Comparision of Voting and Non Voting Share Prices

See below a comparision of Voting and Non Voting share prices of the same counter. The prices are as of the close of business on 22.03.2011.

The percentage is calculated by deviding the difference between Voting and Non Voting shares by the price of Non Voting share. In other words, this percentage represent how much more the investors have paid for the Voting rights of a share.

The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

Description / V / NV / V-NV / [(V-NV)/NV]
BLUE / 3.2 / 1.8 / 1.4 / 77.78%
CHL / 100.0 / 79.8 / 20.2 / 25.31%
CIC / 155.0 / 114.9 / 40.1 / 34.90%
CINS / 740.0 / 339.0 / 401.0 / 118.29%
COCO / 80.9 / 57.6 / 23.3 / 40.45%
COMB / 260.0 / 164.0 / 96.0 / 58.54%
HNB / 375.0 / 210.0 / 165.0 / 78.57%
LGL / 48.5 / 37.6 / 10.9 / 28.99%
MAL / 98.3 / 88.0 / 10.3 / 11.70%
MORI / 2,150.0 / 1,760.0 / 390.0 / 22.16%
RHL / 67.0 / 46.0 / 21.0 / 45.65%
SEMB / 2.1 / 1.0 / 1.1 / 110.00%
SEYB / 73.0 / 37.5 / 35.5 / 94.67%
SHOT / 155.0 / 115.1 / 39.9 / 34.67%
TFC / 38.0 / 17.3 / 20.7 / 119.65%
TKYO / 57.9 / 41.5 / 16.4 / 39.52%

Interpretation is up to you...

StocksWatch wrote:
The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

This is an interesting analysis... I am assuming that, for these companies, the EPS of Non-Voting and Voting shares is the same. If so, can someone please list the reasons why investors pay so much more for Voting shares?

Is it because there is less number of Voting shares? Or because they want to vote at the company's AGM?

What other rights do Voting shareholders have, which Non-Voting shareholders do not have?

StocksWatch wrote:See below a comparision of Voting and Non Voting share prices of the same counter. The prices are as of the close of business on 22.03.2011.

The percentage is calculated by deviding the difference between Voting and Non Voting shares by the price of Non Voting share. In other words, this percentage represent how much more the investors have paid for the Voting rights of a share.

The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

Description / V / NV / V-NV / [(V-NV)/NV]
BLUE / 3.2 / 1.8 / 1.4 / 77.78%
CHL / 100.0 / 79.8 / 20.2 / 25.31%
CIC / 155.0 / 114.9 / 40.1 / 34.90%
CINS / 740.0 / 339.0 / 401.0 / 118.29%
COCO / 80.9 / 57.6 / 23.3 / 40.45%
COMB / 260.0 / 164.0 / 96.0 / 58.54%
HNB / 375.0 / 210.0 / 165.0 / 78.57%
LGL / 48.5 / 37.6 / 10.9 / 28.99%
MAL / 98.3 / 88.0 / 10.3 / 11.70%
MORI / 2,150.0 / 1,760.0 / 390.0 / 22.16%
RHL / 67.0 / 46.0 / 21.0 / 45.65%
SEMB / 2.1 / 1.0 / 1.1 / 110.00%
SEYB / 73.0 / 37.5 / 35.5 / 94.67%
SHOT / 155.0 / 115.1 / 39.9 / 34.67%
TFC / 38.0 / 17.3 / 20.7 / 119.65%
TKYO / 57.9 / 41.5 / 16.4 / 39.52%

Interpretation is up to you...

Good Work friend

StocksWatch wrote:See below a comparision of Voting and Non Voting share prices of the same counter. The prices are as of the close of business on 22.03.2011.

The percentage is calculated by deviding the difference between Voting and Non Voting shares by the price of Non Voting share. In other words, this percentage represent how much more the investors have paid for the Voting rights of a share.

The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

Description / V / NV / V-NV / [(V-NV)/NV]
BLUE / 3.2 / 1.8 / 1.4 / 77.78%
CHL / 100.0 / 79.8 / 20.2 / 25.31%
CIC / 155.0 / 114.9 / 40.1 / 34.90%
CINS / 740.0 / 339.0 / 401.0 / 118.29%
COCO / 80.9 / 57.6 / 23.3 / 40.45%
COMB / 260.0 / 164.0 / 96.0 / 58.54%
HNB / 375.0 / 210.0 / 165.0 / 78.57%
LGL / 48.5 / 37.6 / 10.9 / 28.99%
MAL / 98.3 / 88.0 / 10.3 / 11.70%
MORI / 2,150.0 / 1,760.0 / 390.0 / 22.16%
RHL / 67.0 / 46.0 / 21.0 / 45.65%
SEMB / 2.1 / 1.0 / 1.1 / 110.00%
SEYB / 73.0 / 37.5 / 35.5 / 94.67%
SHOT / 155.0 / 115.1 / 39.9 / 34.67%
TFC / 38.0 / 17.3 / 20.7 / 119.65%
TKYO / 57.9 / 41.5 / 16.4 / 39.52%

Interpretation is up to you...

Good work StockWatch. + rep to you.

Antonym wrote:

StocksWatch wrote:
The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

This is an interesting analysis... I am assuming that, for these companies, the EPS of Non-Voting and Voting shares is the same. If so, can someone please list the reasons why investors pay so much more for Voting shares?

Is it because there is less number of Voting shares? Or because they want to vote at the company's AGM?

What other rights do Voting shareholders have, which Non-Voting shareholders do not have?

Few things coming to my mind;

The purpose of non-voting shares is to allow the holders of the ordinary shares to maintain control. They may be founders of a company, the existing shareholders of a company (often a family company) that wishes to list, a company that wants the benefits of an employee shares scheme without the existing shareholders losing control.

Non-voting shares are usually less valuable than voting shares despite being entitled to exactly the same stream of dividends.

1. Voting rights on AGMs, EGMs - Voting rights are required to take control of a company
2. The appointment of directors can bring an additional income stream. This is most relevant for small companies, especially family companies and those still controlled by their founders.
3. Control can bring the ability to make the company deal with connected parties. Visibly abusing this brings the risks of legal challenges from the minorities (which, in this context, includes other classes of shareholder).
4. Voting shares can easily be manipulated as those gets the attraction of high net worthy institutes/ guys

smallville wrote:

Antonym wrote:

StocksWatch wrote:
The investors of CINS, SEMB, TFC have paid more than double of the Non Voting share price for the Voting rights of the same company. MAL is having the least difference between the Voting and Non Voting shares.

This is an interesting analysis... I am assuming that, for these companies, the EPS of Non-Voting and Voting shares is the same. If so, can someone please list the reasons why investors pay so much more for Voting shares?

Is it because there is less number of Voting shares? Or because they want to vote at the company's AGM?

What other rights do Voting shareholders have, which Non-Voting shareholders do not have?

Few things coming to my mind;

The purpose of non-voting shares is to allow the holders of the ordinary shares to maintain control. They may be founders of a company, the existing shareholders of a company (often a family company) that wishes to list, a company that wants the benefits of an employee shares scheme without the existing shareholders losing control.

Based on the nice analysis of @slstock

I observed that "% PREMIUM IN VOTING" has positive relationship with "% of PUBLIC HOLDING", apart form Number of V & NV issued.

Here are some examples;**Banking stocks have been excluded, since the regulator does not allowing hostile takeovers (except for Government & its related parties).

Name -- % Premium --% Public Holding ----- Issued Qty NV/V --- %(NV/V)
TFC -- 119% -- 51% ----- 100M/60.4M ---(165%)
CINS -- 118% -- 61% ----- 6.4M/20M --- (32%)
SEMB -- 110% -- 76% -----560M/826.5M --- (68%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAL -- 11% -- 31% ----- 2.3M/22.4M --- (10%)
MORI -- 22% -- 23% ----- 0.174M/0.581M --- (30%)
CHL -- 25% -- 29% ----- 8.3M/25.5M --- (32%)
LGL -- 29% -- 22% -----

When the present management is confortable with 51% or above Voting rights, no reason anybody to pay high premium to the voting shares. It appeares that about 30%-40% premium would be the norm. Also it is natural to have low price when supply is very high.

e.g. SEMB is managed/controlled with only 24% (still 76% held by public) and acquiring of 51% is possible though collecting even at the market by paying higher price to voting shares. But, MAL it is impossible without negotiating with the current management as only about 30% held by public.

Also it can be noticed that TFC has issued extremly large number of NV.

Hope the facts help you to decide between V & NV.

Good Luck!!

factFINDER wrote:Based on the nice analysis of @slstock

I observed that "% PREMIUM IN VOTING" has positive relationship with "% of PUBLIC HOLDING", apart form Number of V & NV issued.

Here are some examples;**Banking stocks have been excluded, since the regulator does not allowing hostile takeovers (except for Government & its related parties).

Name -- % Premium --% Public Holding ----- Issued Qty NV/V --- %(NV/V)
TFC -- 119% -- 51% ----- 100M/60.4M ---(165%)
CINS -- 118% -- 61% ----- 6.4M/20M --- (32%)
SEMB -- 110% -- 76% -----560M/826.5M --- (68%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAL -- 11% -- 31% ----- 2.3M/22.4M --- (10%)
MORI -- 22% -- 23% ----- 0.174M/0.581M --- (30%)
CHL -- 25% -- 29% ----- 8.3M/25.5M --- (32%)
LGL -- 29% -- 22% -----

When the present management is confortable with 51% or above Voting rights, no reason anybody to pay high premium to the voting shares. It appeares that about 30%-40% premium would be the norm. Also it is natural to have low price when supply is very high.

e.g. SEMB is managed/controlled with only 24% (still 76% held by public) and acquiring of 51% is possible though collecting even at the market by paying higher price to voting shares. But, MAL it is impossible without negotiating with the current management as only about 30% held by public.

Also it can be noticed that TFC has issued extremly large number of NV.

Hope the facts help you to decide between V & NV.

Good Luck!!

Nice work factFinder. You are truly a 'fact finder' .

So we can clearly see following relationships.

1. When the number of NV shares are more compared to number of V shares, there seems to be a higher percentage premium paid for V shares. (This looks obvious so no need for further explanation)

2. When the public holding is more again there seems to be a higher percentage premium paid for V shares. (Here we would have expected otherway around - But see CINS and CHL for instance, NV/V share percentage is same but for CINS there is a higher percentage premium paid probably due to higher public holding.)

Also many thanks for your contribution smallville, trying to explain the possible reasons for paying higher percentage premium for V shares.

Keep up the good works mates.

Happy trading...