Another potential driver of their sell down is risk control,...

Another potential driver of their sell down is risk control, after all the stock increased almost five-fold since their initial investment. They may simply need to sell some to ensure it does not account for too much of their portfolio?

Institutional outflows from the business could also be behind some selling (if there was any outflow that is); they may be forced seller across a wide range of stocks if they need cash to fund redemptions or a mandate was transitioned to another manager that did not share their view on NAN. The tragic death of Simon Marias would have been a material event for many trigger happy asset consultants and their worried clients. Even though Simon always played down how much their performance was reliant on his input, his view was always that it was a team driven outcome, that he merely finessed things at the edges. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle? Only time and results will confirm one way or the other. That said, I was also a huge fan of Simon.

There is also another buyer from within the broader group, namely Orbis via their global equity portfolios. If they were also owners of NAN they may've sold down to rebalance, perceived better upside elsewhere, or possible outflows as well?

All that said, you are right in that any future changes in substantial shareholdings would be note worthy.

JFCP's buying is interesting as well though, as they are no dummies, particularly their CIO Michael Fitzsimmons.

On balance, I'm still happy to hold as their IP is uniquely satisfying an unmet need. Importantly for me is the fact that it is clearly gaining traction around the world, with more and more hospitals seeing the benefits of their product. In a world with so many risks, I like the fact that NAN has the potential to continue to grow sales regardless of what happens to the world economy.