Member Info for asimpleinvestor

"All many of us are waiting for now is whether the company can convert the opportunities, partnerships and discussions into actual contract news and revenue."

Yep! That’s about the size of it. We are in complete agreement on that point. That is exactly what a standard, multi-year holding thesis looks like.👌

"Don't bother replying, as you won't get a response."

That’s the difficulty when it comes to naming a specific poster on a thread—it is general courtesy to receive a reply. Naming a user takes the conversation from a general forum post to a personalised one. I'm old school; I follow established protocols when it comes to basic courtesy.

In response to the rest of your post: information is what information does. Just because you personally find no practical use in primary-source regulatory data or compliance frameworks doesn't mean nobody else on this board will. On a purely personal note, posting this verified information here also acts as a useful repository and ongoing reminder for myself, without me having to store the data on my own cloud networks.

Let's see what the company delivers and let the market decide. Happy to leave it at that.😊

"We are drowning in dense compliance law and regulatory footnotes to confuse casual investors and make the stock seem too risky."

If it was too risky I wouldn't be invested. It carries no more risks than any other start-up company. MoD, security services, and government compliance is a massive administrative headache, but it doesn't add risk to the underlying investment if the product is sound.

"He is shifting the debate from a massive commercial milestone to minor administrative technicalities to distract from the actual breakthrough."

He as in me, or he as in you? I'm simply correcting your regulatory and legal mistakes with verifiable facts. You aren't correcting mine.

"He is posting pre-prepared walls of text within minutes of a bullish post. The goal is to dominate the forum feed, bury positive discussion, and exhaust anyone trying to debate them."

I have an AI engine attached to various research libraries so that information is available at my fingertips. This information is then independently verified for accuracy, and the text is formulated with the help of three AI engines so that it is clear and easily understood by the reader due to my dyslexia.

It is incredibly ironic, isn't it? You spend all day making wild claims about me using advanced data retrieval tools to format quick, accurate responses, whilst completely forgetting that you are supposedly "invested" in an AI company that is currently in production of exactly this kind of technology. Have a good afternoon out; I look forward to your next set of contradictions when you return.

"Pulling up multiple legal articles, Cabinet Office URLs, and formatting a mini essay that quickly proves you aren’t a neutral observer Asimp, you're running a frantic, panicked containment operation."

I am acting as a neutral poster; "observer" was your phrase, not mine. I stated that the information I post is from a neutral position. You have been making unverified claims, and I, in response, have corrected those claims warts and all, with verifiable data from a neutral position. I'm as calm as a cucumber, however, you're posting in such a way that you can't even quote me correctly. It's easy to do; you just cut and paste in context and include inverted commas.

Furthermore, you are moving the goalposts because your initial point about a Schedule 5 direct award granting a "technological monopoly" was completely dismantled by statutory reality. Now you are trying to argue that entering a funded trial creates an immediate "structural moat" because replacing proprietary software later would trigger "disproportionate technical difficulties" under the Act.

"I suggest people go back to the weekend posts and see how he was put in his place. No thorough research and no clue."

Does that include yourself? Because you have spent the entire day making sweeping regulatory and legal claims on this thread, and I have had to repeatedly correct you with primary source data that you have chosen to leave out or completely dismiss because it contradicts your personal agenda.

My 9 month holding thesis is based on understanding exactly what I bought: a defence company bound by the Official Secrets Act, heavily restricted disclosure laws, and an MoD budget environment operating under intense fiscal constraints. I invest with my eyes wide open to those structural realities.

You, on the other hand, are treating a standard R&D testing mechanism (a Schedule 5 direct award transparency notice) as a commercial monopoly. A true commercial monopoly is achieved and protected through robust intellectual property (IP) laws and patents, not through an administrative procurement notice issued by the Ministry of Defence.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, a Schedule 5 direct award for prototypes and development is specifically restricted to early stage testing and is legally barred from including quantity commercial supply. You are confusing a low value research trial with a state certified technological monopoly. Furthermore, you are treating a marketing exhibition booking a stand at Eurosatory alongside more than 2,000 other exhibitors launching over 500 innovations this week as a signed order book.

If pointing out verified Cabinet Office procurement statistics and statutory guidance under the Procurement Act 2023 means I have "no clue," then you are effectively arguing with the legislation itself. I prefer to stay neutral, post the full, unredacted details, and let people judge for themselves what is a verifiable fact and what is simply social media noise. You on the other hand just post unverified noise and dress it up as fact.

Quote: "Asimp you are trying to write off the MoD Transparency Notice as administrative paperwork. The MoD used a Direct Award under Schedule 5 of the Procurement Act 2023. By law, the state is strictly forbidden from bypassing open market competition unless a supplier possesses a unique, unreplicable capability. The MoD has legally certified that nobody else can build what ALRT has built. The hurdle wasn't the final signature, it was legally granting ALRT a technological monopoly."

You are fundamentally misinterpreting how Schedule 5 of the Procurement Act 2023 actually operates. Under Schedule 5, there are multiple, entirely separate legal justifications for a direct award. You are confusing the "Single Supplier/Prototypes" justification with an exclusive technological monopoly.

Schedule 5 explicitly contains a dedicated justification for Prototypes and Development (Paragraphs 15–17). Under this specific provision, the MoD is legally permitted to make a direct award for a prototype or novel service to test suitability, research viability, or study development without certifying that the supplier has a market monopoly or unique unreplicable capability.

The statutory guidance explicitly states that direct awards under this prototype ground "must be limited to the early stages of design and development and aimed only at testing... it must not include quantity production or supply on a commercial basis."

By utilising Schedule 5 for a prototype build, the MoD hasn't "legally certified a technological monopoly" or bypassed competition for a major roll-out. Under the Act, they have simply used the standard legal mechanism allowed for low value, early stage research and development. In fact, Cabinet Office procurement data published since the Act took effect confirms that the vast majority of these direct award transparency notices are for small scale, sub-£1M exploratory projects.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-define-phase/direct-award-html

https://www.open-contracting.org/2026/03/03/the-uk-procurement-act-one-year-on-what-does-the-data-tell-us/

https://www.burges-salmon.com/articles/102l738/procurement-act-2023-what-does-the-data-tell-us-about-direct-awards/

Filing a transparency notice under Schedule 5 for an R&D build is the very definition of administrative groundwork. It is a legal requirement to run a minor trial, not a commercial declaration that you have won a monopoly over the UK defence sector.

Quote: "and live international product launches at Eurosatory as meaningless promotional circles isn't being neutral. It's being completely blind to real world commercial traction."

Which part of a trade exhibition and its core functions do you think I don't understand? I have personally operated exhibition stands at major trade fairs globally for over three decades and have attended them for more than four.

International product launches occur at these massive events all the time with 500 product launches at Eurosatory this year. When an event features over 500 innovations and hundreds of concurrent product launches from thousands of suppliers, a single small firm launching a software product is the statistical norm, not an exclusive commercial victory. Eurosatory is a premier marketing window designed precisely to increase visibility and network with procurement delegations. However, displaying technology or holding a launch event at a trade show does not guarantee a single contract. It is a corporate promotional circuit. Conflating a marketing showcase with "real-world commercial traction" or a binding order book is a basic error. A company proves commercial traction via signed procurement contracts appearing on its balance sheet, not by booking a stand in Paris.

P.S. As for your question, yes, I have already explicitly stated on this thread that I have been invested here since 4th September 2025. How about yourself—are you actually invested, or are you just here to manage sentiment?

@TheCowboy246 - Yes, I have been invested since 4th September 2025. That’s the thing about those who spend every day ramping rather than just sharing information they completely lose sight of the commercial mechanics of what they are actually investing in.

This is a defence share. What people expect regarding the regular financial filings and transparency of a normal commercial share simply does not exist here due to absolute national security restrictions and strict Ministry of Defence disclosure protocols. The rampers pretend otherwise, promoting the share along conventional lines, and then express shock when the share price fails to behave the way they presented it.

If investors actually understand what to expect from the regulatory framework of a defence supplier, they can invest with their eyes wide open. When a statutory filing or an RNS announcement is heavily sanitised or lacks the explicit data they expect, they won't sell in a blind panic—they will simply hold, wait, and judge the company by its multi-year execution rather than social media noise. So, people in here will just have to get used to me because no matter how they act towards me, its not going to stop me posting as I just view them as cabaret

I don't have an agenda to stifle anything; I am simply sharing information that is directly pertinent to the underlying share. I keep the data balanced and entirely neutral, leaving it completely up to individual investors to decide whether they wish to factor it into their thesis or ignore it entirely. Every single metric and piece of regulatory framework I share can be independently verified from primary sources. That is the fundamental difference between your emotional assertions and my data led input. If being objective, honest, and factual makes me a boring man, then I wear that badge with absolute pride.

Don't worry, I won't be reporting your posts. I have noticed a highly predictable pattern here: when certain posters want inconvenient information or critical data to disappear from the board, they deliberately escalate to personal insults. The goal is to get reported so that the moderators lose patience and remove the entire thread rather than individual posts. It is a textbook tactic to wipe out factual scrutiny, and it is so blindingly obvious it is laughable. I would much rather leave your comments standing so the contradictions remain on full display.

I don't do shorts. I find them morally repulsive and believe they should be banned. I will leave such repulsive practices to folk such as yourself, so that’s one fallacy you can drop right now. There is a vast difference between shorting a stock and simply presenting verifiable data that impacts its underlying value.

Regarding the claims that the contract is 'live' and the tech is being exhibited globally: the 5th June RNS explicitly details a proposed contract via a government Transparency Notice. A transparency notice is a statutory notification of an intent to contract, not a fully finalised, scaled commercial programme of record. Furthermore, displaying technology at international trade shows is a standard marketing exercise, not a reflection of a binding order book. Conflating corporate promotional circuits and preliminary intent notices with a 'structural re-rating' completely ignores the wide operational gap between an administrative step and actual, recurring balance-sheet revenue.

P.S. I'm that boring that you hang on each and every comment I make and go above and beyond to take the time to reply. If I was that boring you would be silent and I would be filtered. You're a poster of many contradictions.🤣🤣🤣

Quote "The problem we face as you know, is that when Defence Holdings announce contracts and revenue projections and potential P/E ratio SP, the social media world will explode."

It wouldn't happen in the first place, so you have nothing to worry about on that score. This is an inherent visibility constraint that companies operating in this sector face. A publicly traded company cannot issue forward looking financial revenue projections based on classified or top secret defence contracts, nor can it legally publish its own projected P/E ratios or share price targets. Doing so would directly violate both national security legislation and UK financial market regulations.

Under the UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), a listed board is strictly prohibited from publishing speculative, unverified valuation metrics or target P/E ratios to influence market sentiment. When it comes to sensitive state contracts, Ministry of Defence protocols specifically clauses like DEFCON 531 on the disclosure of information legally restrict public statements to heavily redacted, sanitised announcements.

The board is barred from giving the market a detailed financial road map or unpacking the value of classified operations. The social media explosion you are waiting for won't happen simply because the regulatory framework ensures the actual financial pipeline remains a compliant black box.

It’s crazy you don't understand the underlying difficulties when investing in defence companies and the restrictions imposed under the Official Secrets Act.

"I explained my Rolls-Royce decision previously, I did the same wit Empire Metals when the likes of asimpleinvestor were spreading doom and gloom on the basis of freedom of speech"

@Cevodniya Strange that, as I remember you agreeing with my analysis regarding Rolls Royce, especially the portion in relation to SMR's and that was before the latest update received which is currently leading the rise over there. To quote:

asimpleinvestor

Posted in: ALRT

Posts: 12,540

RE: Why I’m holding ALRT and why I think we’ll be laughing once the big contract lands13 Jun 2026 19:05

@Cevodniya You'll be glad to know I backed RR well before its massive run, and I've given it the green light again for the long term now that the UK government SMR contracts are locked in.

Securing the UK programme alongside the early-works CEZ Group deal in the Czech Republic firmly establishes Rolls Royce as the European leader in commercialised small scale nuclear tech. Structurally, this creates a resilient, non cyclical revenue stream that insulates the group from future downturns in commercial aviation. If the factory assembly thesis holds up, we are looking at high margin product scaling from the mid 2030s onwards.

The only real caveat is the current valuation: RR is trading at a premium forward P/E of 28x to 34x (depending on 2026 consensus revisions), which is substantially above its 10-year historical average of 18.1x. Because the market has re-rated the stock as a premium industrial asset, a fair amount of this long term SMR optionality is already baked into the current share price.

Consequently, the risk shifts entirely to execution. Any regulatory delays, budget overruns at the Wylfa site, or political shifts regarding nuclear funding could easily trigger a de-rating. But that’s a whole separate deep dive, so I'll leave it there.

Your reply:

Cevodniya

Posted in: ALRT

Posts: 3,925

RE: Why I’m holding ALRT and why I think we’ll be laughing once the big contract lands13 Jun 2026 19:47

Asimpleinvestor, a further 5 SMR order from the UK, possibly 15 from Sweden and a firm order from Germany would be nice.

Anyway, back to Defence Holdings.

Hopefully, in 12 months, you'll be on here with a more positive opinion.

Of course we could expand that to oil and gas too. This pattern extends directly into the energy sector. While there are ongoing demands to issue new drilling licences against net zero ambitions, the fiscal reality follows the same flawed template. On one hand, the state collects revenues via Corporation Tax and the Energy Profits Levy; on the other, it hands out massive tax credits for the infrastructure built to drill, pump, and pipe the resource. Furthermore, significant subsidies are granted under the guise of boosting local employment in depressed areas, yet the actual workforce is routinely flown in from elsewhere.

Instead of enriching private operators, any future licensing or infrastructure should be nationalised under an entity like Great British Energy, with the resulting profits directed into a state owned sovereign wealth fund to benefit the nation long-term exactly as Norway has done so successfully. I think if that was on the table those private oil & gas companies suggesting we need new licenses issued would wither away back under their stones never to be heard of again.

I remember nationalisation well, but I also remember what followed privatisation.

While nationalised industries were historically underfinanced due to competing treasury priorities, privatisation did not solve the funding crisis; it merely shifted the burden. Post privatisation, massive government grants and subsidies were still required to keep essential infrastructure functioning. Instead of these funds being entirely reinvested into infrastructure upgrades, significant capital was directed towards increasing shareholder dividends and substantial executive remuneration, including multi million pound bonuses.

The evidence is clear across key sectors we see today including water and rail.

Rail infrastructure (tracks and signalling) ultimately had to be brought back under public management via Network Rail, while rolling stock operations continue to require heavy state subsidisation. It is a bit pointless privatising an industry only to buy most of it back leaving just day to day timetabling and ticket sales to private companies whilst enduring the same level of service as before, minus the profits.

No major new reservoirs have been built in decades. The underground infrastructure remains severely outdated much of it dating back to the Victorian era resulting in billions of litres lost daily through leakage. It is absurd that water companies petition the government to initiate hosepipe bans, suggesting a few litres sprayed on a garden will somehow alleviate the billions of litres lost below ground due to their own lack of maintenance.

Nationalised industries lacked adequate investment, but since privatisation, the taxpayer has frequently spent more on supporting these networks than the operating companies have reinvested from their own capital. This makes for a damning argument against maintaining the status quo, and a clear case for bringing essential utilities back under the national umbrella. If the public is already funding the maintenance and expansion via taxpayer money, the public might as well retain the profits.

@Nozzleblast It is good to hear about your training as a chemical engineer, but in this specific instance, the analysis requires a Reservoir Engineer, a highly specialised branch of petroleum engineering.

While a chemical engineer is involved in formulating hydraulic fracturing fluids or handling surface gas processing, the mechanics described here concern subsurface fluid dynamics, rock permeability, and Pressure Transient Analysis (such as the 90% pressure buildup data). These areas fall outside the scope of chemical engineering, which makes that specific disclosure irrelevant to the geological and reservoir mechanics of the well.

Price relevant activity in this instance is upon completion of works and whether it was successful or not. Bo has already given the market plan details so doing so again would be just wasting time and money repeating himself.

Cracking set of results, what more do you believe they can do?

"Does he seriously think he can influence investors here by sowing discontent?"

Am I sowing discontent? I thought I was just sharing information, including evidence to backup claims, about the share, which is the purpose of the board. No one is forced to read what’s posted, and will it influence proceedings? I doubt it, but it’s better to be informed than to invest blindly. After all, the MOD works on intelligence gathering itself and one of ALRT's products is that too and the MOD doesn’t just take notice of what it likes while ignoring what it doesn’t.

On a plus note no matter how much you try it won't stop me posting which will obviously gladden the hearts of posters such as yourself.

Only the army. In the navy its Admiral of the Fleet and the air force its Marshal of the Royal Air Force. However, they are occasionally granted as honorary titles to retired senior commanders. For example, former Chiefs of the Defence Staff Lord Richards and Lord Houghton were promoted to honorary Field Marshals in June 2025.

The highest-ranking active professional officer currently serving in the UK military is Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. He holds the position of Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), having assumed the role on 2nd September 2025. As CDS, he is the professional head of the Armed Forces and the principal military adviser to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.

And loe and behold an RNS appears. However, its worth noting the key point the RNS doesn’t mention: AIM Rule 41.

Vast has been suspended since 22nd December 2025 . Under AIM Rule 41, if a company remains suspended for six months, its shares are automatically cancelled from AIM.

That deadline is 22nd June 2026.

Today’s RNS confirms the company is still negotiating another extension to the long‑stop date for the SPA , and that the SPA itself runs until 7 July 2026 — which is after the AIM cancellation deadline.

There is no admission document, no timetable, and no confirmation that the RTO will complete before 22nd June. The RNS simply says the company “continues to make progress” .

Progress isn’t enough.

Completion is required.

Unless the RTO is fully completed and the admission document published before 22nd June, AIM Rule 41 means the shares will be delisted automatically, regardless of SPA extensions or ongoing discussions.

Must admit I've sold a few over the last couple of days as a 12% drop over the last month is a little worrying. I've kept my powder dry however and left the proceeds to one side waiting for either the share bottoming out or alternatively news landing so I can buy back in stronger.