BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Rangers has an issued share capital of 65,810,341 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the capital of the Company ("Ordinary Shares"). Major Shareholding (3% or above): The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows: Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.6% Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.33% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,795,500 7.29% Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 6.99% Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.08% Miton Capital Partners 3,143,857 4.78% Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.56% Alexander Easdale* 2,942,957 4.47% Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.95% http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I think you've misunderstood what is being suggested. R&M for example have the holding split between two funds: UK High Alpha and UK Equity Long Term Recovery. Both Funds are managed by the same person - Hugh Sargeant. It may simply be the case that he has moved part of the holding from one fund to another. I doubt he would be a seller at this price since he paid 70p for some of the shares. Artemis have 4,000,000 out of their 5,479,000 shares in their Strategic Assets Fund and may have decided to diversify to spread the risk into some of their other funds. No, I did understand the difference in the funds, but if I was a customer holding an investment in the fund into which the manger transferred this stock, which is quite a risky and volatile stock, why would I be pleased about his actions? If the stock loses more worth would that not affect my investment, or is that not how funds work? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Rangers has an issued share capital of 65,810,341 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the capital of the Company ("Ordinary Shares"). Major Shareholding (3% or above): The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows: Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.6% Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.33% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,795,500 7.29% Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 6.99% Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.08% Miton Capital Partners 3,143,857 4.78% Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.56% Alexander Easdale* 2,942,957 4.47% Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.95% http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information Unfortunately, I don't think that website is a reliable source of info. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 No, I did understand the difference in the funds, but if I was a customer holding an investment in the fund into which the manger transferred this stock, which is quite a risky and volatile stock, why would I be pleased about his actions? If the stock loses more worth would that not affect my investment, or is that not how funds work? Yes it would but not in a big way because these investments are just a tiny proportion of the Fund's overall value. The maxim here will be that: the upside potential (from this price) is greater than the downside risk or at least it's a risk worth taking in pursuit of the fund objective. Unit Trusts (which is what these funds are) are a medium to long term investment and these are all some kind of "Recovery" Funds viz: The objective of R&M UK Equity Loing Term Recovery Fund - £164 million The objective of the strategy is to achieve capital growth through investing at least 80% of the fund in UK companies that meet the manager's recovery criteria of a turnaround in company profitability over the longer term. The fund will not be restricted by reference to a benchmark, sector constraints or company size. R&M UK High Alpha Fund - £425 million The objective of the strategy is to outperform the FTSE All-Share Index by 3% per annum (net of fees) over rolling three year periods. In seeking to achieve the objective, the manager operates within broad risk constraints in order to limit the volatility of performance relative to the Index, but that allow sufficient flexibility to express high conviction views in the portfolio. The strategy invests across the whole market cap spectrum, and will normally hold between 80 and 120 stocks. As an investor if you don't like the risk you shouldn't be in the fund; if you are then you need to trust the fund manager to get it right more often than he gets it wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) Unfortunately, I don't think that website is a reliable source of info. Whilst I take that point it is an offical source of investor information so if it is not accurate and kept up to date then I think Rangers would have problems with the AIM Rules. Without going through it line by line isn't the information on Rangers site in large measure an amalgam of the more detailed info you from FF or are there material differences? For example it shows the names of some of the custodian banks who are not the shareholders themselves. Edited September 1, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Rangers has an issued share capital of 65,810,341 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the capital of the Company ("Ordinary Shares"). Major Shareholding (3% or above): The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows: Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.6% Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.33% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,795,500 7.29% Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 6.99% Blue Pitch Holding* 4,000,000 6.08% Miton Capital Partners 3,143,857 4.78% Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.56% Alexander Easdale* 2,942,957 4.47% Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.95% http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information Updated: 08/08/2014 Whilst I take that point it is an offical source of investor information so itf it is not accurate and kept up to date then I think Rangers would have problems with the AIM Rules. Without going through it line by line isn't the information oin Rangers site in large measure an amalgam of the more detailed info you from FF or are there material differences? For example it shows the names of some of the custodian banks who are not the shareholders themselves. I know that numerous complaints have been made to both the NOMAD and to AIM direct in regards of the failure to keep the website fully updated in accordance with the AIM rules. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,118 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 just how many shares would king need to get control 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 just how many shares would king need to get control I think if he buys more than 29% he is legally obliged to offer to buy the rest of the shares in the company. So in the event of a new share issue, he'll still need allies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Whilst I take that point it is an offical source of investor information so if it is not accurate and kept up to date then I think Rangers would have problems with the AIM Rules. It was apparently updated a few weeks ago, but previous to that it hadn't been getting updated in a timely manner, far from it in fact. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I think if he buys more than 29% he is legally obliged to offer to buy the rest of the shares in the company. So in the event of a new share issue, he'll still need allies. It's fairly easy to get a dispensation from that rule especially where the limit would be breached by an injection of capital into the company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.