SUM - Summerset Group

[Vaygor1]

Was ACC the buyer? If so, Why would they, a sophisticated institution, buy just before an announcement unless somebody made reassuring noises to them about the seller and or early indication of the forthcoming announcement?
….

Sophisticated institution? Good grief. You have got to be kidding me.

This the same institution that has recently bought Rakon.
The same institution that bought HUGELY in Allied Farmers just before the Hannover deal sent the SP down over 99% for 4 years.
The same institution that sold said ALF shares at their all-time-low just before a 700% increase.
The same institution whose business is supposed to be accident compensation but have lost their way into becoming an investment company.
The same institution that has also lost its way by becoming a claims rejection company instead of an accident compensation company (in order to prevent the ridiculous law suits such as those that continue to occur in the U.S.).

[Tevita]

Sophisticated institution? Good grief. You have got to be kidding me.

This the same institution that has recently bought Rakon.
The same institution that bought HUGELY in Allied Farmers just before the Hannover deal sent the SP down over 99% for 4 years.
The same institution that sold said ALF shares at their all-time-low just before a 700% increase.
The same institution whose business is supposed to be accident compensation but have lost their way into becoming an investment company.
The same institution that has also lost its way by becoming a claims rejection company instead of an accident compensation company (in order to prevent the ridiculous law suits such as those that continue to occur in the U.S.).

Okay, one can presume too much. An enlightenment phase- It`s not just the small fry who make all the mistakes.

[Goldstein]

Sophisticated institution? Good grief. You have got to be kidding me.

This the same institution that has recently bought Rakon.
The same institution that bought HUGELY in Allied Farmers just before the Hannover deal sent the SP down over 99% for 4 years.
The same institution that sold said ALF shares at their all-time-low just before a 700% increase.
The same institution whose business is supposed to be accident compensation but have lost their way into becoming an investment company.
The same institution that has also lost its way by becoming a claims rejection company instead of an accident compensation company (in order to prevent the ridiculous law suits such as those that continue to occur in the U.S.).

Beat me to it.. I actually laughed out loud when I read your post Tevita.

[Vaygor1]

I think we all agree that the timing of sale was unfortunate (to say the least) and is highly likely to represent unethical/illegal behaviour. However, my point was that we'll never be able to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt, which I presume is the relevant burden of proof? More importantly, I place this type of behaviour in a totally different category to that of Chris Swann (the chair of PEB) who misled the market with unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims about the company's li8key future performance, then sold down on the basis of the resulting price spike. To my mind, that is far worse. Norah, on the other hand, has played a huge role in building SUM up to be a very profitable company, and did not abuse her position to manipulate the price and cause investors to collectively lose more than $100m in the value of their shares.

"I only chopped his fingers off your honour. The others, well, they wanted to kill him… so you should let me off."

I do very much agree with your post NG but a lesser wrong as we all know is still a wrong. As for unfortunate timing, Norah could have waited 3 or 4 days to sell… she knew the release date months in advance. The timing wasn't unfortunate, it was deliberate.

[stoploss]

I think its almost a certainty that ACC bought part of her stake. Thanks for your post.
I'd like to be clear about my intentions. I'd like to buy back into the company at some point in the future when I feel sure the current correction is done and dusted.
I'd like to have confidence that all directors take their legal, moral and ethical obligations extremely seriously.
It is not my intention in any way whatsoever to deliberately besmirch a directors reputation rather to bring it too shareholders attention so as to encourage others to put pressure on the company to institute proper ethical boundaries through the companies constitution as to directors dealings in and around price sensitive announcement releases. (If this isn't done we would have the completely farcical situation where for example one of the other directors could be buying up large on market a day or two before a potentially very strong Q3 sales announcement)

Whether there has been a legal breech of NZX regulations is a separate regulatory matter of equal importance to me. Whether this transaction constitutes insider trading is a further separate, potentially criminal matter.
FMA have acknowledged my e.mail enquiry, (which is not a formal complaint), (at this stage), and I will advise as soon as they've formally responded.
I'd prefer not to comment further until I've been appraised of the NZX regulations.

Roger have you emailed the CEO of SUM , to see if they like any good company have a policy around employee share sales / purchases and blackout periods ?

[stoploss]

AWF policy for example ....
All non-executive Directors are encouraged to hold AWF shares. Directors are subject to limitations on their ability to buy and sell AWF shares by the Company’s Insider Trading Policy and the Securities Market Act 1988. These limitations include the requirement that Directors cannot buy and sell AWF shares during the black-out periods from 30 September to the announcement of the half-year results and from 31 March to the announcement of the full year results. All trading is subject to prior approval of the Chairperson or in the Chairperson’s case by the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. All changes in the shareholdings of Directors are reported to the Board and the NZX. Directors shall note and acknowledge their understanding of the AWF Group Policy on Share Transactions.
The Board will seeks to ensure that new Directors are appropriately introduced to management and the business; are acquainted with relevant industry knowledge; and receive all appropriate papers, policies and documents to enable them to effectively perform their role and add value to the Company.

[Goldstein]

"I only chopped his fingers off your honour. The others, well, they wanted to kill him… so you should let me off."

I do very much agree with your post NG but a lesser wrong as we all know is still a wrong. As for unfortunate timing, Norah could have waited 3 or 4 days to sell… she knew the release date months in advance. The timing wasn't unfortunate, it was deliberate.

I suspect the SP would have gone into a real dive if Mrs Barlow sold two days after the Q1 report was released.

[Goldstein]

I think its almost a certainty that ACC bought part of her stake. Thanks for your post.
I'd like to be clear about my intentions. I'd like to buy back into the company at some point in the future when I feel sure the current correction is done and dusted.
I'd like to have confidence that all directors take their legal, moral and ethical obligations extremely seriously.
It is not my intention in any way whatsoever to deliberately besmirch a directors reputation rather to bring it too shareholders attention so as to encourage others to put pressure on the company to institute proper ethical boundaries through the companies constitution as to directors dealings in and around price sensitive announcement releases. (If this isn't done we would have the completely farcical situation where for example one of the other directors could be buying up large on market a day or two before a potentially very strong Q3 sales announcement)

Whether there has been a legal breech of NZX regulations is a separate regulatory matter of equal importance to me. Whether this transaction constitutes insider trading is a further separate, potentially criminal matter.
FMA have acknowledged my e.mail enquiry, (which is not a formal complaint), (at this stage), and I will advise as soon as they've formally responded.
I'd prefer not to comment further until I've been appraised of the NZX regulations.

Fair enough Roger. It is probably worth a please explain - and good on you for following up. I just don't like seeing NZ business people who are delivering getting nailed to a tree for something which they may have been innocent of.

[Vaygor1]

I suspect the SP would have gone into a real dive if Mrs Barlow sold two days after the Q1 report was released.

On what basis?

[winner69]

Bad timing but a fair chunk of those shares Norah sold were part of her pay or LTI plan which had vested. Just a belated payday but not a good look

I was surprised at the time it took the full three days allowabvle to disclose .... many seem to do it well within the time limit

She probably buy them back at 250 or less soon ... that be canny eh