CONSIDERATION OF FREE FLOAT
AIM is an international market for growth companies covering a broad range of sectors with a wide range of market capitalisations. Given this, the AIM Rules take a principles based approach to ensure that they are relevant to the needs of such companies.
A company’s free float is an important qualitative assessment, which can have a significant impact on the ability of the company to attract investors and the functioning of the secondary market. Whilst we do not prescribe levels of free float, the issue of free float is something that we consider an important factor in the work a nominated adviser undertakes when bringing an applicant to market. Sufficient free float is fundamental to the orderly trading and liquidity of the securities once admitted to AIM, which is inextricably linked to the company’s appropriateness to be admitted to AIM.
Nominated advisers will be aware that we often ask them to provide us with details about the factors they have considered in relation to free float when seeking to bring a company to AIM. As a consequence, this is an area where we thought it would be helpful to clarify some of the factors we often discuss with nominated advisers, including the following:
Consideration should be given to how the securities are likely to trade when admitted to AIM, following discussion with the company’s broker(s) and potential market makers. We would expect consideration to be given to the spread and nature of the shareholders comprising the free float;
Failure to raise initial target funds (which in itself might give rise to free float questions) may be indicative of more fundamental issues of appropriateness and is a matter that should be properly explored by the nominated adviser;
Limited free float should give rise to questions about the rationale for the applicant to seek admission to AIM;
Where there are concentrated shareholdings (e.g. connected due to family, business or other interests/ connections) free float issues should be considered in conjunction with issues of undue influence, control and ongoing corporate governance arrangements within the company.
Date of publication: 1 June 2015
Believe your sentiment is shared By Many thousand of distraught small investors. I was positive because maybe I naive in believing that the BOD were Going to act in all the shareholders best interests and because I believed the mistruths told By TOR and because I believed the scandolous and outrageous mismanagement and abuse of the BODs powers were because something positive was on the horizon. I Have alot of money ( for me) invested here and am lost for words to describe the situation and the scoundrels running the show at Providence. Have a question. Is there a mÃnimum percentage level defined By AIM below which free float cannot fall. Believe small PIs own approx 7% of company. If 70-80 m dollars raised We Will own less Than 2%. Is this ok under AIM rules. Hope Richie has some success with his court action if It takes place. We are being Robbed of our money By this bunch
Is It normal that Cenkos is mouthing Off about having raised at least 70m dollars whilst We the small second class shareholder are not even offered An RNS. This is once again a display of the arrogance of the People running this company
Richard stated at the bottom of the report that he had a position in Providence. His view in the report was shared By Many i.e TOR had made a mess of things but depite that Great Assets should win out. This is still the case only Know It appears that our BOD is attempting to sell our Assets on the cheap By dilluting Us out of existance.
Lets just hope Providence just raise 30 to 40m as Mamms suggested and not the 100m mentioned. At least not through equity funding
I believe TOR is worse Than a chancer. TOR has lied continuously, not behaved in the interests of all shareholders, mismanaged the company, fleeced the company using borrowed money, not treated all shareholders equally and has not been transparent in regards to Barryroe, Schlumberger, Transocean nor Melody. It is hard to understand How he and the BOD can Get away with such behaviour. These individuals Have no conscience at all. And to add insult to injury they are selling us out with this tremendous dillution. Many Like I Have been financing this crowd for nearly 10 years now. Disgusting
AIM should also be investigating unethical behaviour. Surely they Have a regulatory body that should be examining the company. 1: Has the BOD behaved in the best interest of the shareholders. 2: Has the BOD been transparent. 3: If there is no insider trading How come all the major IIs Know about equity raise before us small investors. 4: How have the auditors signed Off year after year on the accounts of Providence knowing what We now Know. 5: is It legal to Pay disgracefully high Salaries to TOR, JOS and BOD out of borrowed money with no revenue stream. 6: is It normal that the remuneration committee is effectively the members of the BOD assigning themselves Salaries that Many shareholders are very upset about. 7: is It legal to pass company funds i.e borrowed money to Irish Olympic Team against the wish of Many shareholders. 8: is It legal to issue Many misleading and false statements. : is It ok to issue RNS about commercial agreement on Barryroe and thereafter not explain what has happened and whether agreement is bust. 9: is It ok to announce An agreement with Schlumberger without specifying exactly the terms of the agreement. 10: is It ok to dilute small original PE investors into oblivion when other options exist. Many other questions to answer apart from these
True Fencer I am one of those who has been over optimistic It appears or more likely It appears to believe the pack of mistruths told to us By the scoundrels on the BOD. However one thing I cannot understand is How all the Institutional Investors also apparently believed the Same. They put in most of the New funds and did not move to remove TOR and the BOD. In fact they Will probably put in more money with new Equity Fund. And this not to mention our activist shareholder Pagent. So I am bewildered.