BLT - Blis Technologies

[emearg]

Guys, lets us not be a little bias just because we own BLT. That article is a good one. But the article has nothing to do with Bliss business prospects, just the means (devious or otherwise) that some shareholder/owner used to increase their shareholding cheaply. Of course, if NZSX comes up with a negative decison, it may still affect the SP for a little while.

I agree. Good article. What happened was a bad look and still is. I would have been much mader if I didn't hold so many preference shares. I did well out of their activities. It doesn't make it right, it is just unusual that I get to benefit from such things. Usually they seem to work against me!

Naughty majority shareholder!!!

[emearg]

I don't own Blis, and this is the sort of thing that would make me NOT want to own Blis shares. Mind you, if I was to be consistently puritanical, I wouldn't want shares in Diligent either.

I sure hope every last director on PEB is squeaky clean STC! If not you must sell sell sell!!!

[CJ]

Guys, lets us not be a little bias just because we own BLT. That article is a good one. But the article has nothing to do with Bliss business prospects, just the means (devious or otherwise) that some shareholder/owner used to increase their shareholding cheaply. Of course, if NZSX comes up with a negative decison, it may still affect the SP for a little while.

I don't own Blis, and this is the sort of thing that would make me NOT want to own Blis shares. Mind you, if I was to be consistently puritanical, I wouldn't want shares in Diligent either.

My view on the article. Chalkie is probably right in that some devious dealings were definitely done by a Shareholder. Were they illegal, I dont know but in my opinion they should be if they are not. I view it the same as insider trading which is illegal though tends to be ignored by the FMA/SC. In fact he confessed to his wrong doing by saying it was arbitrage - it was only arbitrage because he could impact the price of once security to increase the value of another security.

There is nothing the company could have done to stop it other than not issue the pref shares in the first place. Ideally they would have reported it to the FMA/SC to confirm that the actions of a shareholder did not breach any legislation which would have showed them being proactive about the issue.

From a company perspective, it did not impact on the value of the company at all, or the future prospects of the company. All it impacted on was the proportion of the company that each share represented which is very important to a shareholder. But given this took place in the past, and there are no more prefs on issues, it should not impact a current investing decision.

However, the shareholder who took part in this sneeky/dubious and potentially illegal act is still a major shareholder and you will need to consider whether all shareholders (who are in theory now all equal) will be treated equally in the future.

[Cool Bear]

I don't own Blis, and this is the sort of thing that would make me NOT want to own Blis shares. Mind you, if I was to be consistently puritanical, I wouldn't want shares in Diligent either.

Sorry, Sparky. My post comment was not directed to you but to the rest of us who do own a bit of Blis. I quoted your post as I think all shareholders should read that article. We are all guilty of getting emotionally attached to our shareholdings. Some more than others.

[CJ]

I don't want to "bash" BLT, but I do think that the best way for BLT to get ahead is not by ignoring the past, but learning from it. And if criticism is due, it is due of Edinburgh and the FMA/NZX, not Blis.

Exactly. No blame on BLT.

But, that shareholder is still around. What happens if the next capital raising is a new round of Pref shares only offered to significant holders - one would have to hope this wouldn't occur.

We must learn from the past but also not let it get in the way of a good investment - DIL being the perfect example as you menationed above.

[Bobby_Fischer]

No blame on BLT.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I am still very interested in the how and why of the NZX announcement of 22/03/12. It had an uncharacteristically negative tone. Long term Blis watchers will understand what I mean - BLT almost always puts a very positive spin on their announcements no matter how indifferent or (sometimes) dismal their news. The 22/03/12 announcement stood out for breaking that pattern. Out of that context, it might just read as a realistic assessment of their prospects, but the tone and timing just prior to the conversion certainly suited the preference shareholders, and the bigger ones all the more so.

[emearg]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I am still very interested in the how and why of the NZX announcement of 22/03/12. It had an uncharacteristically negative tone. Long term Blis watchers will understand what I mean - BLT almost always puts a very positive spin on their announcements no matter how indifferent or (sometimes) dismal their news. The 22/03/12 announcement stood out for breaking that pattern. Out of that context, it might just read as a realistic assessment of their prospects, but the tone and timing just prior to the conversion certainly suited the preference shareholders, and the bigger ones all the more so.

I completely agree. Perhaps Tony Often wrote it?

[Bobby_Fischer]

I completely agree. Perhaps Tony Often wrote it?

There is a reasonable argument that says that if the shares were trading at an unrealistic price prior to the conversion (due to the market not being fully informed about the companies prospects, etc), then the board had a responsibility to the preference shareholders to make public the information they did. I would question the way it was done, however. And I am not sure that BLT have always been as careful of their shareholders interests over the years! The behaviour of the shareprice since the conversion would suggest the 22/03/12 announcement painted an unreasonably bleak picture.

[simla]

Sorry guys, but this is old news. Those of us who were there last year have had ample time to form opinions and move on.

Our society works by referring any questions to the umpire. The company did just that as reported in the last two company reports, and the thrust of this article is that the FMA has ruled no problem and that the NZX has ruled nothing - and perhaps some observations on how the umpire works. Our society also allows for you to disagree with the umpire by protesting to the umpire or to the umpire's boss, presumably the Minister of Something or Other. Anyone is free to do that.

But I don't see any point in arguing this here as the umpire system is how our society works. The alternative is the David Bain situation, which I think is a travesty. I have no idea if Bain did it and neither has anyone else. But he has been found not guilty a few times now and I find it appalling that he isn't allowed to live with that decision, because societies without the rule of law are the alternative and they are pretty disgusting. I don't want that.

So I'm happy to leave it to the umpire and that's it for me. I'm living in the now, not the then.

The main points of the article for me were therefore these: Someone in the mainstream media noticed Blis again, and that is starting to be a trend; one of NZ's most experienced investors believes in the company and is willing to sink pretty serious money into it; the regulators seem to move to a different clock to the rest of us.

[simla]

I wonder what's happening with the dog product? Oct 15 last year we were told "BLIS K12 probiotic was able to inhibit around 50% of the various bacteria of a dogs mouth" and "small pilot trial were encouraging enough to commence a longer, extended dosing trial in dogs, which started in Dunedin last week " https://nzx.com/companies/BLT/announcements/228432

Morning Report this morning http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/busines...r_2012-048.mp3 (about 5 mins in) reported the dog product should be on the market in the US and Europe in a year.

That Morning Report was 16 Oct. It's 4 months later now and you'd think they might have finished the longer trial now? Did it support the initial data?