Nursery
I have been an active member of Hot Copper since shortly after its inception and this is the first time I have felt the necessity to correct a fellow member. Although I make few posts - my old Daddy taught me you learn more from listening than talking, so I only post when I have something significant to contribute or a meaningful question to ask - knowledge gained from HC posters is sometimes, though not as often as it should be, an important part of my overall research as a professional active share investor (unlike many members whom it seems treat HC as their prime or even only source of information!).
As I said Nursery, I am not happy about criticising a fellow member, particularly a well-meaning octogenarian like yourself, but your continued, even if unintended, down-ramping of TAS based on your confusion between trading strategy and investment principles is not healthy. Your trading strategy based on your formula for current relativity between TAS and EDE prices has worked well for you. Well done, but please recognise this for what it is...a trading strategy. It has nothing to do with successful investment principles which always include value and patience as basic tenants.
And it is reprehensible that you accuse Rorter and even the Company itself of ramping up the stock when all they are doing is stating facts. TAS and EDE share common directors and they would be negligent in their duty if they did any more or less than state the basic facts as they regularly do by reminding us of the intrinsic value of TAS's shareholding in EDE. Sure as a short term trader this may not be as relevant to you as it is to an investor, so maybe your posts should be made where they belong - on the Day Trading forum.
As longer term investors who believe in the EDE story we would be foolish to purchase shares in EDE itself in preference to purchasing TAS as we would be paying virtually twice as much for the same slice of the business. Sure it may take some time for the market to recognise this value anomaly, but eventually it usually has to, often influenced by some sort of corporate action. This could take the form of a takeover or amalgamation or a share buy back or whatever. In the meantime we are getter a more than generous discount to compensate for a little less liquidity.
Over the years these sort of easily identifiable value anomalies have made me a lot of money. A good example was LSX (previously traded as LSG), a company whose only assets are holdings in small resource companies (and cash). Like TAS they used to continually trade for only about half of the combined value of their investments, which was listed monthly. Eventually the market has closed this gap, probably from coming to respect the directors' abilities to pick and capitalise on worthy investments, and they now trade at more than 90% of the value of these tangible assets. Incidentall this example makes the current inbalance between TAS and EDE even harder to fathom as they share common directors. The EDE shareholders seem to respect their directors more than the TAS ones!!
I am confident that, in time, I will share a similar result with the two prime value inbalance opportunities I am currently invested in, TAS and ARM (also half its current intrinsic value based on its liquid investments).
Thank you for sharing your trading strategies with us Nursery but please don't continue to confuse and mislead members with them on this thread.
Expand
(20min delay)
