The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Jimian, if you read what I have said before I have been clear I have no problems with this letter. Hopefully it will be the last time we have to do this.
ChippyJo - sent a starter for 10 through and happy to adjust as necessary
thanks for all your hard work chippyjo. Have a safe trip.
Hi Heath, thanks for the offer of assistance, appreciate it.
I've got two redeyes to the US and back wed/fri so I may be less available later in the week.
ChippyJo - I’ll happily bang you a spreadsheet together to do all the necessary calcs and record keeping if required. Will email something across if I get time over the next couple of days.
We don’t necessarily need a next step now. In the future though, if there is a need to contact the company over something contentious you might just circulate a draft of a letter, as you have done, and ask if any shareholder does not want their holding included in that action. It is not that difficult. Otherwise your potentially getting closer to Arthur Scargill- type voting patterns. I am just trying to come up with a system to minimise discord or abuse in the future, not that I am casting doubts on your integrity, you have been whiter than white to date.
If we don’t have this the BoD could always question the validity of the holding size requesting an action.
There probably will not be a problem, but I just want to see a clear process agreed.
Ok BB, realistically speaking, how am I going to administer 127 different shareholdings on a weighted scale in both time and mathematically? Especially as there have been changes to their holdings as many I guess averaged down.
There is also the reason why anyone would want this? Do we need to do an IQ check of all shareholders to check they have both the mental capacity and intelligence to vote? It could be made so difficult to administer that it becomes a worthless exercise.
All of the direct feedback I have received has been positive. If somebody no longer wishes to be in the group then I will deduct their total. THIS IS NOT WHAT I WANT. And I'm not suggesting you withdraw either.
As for strategy and letter writing, I'm happy to delegate to a willing volunteer if one should step forward.
Maybe you can tell us what you would like to do for the next step?
Not really Jimian. Just thinking ahead. And I don’t know what other negatives you are accusing me of dreaming up in the past. Normally I am accused of being too positive.
Not seeking to destroy, wanting to strengthen. Look, hypothetically, if someone has 5 million shares and finds those shares being used for something they disagree with by an assortment of smaller shareholders they are not likely to remain. I hasten to add I do not have 5 million shares and I am thinking ahead, not to the present.
BB they don't really need to lobby the group, they would go to the whites the russians and schroders.
Lets build something together rather than explore ways to destroy it before its begun.
Unity is not achieved by assuming everyone agrees. Also can you imagine the BoD lobbying individuals in a small group with less than 10% of the shares?
The important thing is to apply pressure in the right places. The BOD will almost certainly think divide and conquer so we must remain a unified group.
Not be needed suits us so over to you bod, get moving or move on....something has got to give here soon.
I am thinking more about the future. We cannot guarantee that there will be unanimity in the future, but plenty of time to consider. Hopefully will not be needed.
BB The logistics of that may be beyond my online technical abilities. Alternatively lets just keep focussed on the here and now.
It would be a good idea to get votes on holdings so that communications go in against share holding totals for those that support the message. However, this time around the issue is straight forward and non-contentious, at least as far as I am concerned. Thank-you.
iwant, yes lets see where we are with the letter first. The benefit of the site is I can contact people easily. Another suggestion was a google survey using google forms. I may add a link for future questions to shareholders for a vote etc.
It would be nice if the remaining few can send their holding screenshots please.
Great work John, I think there is enormous power in saying that the group represents not far off 10% of the total shareholding. Agitators like Bramdean Capital start off with less than that! The company might argue that we’re a disparate group of malcontents, which clearly doesn’t have the same force as a single shareholder. It might be worth considering formally getting an “ Agree” from each member to any future communication so you can say it truly represents the single voice of the group. One for later, and hopefully not needed.
Hi Ollie, I've no idea who fuel cell is or a website.
I set up a shareholder group to try to get things moving and comms improving. Every new member gets a free pen....
Actually no, theres no free pen )
contact me at legacyjohn@me.com if you want to join the shareholder group.
Is this letter you've composed on the website Fuecell made or something new?.
Looks good John, I look forward to hearing Adam try to justify his exorbitant salary.
I will add in Desrt when sent. Even this morning I had 6 emails with new or slightly increased total.
Piltick, I'm sure he'll see it )
Hi John,
I've just read the letter and think it should certainly make some people sit up and take notice.
Hopefully a meeting will not be necessary after Adam receives the letter and an RNS will be put out instead, giving a full update of what and when exactly is expected over the coming weeks/months.
May I just say again, a massive thanks to you for all your efforts, you are single handedly pushing things to happen with more urgency now than we have had over several years.
I eagerly await the response from AFC.
Thanks for that chippy.
How about a copy to John Rennocks?