We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Your opinion and you’re wrong. I will be delighted if you get a result and it will make me question the judgement I use in making everyday evaluations. Until then..
I am interested, otherwise I wouldn’t be looking 1984, and you are as wrong about my motivation as you are about incessantly claiming upcoming deadlines which don’t materialise. Perhaps filter me if my posting reduces you to personal insults.
I’m hardly going to stop looking in now after 7+ years. Whilst I’m replying, tomorrow would have seen everyone paid out if 4 weeks (rather than the upper 5 as per 2/11 update) and agent clocking on promptly had been the outturn.
Oh Cindy (888), ain't you noticed?
That several of your friends have moved on
And the street outside is just a little too quiet
And your local papers run out of news
I'm not persuading you or disengaging you..
Ha Ha, of all the questions that need answering around this train wreck, that is way down the list!
Borrowed from Fawlty Towers ‘The Psychiatrist’ ;
“There’s enough material here for an entire conference”
And I say that as someone posting on a delisted share that I don’t hold..
The characteristics of the form are completely irrelevant to the point dagenham was making. When the question most were asking was “who are the agents?” Amit refers to some petty bureaucracy that is part of the agent process - if the agents got on with it. Referencing those form numbers is, so far, the nearest thing to any external validity (but in no way any proof of anything and raises the question why shareholders who are expecting a dividend from a St Vincent company are filling in the US forms rather than Cloudtag who has sold the licensing rights to fund a dividend to shareholders).
Although Amit didn’t just park the DaaP sale, it was very much put back in play with the renegotiation announcement - leaving the door open for a ‘before the agent reached the point of contacting brokers and shareholders, an exiting opportunity for a sale of the whole company emerged’. Shareholders will be updated, NDA, blah blah’
As if a ‘strict’ NDA would allow Amit to report the saga of the supposed twists and turns of the deals to all and sundry like a TV soap. If there is a buyer, there would be obvious reputational damage when their name comes out (which it obviously must if these IRS forms are needed as this would seem to indicate the dividend is coming from them directly rather than Cloudtag - which is certainly not a US entity). A bit like someone having their brand associated with Meghan and Harry Markle.
Always more questions than answers with CTAG..
“The agent’s portal has two level verification so you will need to provide your name, address, contact details and bank details.”
From the 21/11 announcement. My understanding of two level verification which is standard on most online financial transactions now, is having an additional security process above a login/username and password. Often a code sent to the mobile registered with the company and requiring inputting to gain access to an account etc. One example is the Government Gateway portal which I use on a desktop to report and pay CGT within 60 days of a property sale. There’s a username and password. Then a code to my mobile - with the option of ticking a box to allow access from the desktop without a further code for the next week.
Obviously it will be necessary to enter bank details at some point in a process to receive an electronic payment but the statement in the update ‘so, etc’ in relation to two step verification doesn’t really fit with what the process is to my mind. I have never come across bank details forming part of the two step process, it’s usually a mobile number to receive the code ( NS&I do it by registering the device the customer is using ).
Maybe just Amit not explaining clearly but worth pausing and doing your own ‘verification’ before getting to the giving bank details stage (IMO).
Apologies for the obvious offence you have taken pikey, although I wasn’t telling anyone what they were allowed to do - just saying what prompts me to post in response to a question from Soyo. As spikey says, my intention is not to rile shareholders, the conduct of Amit and the company (as I see it) motivates me. Others have a different view - all part of a discussion board.
If there were a few more holders that were prepared to give the over bullish assertions of Helx and a few others a bit more of a challenge now and again I could perhaps follow without ending up putting in my twopennorth Soyo.
I hold no shares having sold prior to delisting as I have posted before (a smallish profit overall having got to a free ride after a bit of trading and top slicing since originally buying in 2016). I have followed the fortunes since, it’s a very interesting situation - whichever way it turns out.
Agreed property deals can sometimes be protracted - I have a sale of one of my HMOs agreed on 1st February for quick completion subject to the existing tenancy. This ended up in the long grass for various reasons, I have just revived it for exchange in April and completion (vacant) in July (which will be 17 months) The buyer is a PITA to put it bluntly, but I can see his position and logic in relation to some issues and it suits me to go along. I’ve done other sales in 8 weeks and some drag out to four of five months.
Still comes down to whether the deal is genuine or not.
Of course inflation is significant for such a deal (as are exchange rate fluctuations and the potential need for hedging to protect the end value for shareholders receiving dividends in GBP). I would have expected it to be a given to have a contract term in place pegged to an agreed inflation measure. Savvy Sole Traders have often got that covered for tardy payers, such as BoEBR +?% after 14 days.
Are we supposed to think the ongoing delay in the main event is because the buyer isn’t in a position to want to ‘announce’ (ie go through with the purchase) of the DaaP, or because Amit can’t get enough extra cash?
I suppose if you take the outcome of a payout as a given, then working back from that needs continual explanation of delays and anomalies, but working forwards they don’t seem plausible (to me).
Would anyone continue having faith in this type of a situation in a different context, such as an ongoing transaction in your own business or the sale of a property?
You don’t think there is even a remote possibility that the whole deal will be announced as under renegotiation? The DaaP sale has effectively been announced as being renegotiated (ie not actually locked down means there must be an ability for both sides to walk, you don’t need much business experience to see the likelihood of getting more money on a deal that is already legally binding as infinitesimally small).
Four outcomes, initial payout comes as expected in next 2 weeks, simple delay announcement, deal restructuring or silence.
Cindy888, miraculous ability to post whilst asleep and dreaming..
I think shorts are supposed to ‘fess up via an agent portal. Basically they are free and clear the way this is playing out. (Perhaps you missed 1984’s post last week that the agent must be kept secret to protect them from being inundated ‘village idiots’..Surely that description would include short positions?
I said I’d stay asleep until 5 weeks had elapsed (or someone woke me up following broker contact) but just opened one eye to see Helx postulating honest decent shareholders haven’t been contacted because the agents are busy ‘chasing shorts’.Back to sleep now..
Look at trades another way. MMs can’t create shares and it is unlikely they would go short to sell shares at an all time low, also unlikely they would have a stock of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth bought in at prices above the current sell.
The market will be fairly balanced overall so any anomalies which show up, such as one sell in a whole days trading just point to the marker of ‘mid price’ against which the trades show red or blue, being completely inaccurate and arbitrary.
1984, thanks for the reasoned response. Seems to be what I was suggesting would be the case if it was done sequentially. Platforms first for the nominees, then paper, then publish the agent with the portal details.
Wake me up when anyone has confirmation of step 1 being under way. I’ll happily keep quiet until after 5 weeks from 13/11..