Member Info for Appiamma

No the website is an absolute joke - particularly for a tech company. A good fit for them because they seem to have very little except for 20 quid, 10 grand share capital and some managed office space, and absolutely nothing in the London and the South. Most odd.

Finding it very hard to take this seriously unless there is either something very dodgy going on, it's their way of getting noticed, or Hugh Hefner left them some money in his will.

Yes they added 800k shares. I read this interesting interview with Katie Potts their founder and lead fund manager a while ago, with some insight to why she invests in smaller tech companies. http://bit.ly/2xIjBwZ

Tbh I wouldn't mind them staying in the free float as since our over-the-top consolidation we seem to have had liquidity issues and pathetic trading volumes, but that said I don't think PIs picked all those up. If a large percentage has gone to an Insti then of course we should be made aware and the same for any amount for directors

Add up the 3 big trades today and they correspond to the amount they had left

Yep looks like they're out. They've been constantly reducing their position since May so let's see what happens now

If they are both buys then it is a notifiable amount and in theory should be declared - I wont hold my breath though.

http://bit.ly/2hicqph

I'll qualify that last comment by saying if they have notified the company, then it is Reds who are are in breach of regulations, this would not surprise me either

What companies/major shareholders are supposed/obliged to do regarding notification of holdings changes, and what actually happens are two quite distinct things on AIM. Its regulation and enforcement has been a major issue and discussion point for investors generally and the issue was raised recently on here. Henderson have persistently disregarded their obligations here and have not updated the market for over a year.

They've merged with Janus this year so maybe they've had a portfolio realignment but I'll refer you to a comment I made just after they participated in the placing to buy Connect IB over a year ago as this is the more likely scenario imo. 'An observation on Hendersons though - in my experience they are not long term holders and will bail as soon as they see fit.'

I'd agree on the effect of the consolidation MissG. If the intent was to reduce volatility, then they have definitely succeeded in that at the expense off killing the final vestiges of interest in the stock - particularly from retail investors. Additionally, they show very little interest nor adeptness in promoting the company to the market and prefer a very low key approach; they are running it almost like a private limited company instead of a PLC, except when they need to raise funds of course. Maybe this is an over reaction to the past, or possibly they are approaching and promoting it to IIs individually - who knows, but volumes suggest not. So therefore you are also correct in saying they have to show progress now through business growth and bottom line profit to generate any further interest from the investment community. Certainly you'd want to see evidence of significant revenue and bottom line improvement by the interims and definitely by the next EoY.

I can't say I fully followed the financial reasoning and explanation but, as understood it, previous to this the company's capital structure negated any redistribution of profit to shareholders and the company could not buy back any of its own stock. This capital restructuring will enable the company to do that. So down the road if the company is as successful as we hope then we will benefit as shareholders. It may also incentivise more institutional investment now those obstacles have been removed

They are obliged in the DTRs to report changes 'without delay' and it is one thing to have an incorrect figure on the website but quite another to have the same figure in the eoy financial report Imo.

Well if you just take those 2 figures in the RNS, then the maths is correct but how do you know it's 100% accurate? As it is pre-placing then of course the percentage is right - the 443 m placing shares should not be considered at that point. As I stated it is not related to the placing as far as I can see. My point is when did they sell 35.7m shares to get the situation before the transaction figure? When did they drop down from 259,824,283 to 204,109,997 and why wasn't the market told as they are required to do?

The website states the significant shareholder page was last updated 1st Jan 2017 with Helium holding 15.79% and Henderson 9.81% . The financial report states that as of 5th April Helium's holding was unchanged but Henderson had dropped to 5.5%; another situation the market should have been made aware of. Therefore it seems both major shareholders have been selling and the market only now gets informed about some of those transactions. Whether is was to make room for these new placing shares so as to not exceed desires levels I don't know , and judging by the quality of holdings reporting maybe we will have to wait a long time to find out.

Had more time to look more closely and the RNS it makes no sense at all and does not appear to relate to the placing. The date of the transaction/s was 26th April (day after EOY)and it was reported to REDS the following day - it should have been reported to the market immediately and that really is not good enough from the company. It states that the 16% 15% and 14% thresholds were crossed but that they went from a holding of 224,109,997 shares or 13.62% (pre-placing total) to 226,614,283 resulting in a final shareholding of 13.77% (pre-placing). If any of that does make sense to anyone - answers on a postcard please.

Looks like they took some but sold some too and it leaves them with nearly the same percentage. The RNS states they dropped from over 16% to below 14% and the website has them holding 15.7% - I 'm guessing the RNS is the correct figure.

Let's be fair it was mostly your moaning kitkateat - and maybe you'll have cause to continue. If he has taken part then I would have thought we would of been informed that directors were involved. Otherwise any director dealings will be disclosed when the placing stock is admitted on Friday. We should see other holdings RNSs shortly after too. I'll be interested to see if MXC were were involved.

I'd agree with that greybadger and plantravel. A positive placing price and the extra cash for servicing recent major contract wins , integration, expansion and development of product offerings, loads more cross-selling opportunities with some high profile new clients added, possible further acquisition is also not out of the question imo. It does not appear to be underwritten so it will be interesting to see how the bookbuild goes; it would be good to see it oversubscribed. Consolidation was needed but suprised to see it at 100:1 but that may have been a condition of the IIs. Will only leave circa 20m shares post placing/consolidation, so a small free float, which may help drive the SP. gla