Another Q about changes in substantial holdings

[libster59]

I'd like to ask a question about what a 'change in substantial holdings' mean?

I've searched this forum and understand:
1. a substantial holding is "Person/company holding more than 5% of a company's voting rights
2. there's no hard and fast rule about how substantial holdings changes affects share price

However, what does it mean when company ceases to be a substantial holder from another company?

On 11 March 2015 the Tatts Group (ASX:TTS) ceased to be a substantial holder from NAB.

Does this mean that:
1. TTS held shares in the NAB?
2. Did TTS have loans from NAB and no longer need NAB because TTS share price is strong or they've repaid loan?
3. Because NAB are crashing, TTS are getting rid of them?

This notification didn't appear to make much of a difference to the SP this time but any ideas on how ceasing to be a substantial holder from another company might affect the SP?

Thanks

 

[pixel]

I'd like to ask a question about what a 'change in substantial holdings' mean?

I've searched this forum and understand:
1. a substantial holding is "Person/company holding more than 5% of a company's voting rights
2. there's no hard and fast rule about how substantial holdings changes affects share price

However, what does it mean when company ceases to be a substantial holder from another company?

On 11 March 2015 the Tatts Group (ASX:TTS) ceased to be a substantial holder from NAB.

Does this mean that:
1. TTS held shares in the NAB?
2. Did TTS have loans from NAB and no longer need NAB because TTS share price is strong or they've repaid loan?
3. Because NAB are crashing, TTS are getting rid of them?

This notification didn't appear to make much of a difference to the SP this time but any ideas on how ceasing to be a substantial holder from another company might affect the SP?

Thanks

"from" usually refers to the holder from whom the notice comes. So, in your example, NAB sold their TTS holding down to below 5% and therefore ceased to hold a substantial position.
In most cases, these small swings around 5% don't mean much; it does become interesting when larger chunks are added or disposed of, which you will find when you compare a string of "Change" notes from the same institution. For example, when Alan Jenks kept increasing his holding of LOM, we knew "something was cooking" - and in the end, he became Chairman.

In summary, it's again the old cliche of "It Depends".

It can be, however, very interesting to study the trading details often included in an appendix to such a change or ceasing note. For example, have a read through TTS notice on March 24th and see how Black Rock almost day-traded the stock.

 

[libster59]

Thanks for the reply pixel.
It's still all a little too much for me and looks like double dutch. I guess I'll remain very much a novice at this game.