Member Info for AB124

RuckRover
Thanks for your positive response, as to all who have taken a positive view of this discussion.
I completely agree that a more tolerant and supportive BB (on all sides) might lead to a more relaxed and useful BB for ALL readers and contributors.
Scancell has massive potential and we may just be inching towards some realisation (in the financial sense) of that.
I do hope so.

Krafty1305
Thanks for your reply, very generous.
I think there is a case to be made for traders (like the poor they are always with us), but to demonise those who are providing liquidity in the market (succesful traders sell when stock is short - in anticipation of a reverse and buy when stock is plentiful) is in my view, wrong.
We have had an extreme situation raised by my reply to Chelsea11's post (for which I seem to be being set up for identifying an individual - have I transgressed?) but it was extreme and in fairness he did explain he was selling. BUT if all people who believe in in Scancell stuck to their guns and held what effect did the posts have? Since the posts against Scancell appeared only here surely there would be nobody rushing to sell on a cardboard cut out?
I'd be rather more concerned about the wider Social Media for that, and trying to control that pretty well impossible.
I would be interested to know who is in Team Ramp and who is in Team Damp, and more importantly who presides over the allocation of membership?

Chelsea11
TO answer your question I would suggest that you discover who has been invested here for the longest period of time without a break.
That would seem to cover your question and obviously I can't answer that.
Hope that helps.

Krafty1305
Of course ther ewill be cash raises needed by some investors but with respect and to echo your caveat, politely, I don't think that is relevant to the discussion here.
Anyone who raises cash for their personal needs would do so anyway irrespective of the SP level. I was talking about concious decisions to sell and buy back in or simply to secure a profit. there is a case for suggesting that investors should have sufficient cash in hand for their likely requirements but that's a different matter.
WeTookPelham
I think your weekend musing brings up a subject that need discussing and that is the tribalism that has arisen on this BB which is brought into focus by "Traders actions"..
I believe a discussion about motives and different investors is highly relevant.

Chelsea11
Because until hasiba arrived the term holding strong did not feature on the Scancell BB.
Have a look back at his history.
If I am incorrect I'll naturally apologise.
Sadly the logic of the argument is being removed piece by piece.
My original point was that anyone taking profit would not do so if they thought the short term direction for the share was upward.
I still believe it's a question of timing.
Finally is hasiba a member of Team Damp?

Chelsea11
But our most resolute Strong Holder (hasiba) has taken profit in the quest for other opportunities hasn't he?
Nothing wrong with that surely? He did tell us all why so why would you say that?

RuckRover
I should have said that the "short" trader wants the price to fall SHORT TERM, against a LONG TERM RISE. So wouldn't it be reasonable to expect some people to change their immediate short term expectation of the SP even though long term they want the market North? Surely those who express that view are being (perhaps a little too) honest.
I think this might be the core of the problem and resultant misunderstandings.

RuckRover
I take your point but would you concede that at the time of the sale of shares the seller is saying that he expects the SP to fall? So for the purposes of that trade even a trader (who is a member of team ramp) might want to see the SP south in order to close his trade? I say this because a trader who sells and wants the SP to rise is surely not being honest with themselves?
PLEASE don't take this oersonally, I genuinely think we might all find some common ground through this discussion.

WeTookPelham
I read your 22.16 last night but my phone is useless for typing on so I gave up.
I do understand what you say, but maybe this alternative view might be worth thinking about.
Purely logically if there is a massive spike (such as we have seen here in the recent past) it makes sense to realise a small profit and either await a fall in the SP or simply take the profit into cash for other opportunities.
Since some people will have predetermined target prices to sell, others will simply look at the SP level and decide on the spur of the moment.
Some will simply use the profit elsewhere and some will not want to reinvest but run with what they have left.
Alternatively many will over the course of an investment want to remove their original stake and run on a "free shares" basis.
Each of those scenarios is perfectly valid and reflects the individual's view of risk.
BUT at the point of sale after the decision to profit take (or reduce a holding) the investor concerned is making a judgement that the short term high for the SP has been achieved.
Anyone who leaves some shares invested is not saying that they think the SP has peaked forever but that they feel a "top" has been reached for now. In fact anyone who leaves no shares might think the same thing.
This is part of investing and hopefully making money.
If anyone sells any proportion of their holding for whatever reason and through whatever motivation (to buy back in or to keep their profit) the implication is that they feel the SP will retrace.
So my question here is, "Why is it OK for some people to announce that they are trading and have sold, whilst others are pillioried for doing the same thing and branded as Team damp?"
Neither group are saying that Scancell is a busted flush, but for some reason one set of people are OK for selling shares whereas others are not even though neither group want Scancell to fail.
The crux of the question is whether people have sufficient faith in the Company and its likely progress even though both groups are likely to have sold shares.
It seems to me that those who are criticising the others who have sold are generally doing exactly the same thing but they are somehow OK because they've sold but others are not .
This is a genuine question where two sets of investors are at one anothers' throats for seemingly doing the same thing but for different reasons and in different timescales.
Hope we can discuss this reasonably.

Crumbs,
Well done.

Ratcliffewriter
Have a look at my posts going back over the last few months and I think you'll find that I'm (optimistically) Bullish for Scancell.
It doesn't mean that I take every price movement or trade as something that needs to be dissected and posted about.
What being Bullish does mean is that I am hopeful of Share Price appreciation because of the finances we have, as well as the IP (given the right trial results and subsequent commercialisation) our products will hopefully demonstrate a utility which will benefit both patients and shareholders in due course.
Why you insist on taking up cudgels with anyone who isn't aligned with your regular supporters or who doesn't completely agree with your posts is beyond me, but suffice it to say (amazingly) we appear to be generally on the same side of the market. Since that is the case then maybe the hostility could be dialled down a bit? I hope so.

Ray Pointer
Why your comment? I take it as a post against me, so I'll reply to you in a similarly impressive vein.
I quote,
"Yawn............................zzzzz!!!!"
Annoying isn't it, or do you find it a worthwhile style of posting?

Ratcliffewriter
I was drawn to your earlier post where you stated,

""....had they been sells, we'd have been bombarded with 'somebody knows something and is getting out fast', ....."

I wonder whether the irony of your statement is lost in the fact that you later state,

...."" but as buys they attract no balanced comment from the damps. Will Monday bring news, or is it just coincidence that investors pay 135k for 568,000 shares - 6 weeks ago they would only have had to pay 78 grand, or alternatively for their 135k they could have picked up over a million shares. ""

I'm sure you are right and the trade/s in question are buys (I have not checked, but assuming you are right) maybe the "balance" you seek is that they were not new investments but buy backs of shares sold at 27p + (or in any case higher than yesterday) where the original sale and a buyback (at yesterday's level you quote) would have netted a profit of around GBP22K whilst the same investor/s would be holding EXACTLY what they had a couple of weeks ago as well as a cash balance which has been considerablty enhanced. All of that could also have been realised tax free.
I do hate to say it but I think you have demonstrated confirnmation bias wonderfully well.
Either you have only considered the trades you spotted as only being conceivably a new investment, or you do not see what could (quite realistically) have been the reason for the buys (particularly on a Friday), and (particularly when the "shorter" )might have felt it best not to have been out of the market over the weekend so he closed.
As we read of someone selling 100K (?) shares yesterday to fund a short term punt, does not my suggested alternative scenario for the late "buys" not make sense and also show that there's always two sides to a transaction?
Not sure that's a "damp" - not quite sure what is actually meant by that expression in this context- comment, but it might show how one investor /s buying on a Friday might mean that the have an overall unchanged stock position with greater cash (a realised profit) now after a few weeks back, whereas it is funded to some degree by an investor who now has a lesser position than they had two days ago.
I do not believe that identifying "Buys" and "Sells" in isolation can necessarily lead to a better appreciation of whethet positions taken or given are each necessarily net changes to the investor base on a short, medium or even long term basis.
Hope you don't mind me commenting to add a balance.
AIMO

Thanks for that ciaskin.
As suspected.

Cleanerworld
Your 07.54 makes a great deal of sense. I will take your advice.
Thanks and All the best.

Chelsea7
Don't worry, I see you haven't any opinion.
Thanks for reposting the link though.
Enjoy your day. :-)

Chelsea7
I was looking for your opinion on the information. I'm sure you'll have one to share.
Thanks for your response.

Chelsea7
Perhaps you could tell me what is in the report linked by Cleanerworld.

Cleanerworld.
Thanks for the link it will be interesting to see what is in it.

All
That's precisely my point from yesterday.
The information (which could have been damaging to SP) was posted, people read it and a response from a respected researcher revealed the info to be incorrect.
By advertising the details it has been possible to understand the error of context and now the matter is sorted out (amicably and reasonably).
All news is significant and worth discussing rather than dismissing the bits we don't like or understand, or dismissing things out of hand when an explanation is invaluable. The BB is therefore better for that revelation.
Hurrah for an open forum.
So a potentially damaging item is put to bed by research, not the clamour of unfilled pots.
AIMO

RuckRover
Purely as an observation I believe there are a few who think they know more than they actually do but sadly lack the wisdom to understand it. I think the phrase, empty vessels etc.....