Snakk

[Merc]

I may be a little bit slow - what's he doing that is so bad?

As a semi novice on the learning curve I couldn't figure it out either - until I went searching for a definition of what an SPP is and found this: http://blog.traderdealer.com.au/shar...ase-plans-spp/

[1leon]

Too much aimed at an assumption on Sorenson---plenty others must have 100,000 holdings from SPP. I had been attracted for sometime to follow Handley but was happy to escape late Friday/early this morning at cost of brokerage when comparing Snakk with MBE and MM for p/s and revenue and InMob for clients as well as vast number of shares out there.

[1leon]

Well aware of SSH--there was no basis for assumption that it was only Sorenson selling at start or end of any day or that 100,000 lots had to be his.

[Merc]

... Everyone who bought in above 12 cents is now deep in red because...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news here but ANY investment - a share, a property or a bar of gold - carries the risk of a drop in price.

Some of these drops may be terminal (company fails, uninsured house in a disaster, losing the bar of gold); others for a period of time due to a change in the relevant cycle or some other unforeseen reason. The drop maybe short term or it may be long term.

Rule 1 in life is Risk analysis. Consider the "What Ifs?" and have a Plan B

[1leon]

I don't doubt he may be the biggest seller (by far). But neither he nor the company might reasonably have expected the shares to be worth 12 cents within two years when they were issued at .9 cents. He (like a number of much smaller fry on further reflection) might think that price is not really sustainable. I can't really see the the point in theorising about his motivation or timing but do know mine. Look again at p/s compared to like companies with significantly greater revenue and client capture. And at least he is letting others get out with small destruction so far!

[robbo24]

Moose, have the fortunes of the company changed at all?

Do you still "believe in the story"?

The Moosie I know would normally be discussing blood in the streets and buy-buy-buying - what's different about this time Mr Moose?

[1leon]

I agree with almost everything you have said, but in terms of not seeing the point about figuring out who is selling and why, for me at least there is an obvious reason. IF like me you are someone sitting on the sidelines potentially looking to buy in, understanding what is happening to the SP and why is hugely important. At one stage I had a bid in at 12.1c but promptly withdrew that as soon as I figured out what was happening. Given that Sorenson picked up his shares at 0.9c he could easily drive the SP down a mile further. Even if you were really keen on SNK you would be a brave person to invest now with so much downside uncertainty. For those reasons I think the conversations re Sorenson are pretty relevant.
Otherwise like I said, agree with everything else you have said.

I didn't say there was no point in figuring out who the big seller was--his identity purchase price, sheer volume of shares and sell down were fact and relevant.I said there was no point in theorising on his motivation and timing-any discussion/negotiation with Handley, why he was selling after SPP or how far he wants to sell down we don't/can't know.

[bonne vie]

Have I missed something - why do you think Snakk Trustees Ltd got the shares for 0.9c. From the Snakk Media Ltd documents at the company office - Snakk Trustees Ltd does not appear on the Extensive Shareholder List dated 21/2/13 and the first Substantial Shareholder Notice was lodged at the Companies office 11/3/13 recording becoming a substantial holder (25,000,000 12.10%) 6/3/13 - the listing day. Therefore wouldn't the company's lowest purchase price be 6.5c or could he have purchased off market?
Still even at 6.5c - there was still 16,769,499 shares (6.58%) as ar 14/6/13 available to sell. Would be very interesting to have access to the 6/3/13 parcels sold.

[Snow Leopard]

Have I missed something - why do you think Snakk Trustees Ltd got the shares for 0.9c....

Go look

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[Tony Two Gloves]

I think Mr Handley has been very naive here in not having a lock up agreement for at least two years with the major holders (I think SLI did this) as would be the norm. I know he is a smart guy but did he believe verbal promises from Sorenson and Co that they were in for the long haul? I'm sure they didn't say hey Derek as soon as this thing lists we will be continually selling and driving the SP down so we can make a decent profit on our 0.009 purchase. If the major shareholders were locked in for two years I think the SP would be well up and Moosie wouldn't be jumping off Te Mata peak in his G String! Don't get me started on the continual issuing of securities at 0.05 & 0.065 when your new shareholder base just coughed up 0.12 - I am also now long term on this one which wasn't the original plan!