I saw that on the slide, but sadly the only information it presents is that 5 people make up that group and not who the other people/groups are or what their holdings are. Hopefully Quay will see transparency after such a period of opacity is a good thing and will help build bridges with the supporter base. And given the fragile balance, be open to expand on the initial info and provide full clarity.
Maybe. I'd be surprised if we get more info than knowing about JAQ and her husband. She's the nominee and is positioned to answer all our questions without revealing who they are.
As nominee, she could have any number of shares between 0% and 20%. As a board member of BFC and appointed Director, I'd find it disappointing in the extreme if the new broom brings yet more opacity. At the very minimum she could declare her own individual shareholding, and ideally that of her spouse, while confirming if it's personally held or some other investment vehicle. These aren't even the difficult questions yet. Who owns BFC should be a simple question that's easily and accurately answered. Spectemur Agendo and all that.
I'd like to know. Transparency has been alluded to, and I think it is about time we had some. Is it too trivial a matter for someone like me considering renewing his ST? Maybe so. After all, if the 'other 3' are big players with a decent track record, why should it worry me? But if the 'other 3' are Putin, Abramovic and Kim Yong Un, then it makes my decision easier.
Which apparently is what happened to Neerav who came in with 11%, became a fan and bought another 10% from Billy Beane.
Haven't said you don't have a right to ask though have I? I just said as the nominee, and based on how some (not all) silent investors work, we might not get to find out. You then make your own call on what you do with that info. Alternatively, she might give you three names who own £500k of shares each. Less than what Paul Conway and Grace Hung currently have.
Bit defensive old bean. Merely stating that I'd like to know, not that I have a right to know. Others may think different.
I think its worth mentioning the catchily titled legal provision on declaring beneficial ownership in the UK: Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 and related provisions of the Companies Act 2006 amended by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. It isnt quite my area of expertise so anyone with better knowledge feel free to jump in Basically as I see it anybody with a significant interest has to declare the ultimate ownership by a human of a UK company, including through intermediaries such as overseas SPV companies. I think there are two routes to achieving this status: First is to own more than 25% of the shareholding. The second is the exercise of voting rights on the direction of the company and/or appointments to board on an annual basis. I'm thinking the appointment of a nominee to do this on their behalf and at the nominee's absolute discretion side swerves the need for an ownership declaration given a 20% shareholding if they are acting as a block
I'm just saying that's completely fair. I get it. But I'm not as fussed and neither are others I speak to (and then others who are). I was more suggesting that finding that out might not happen and then it's up to you to do with that what you will. Wasn't defensive. Might have read your message the wrong way that's all.
