auditors) to account when it proves we should never have done any such. Carillion investors knew the nature of the busin
I agree and IQE are very light on good solid news flow that provides investors with information to assess whether targets and objectives are on course to be met or exceeded.
I am not entirely comfortable with reading the runes from companies further up the supply chain who IQE may or may not be supplying or if they are in unknown quantities.
I seem to remember ARM reporting on number of chips shipped (even though they did not manufacture them) so not sure why IQE cannot provide manufactured or shipped information quarterly. That would definitely turbo charge the shares or let the cat out of the bag.
Perhaps like buses three RNS's will come along shortly, timed maybe for the H1 update, and surprise us all. I'm not too optimistic but who knows.
I remember being aware that Amazon and Ocado were making losses year after year which put me off investing but the brave invested or held on and are now well rewarded.
Yeah... I know what I will likely do too; as balance is currently tipping in that favour. Im sort of caught between two stools at the mo. The daily chart is indicating an ever increasing likelihood of a retrace with both the RSI and MACD turning down as volume recedes a little. Having said that, the weekly is more positive with both MACD and RSI turning up over a longer timeframe. It would be remiss not to note however, that weve now bumped our head this week and the last on the 30week MA and slipped on both occasions.
Which takes us back to what we both know I should do with this particular trade. I'll keep my eyes open for an opportune moment today (hopefully the best chance hasnt already passed us by!)
I still hold almost 10% of my ISA with IQE as I believe the company is well placed in their sector, and indeed, industry. But as anyone whos been paying attention will know - and if augmenting your portfolio with trading is your thing - IQEs price movements certainly do provide for multiple opportunities to pick up a penny or two.
Ocado had real news however and even terms of reference from grocer to tech/software - it stands to make a lot of money from the deal, it's blazingly obvious.
What news does IQE have that is going to quadruple profits or more, even if it quadrupled profits from last year it's still no great shakes to other tech plays right now.
Don't get me wrong I'd like to see some great news, I'm still a holder but sold a load bought at 35p at £1.40 and put that profit into other stocks that are having the same rate of climb that IQE had for a short while - but keeps going over the long term.
One co. had 127% profit over one year and they are not a penny oily.
some 6 months ago Ocado was the 3rd most shorted stock on the London stock exchange.
As a result of 3 news announcements in that period the share price is about 3 x what it was then, the largest deal and biggest single rise being today. IQE clearly has the potential for significant, major price moving news flow too. Apart from highlighting the risks of being short ( and some of the shorters are the same that were short Sainsbury's too) today's Ocado's situation show's that the shorters aren't always right long term- even if they can trade in and out in the short term.
Its strange how allegedly the disclosure obligations have gone up, but yet as you say 'weasel words' have grown hugely. Just compare todays set of accounts against previous eras. As ever, in a litigious age, lawyers and advisors win both ways.
I have never done a proper comparision, but I would be interested to see a comparison of the fees to float a company as a % of the float costs in different eras.
I have always believed that incentives distort results. Large low cost option awards etc encourage a mentality not to disappoint the market. EBITDA has hastened the debasement of what is meant by net profit, making it easier for companies to be floated or report earnings that seem better than perhaps they are.
You have to apply more filters to discriminate about what is a good stock, and even then, you may find a company reports a restatement of profit or has a shock announcement.
There was never a golden era, and profit was always a term of art, but to state the obvious investors putting everything on black in the Stockmarket version of Roulette is generally never advisable.
"Nice work there, Johny. As per our previous conversation, I thought it might have dipped a toe into the 90s before recovering and subsequently missed out on the price you got. Perhaps I was swayed slightly by some of the unfounded negativity on offer here thus proving that even the self-styled investor's champions here can cost you money also. As it was, I took a long swing position a little higher at 111, so will be need high thirties before I can emulate you success on that one"
Squadron Leader - what's your next move? You could consider taking some profits and look for the next opportunity? (It's never wrong to take a profit!)
# SP could dip lower (I think it probably will) and you end up back where you started
# You tough it out hoping it will climb back up.
I know what I would do!
P.S. I was tempted to go short but I don't have an open position right now
Dave I would also consider anybody with a pure balance sheet mentality as being equally naive. The post by Shabby2Sox gives detailed reasoning for not believing what accountants actually state on a balance sheets. They have been getting away with producing nonsense for years.
Excellent post. Keep up the good work. Very surprised that you bothered responding to the resident doom monger. I'm sure his agenda is of very little interest to you.
On the issue of risks.
Carillion's last set of accounts had pages and pages of risk profiles and weasel words by the Directors on how their management control systems, risk committee's, internal and external audit work etc etc mitigated these risks. The most pertinent risk, that they would soon run out of cash (no longer a going concern), was never mentioned.
I have lifted a post by 'numberbiter' from the Carillion board which, I believe, reasonably accurately reflects were the problem with company reporting, auditors and Directors lies and in particular 'that the current accounting standards allow directors and auditors to make it up as they go along and do nothing to protect investors'.
'Accounting has been based on three basic principles for hundreds of years and of course UK GAAP ( generally accepted accounting principles) adhered to this. These were the historical cost concept, the matching concept and, the most important of all, the prudence concept. The current accounting standards (IFRS) (Internatiinal Financial Reporting Standards) introduced in 2005 abandoned ALL these principles. Historical cost was replaced by 'Fair Value' which is merely an assessment and accordingly there was no longer a need for prudence, Carillion's directors and their auditors would have been severely sanctioned under UKGAAP, but following IFRS standards they have done nothing wrong.
This was the reason that the Lloyds's Bank auditors were eventually cleared of wrong doing, The real problem (and why Carillion will not be the only company to go into liquidation after issuing a positive Balance Sheet (assets are greater than liabilities) is that the current accounting standards allow directors and auditors to make it up as they go along and do nothing to protect investors. This will always be the case unless the 'prudence' concept is re-stated, in which case 'fair value' will be consigned to the scrap heap'.
Dave - agree wholly ref. HR and people risks - they are still pushing recruitment heavily on a wide range of channels - LinkedIn etc. Cannot expand without the core skill sets to enable that, you do not do that without the pipeline of future business.
Is there a risk that the demand may reduce - of course there is, as with any industry. But there are few better signs for growth in a sector like this than a heavy recruitment drive, the fact they view that as a key risk is very reassuring.
Especially considering the provisions already in place for facilities and equipment expansion.
You mention risks especially related to competition, but it looks like you have not read the full annual report, because the answer is contained therein
Look specifically at pages 29 and 30 but also the companies thoughts on other areas as well, that section compares the comparitive risks v the past on all the key areas of business.
2018 is seen as having DECREASED RISK in terms of liquidity, CUSTOMER CONCENTRATION - very important , the customer base is growing and diversifying!! And also in competition, most of the other risks are equal, except 1-HR
Isnt it interesting that IQEsee the biggest risk in human resources - they are expanding rapidly and need to attract and train a skilled workforce, of course the jobs and opportunities they are providing are just what South East Wales and indeed all of the U.K. yearn for.
Encouragingly IQE see the competition risk as DECREASED YOY for the reasons they state, in essence, high barriers to entry, previous excellent performance and yield and being a trusted partner- Skyworks supplier of the year 2016 and Raytheon supplier of the year 2017. IQE is obviously performing and reaping the rewards
I dont give financial projections - I give SP guesstimates, I do what I do best and provide news, information, analysis and comment, I will stick to that. It appears the answers you require are in the annual reports and guidance and in all the analyst coverage.
Just a note on shorters- hedge funds have nerves of steel , they profit off the back of private investors who gift them their profits, they can rely on the herd mentality and use it by issuing gifts false news, innuendo etc, I have never taken any notice, I do my own due diligence, in fact I see the present and past short positions as an opportunity not a threat. Ocado up until recently was 16% shorted, that has decreased markedly and todays 40%plus rise in SP will crucify some of those hedge fund managers ( or should do in any sane world). May not be so precipitous with IQE, but I forecast it will happen.
I dont give a monkey about anyone elses opinions, I bet my own money and no- one elses ;-)
Why not actually READ the report? Then you might actually understand how 2018 will be such atransformative and disruptive year for the company
"can you give us a short solid ramp message backed up with
realistic financial figures, as well as backed up with a non-rosy-specs
assessment of competition risk in the fast growing VCSEL market"..........
OBO - You are a great critic of non-ramping messages. But what about
yourself, can you give us a short solid ramp message backed up with
realistic financial figures, as well as backed up with a non-rosy-specs
assessment of competition risk in the fast growing VCSEL market.
Oh dear, E51 on the same old rant!
Who would he like to take over- a sprightly Rupert Murdoch perhaps or the youthful Jim Ratcliffe? Not exactly spring chickens but then is E51 either?
All that talk of 3D, 4D, 36D - so smutty and purile. Level of contribution is the pits.
.......and you call me verbose,monty? What exactly are you telling people beyond the blindingly obvious? And re: "I haven't examined those businesses, so it's unfair for me to say whether they are a good proxy at a reasonable price, but clearly that's what I'm being paid to do with the takeover premium".........as someone who's openly admitted he doesn't understand accounts (but does look at the page numbers) what would the result of your examinations be? That the relevant companies' accounts have got a lot of pages to them perhaps?
Bet they haven't got as many as IQE's. Blind 'em with science - they won't look too hard into the numbers then maybe?
fwiw, given IQE's reliance on a few major customers, the loss of any one of which could cause significant problems because of the high level of fixed overhead, the high cost of the continuing need to invest in new technology to stay ahead of the game, the age profile of the board, exacerbated by the recent tragic death of the CFO, and a host of other things, not least the apparent reluctance of the CEO to hand over any sort of control to younger (and perhaps more challenging individuals) while he's still there, all point to me towards the view that a takeover approach might favour investors here. Maybe IQE itself has quietly put some bread on the water in this regard?? It is strange to see a company of IQE's apparent ambition not making new appointments to a board whose bones can be heard creaking, so maybe takeov.
Earnings (properly expressed ones) would have to be accretive to a buyer, which might restrict the price offered and due diligence might not be straightforward, but a takeover at any sort of premium to the present price would imo provide shareholders with a good result all things considered. It's all very well taking about profits that should flow tomorrow but IQE's past record of delivering them is imo poor. Shareholders on the Board might well appreciate a lot more than they've already banked in one big dollop. I doubt they'd be that bothered if shareholders like you were offended if they backed a bid when you wanted to stay invested forever because you don't understand accounts, monty.
Sorry to spout more rubbish by raising the dirty and irrelevant issue of real profits and why regarding a company whose shares are trading on a current multiple of (fully diluted) earnings somewhere in the mid 60s as good value is little short of lunacy, Dave. I haven't even talked rubbish on the thorny issue of personal greed and the questionable honesty and integrity of many directors of AIM listed companies. Were these subjects covered in your medical studies, Dave? Clearly complex technology of the kind IQE majors in was high on the list.
Thank you for your lengthy opinion/explanation..... I am so grateful....The source was dubious and JCash has also provided a reasonable explanation... I too am a LTH of IQE which represents 10 % of my portfolio and have no inclination to reduce. Again many thanks. Regards.
"Aphrodites" on ADVFN reckons he has a hedge fund source in Hong Kong which believes IQE will be taken over very soon. Anybody agree/confirm?
Hedge fund talking up their long position - simples!
It's pure speculation IMHO and there is to my knowledge no shareholder yet declared on the register who would be easily identifiable as a predator.
That said we know that IQE is extremely vulnerable, so it's easy to include them in any such list:
- they have a rather unique and attractive global market share and are facing any number of high growth opportunities
- Directors' and other "close" shareholdings are well below the level at which they can simply reject a proposal, if such a proposal was made. Last time I looked you've got to (collectively) own over 50% to have control and that has long ago been left behind
- Dr Nelson/Dr Williams are perhaps at an age where for personal reasons they might entertain such an opportunity to exit, I've never met them so I wouldn't have a clue as to their medium term ambitions. Clearly as the company's founders are key men, it would be vital for any supposed bid to succeed that the key men were in agreement, after all they own most of the key relationships if not much of a sizeable % of the company any more
- If you look at what's happened to most other successful and leading edge British technology companies, history would suggest most succumb to bids, so ARM and CSR are two examples that come to mind as I type and obviously IMG received a rescue bid, I don't see IQE needing to be rescued with the opportunities open to it across a broad number of markets and products
- weak sterling doesn't help make IQE's valuation any less attractive
- regrettably if such a bid does materialise I believe it will be BAD NEWS for us investors. Fine, it may be recommended or even contested, but in reality we are likely to fail to monetise the gains that would accrue in coming years, those gains being attractive to the bidder and the reason they're happy to pay a sizeable premium (as no doubt they would). Great, let's say the bid level took us out at £2 and we all make 55% on the current SP. Problem as ever is firstly does that really compensate us for the gain (vs risk) of staying as the owners of this company on a 3-5 year view - Answer almost certainly not... and where the heck do we find the sort of opportunity to play a company with a world leading position that exposes us to the exciting markets IQE are facing as the limited conductivity of silicon is increasingly replaced by compound semi-conductors in years to come?? I guess the answer will be that we'll either end up investing in their machine suppliers, i.e. companies like Aixtron, or in their customers, i.e. companies like AMS, Lumentum, Macom, etc. I haven't examined those businesses, so it's unfair for me to say whether they are a good proxy at a reasonable price, but clearly that's what I'm being paid to do with the takeover premium. At best an outcome with a double edge.
Having invested so much time and effort to get to know a company I consider a reliable business with great prospects, whether IQE or any other number of businesses where I've been "taken out" in the past, a great example being a few years ago when Linx Printing Technologies was taken over, I normally feel a sense of regret that a hardy perennial is gone before it truly had the chance to flower rather than delight that I suddenly made a few quid. My opinion.
But frankly investing in any company in the hope of a takeover or following any "takeover" tips is foolhardy IMHO - simply look at the number of companies in the market and the number of those who receive takeover bids, it's frankly miniscule. So I wouldn't get too excited by such snippets until such a time as a genuine "player" emerges on the register with an initial shareholding to use as a springboard. Could be a long wait.
Nice work there, Johny. As per our previous conversation, I thought it might have dipped a toe into the 90s before recovering and subsequently missed out on the price you got. Perhaps I was swayed slightly by some of the unfounded negativity on offer here thus proving that even the self-styled investor's champions here can cost you money also. As it was, I took a long swing position a little higher at 111, so will be need high thirties before I can emulate you success on that one.
Does anyone know in what capacity T Rowe Associates holds IQE shares?
Im not entirely sure how to approach this enquiry. Do you mean the instrument with which the positions are held such as in shares or via CFDs or, do you mean what type of shareholder are they, for example as an institutional shareholder in their own right or via their capacity as mutual fund managers?
Regardless, as someone who has held IQE shares in the past, you will know that T Rowe Price have been long term backers of IQE for many, many years. Ever since they bought tens of millions of shares that were offloaded by Fidelity. As such, Im not particularly clear on what point you are trying to make? Are you attempting to foment ambiguity and thus, uncertainty regarding their backing of the company? Or genuinely ignorant of the situation and seeking clarification?
It would appear to me that T Rowe Price are long standing believers in the IQE proposition and, through a variety of instruments and in different roles have amassed a significant level of holding in the business. How they manage that holding is entirely their business and it would seem to me that whilst they wait for their long term objectives with IQE to be realised, they are more than happy to pick up the fees that are on offer to lend out some of their shares. Now I might be entirely wrong, however, with regard the latest disclosure, my reading of it is that because the previous notification level of certain instruments has reduced from 5.18% to 4.80% and the amount of shares on loan is also 4.80%, it would seem that some shares previously loaned out have now been returned. This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the voting rights attached to shares figure has now increased; indicating that shares - with their attendant voting rights - are are now held again. There is a slight discrepancy in the voting rights figure in that whilst 38 basis points have adjusted in the stock on loan figure, another 18bps are needed to account for the rights difference. However we are not fully appraised of the instruments used and these points are accounted for in to totals box (14.44% vs. 14.26). But hey, youre the numbers man right? So you probably knew that already.
Not sure if that addresses whatever it was you were asking, however, for my part I see nothing untoward in this latest disclosure. If anything its a positive as it seems to me that shares previously loaned out, have now been returned. Perhaps someones zipped up their shorts.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.