As far as I'm aware there must be an unconditional sale before it can be counted but I'm going to get this from the horses mouth to end speculation on this issue once and for all:cool:
Printable View
As far as I'm aware there must be an unconditional sale before it can be counted but I'm going to get this from the horses mouth to end speculation on this issue once and for all:cool:
I can imagine if the demand for these types of units became acute, then some folk may buy a unit and leave it unoccupied for quite some time before they moved in. So I guess by occupied you might mean 'right to occupy'. I'm not sure what the rules around this would be.
Ghost units - they still have to pay.......
Quite a sell down by Norah.
https://www.nzx.com/companies/SUM/announcements/249409
My concern regarding this transaction is this occurred shortly before flat Q1 sales metrics were released. It is highly likely she had inside knowledge the sales metrics were below market expectations. This is a very bad look for her regardless of what she may have required the funds for and does not reflect well upon the company.
Date of sale was April 7th,Q1 results April 9th,just a day apart,yep agree Roger not a good look,I was surprised at the volume also,feeling like picking up the phone but this is probably best addressed at the AGM in a crowd environment
Ryman Healthcare have very much been favourably in the public eye on television lately. And in their slicker marketing techniques. Can SUM and MET afford conceding that advantage without a noticable fight? Word of mouth over those many and leisurely tea cups spreads like wildfire in ghetto-like institutions. I trust Infratil and NZ Super input to Met decisions in changing of the guard and tactics appreciate that their targetted clients can be quite adamant in their opinions once they arrive at them..
Come on guys, she 'placed' them with ACC and other insto's without disrupting the market at all.
What was the market expectation? I only saw a Sharetrader thread expectation. When the Q1 was announced, it barely caused a ripple anyway
I think she has acted with shareholders interests at heart - it's a no win for her whenever she sold them
Sorry Xerof I don't agree. A director should not be selling within a 10 day period prior too a material announcement in my opinion.
In my view its material when a company that proclaims its growth loud and long to shareholders and then announces a sales result that's ostensibly unchanged from two full years ago !! If this isn't a breech of NZX regulations it should be and is almost certainly questionable professional ethics in terms of a directors fiducary obligations in my opinion.
Nothing stopping her selling after the Q1 sales metrics so that the purchaser(s) could have made an informed decision. Insider trading ? Ohhh, there I said it !!
Buy volume has been building all day,perhaps all those guests viewing have spread the word re my post on anticipated Q3 results:cool:
Roger, Don't be sorry, you are entitled to an opinion, just like me.
You can be sure the legality of doing the transaction would have been vetted by legal representatives, so calls for FMA inspection will be fruitless.
I would be less sanguine if the price was under $3.00 due to a reckless on-market dump, but as I say, it seems to have been transacted very professionally, even if the timing is 'unfortunate'
Anyway, discussion on the subject is good, but thats it from me, said my piece and moving on
When I say pick up the phone I mean to talk to Norah directly