Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@Punter1234 While your assessment regarding the complexities of long-lead items and plant optimisation is grounded in industrial reality, the threshold for a RNS filing is dictated strictly by the "Materiality" and "Continuous Disclosure" rules of the exchange. Under these frameworks, a company is not obliged to report every granular operational hurdle, such as the specific logistics of leasing tube trailers or routine maintenance, provided these do not fundamentally alter the timelines or production targets already communicated to the market. Disclosure only becomes a legal imperative when a situation be it a procurement delay or a technical bottleneck during the "slow fill" phase constitutes price-sensitive information that a reasonable investor would use to determine the company's value.

If the issues described were to result in a significant deviation from previously issued guidance which it does, the company would be required to update the market without delay. For instance, if the inability to secure storage units or a prolonged plant shutdown for safety upgrades were to materially postpone the date of first revenue or significantly reduce projected output, an RNS would be mandatory to prevent the creation of a false market. Furthermore, while the company does not need to respond to every piece of "deramping," the NOMAD (Nominated Adviser) would intervene to mandate a release if such activity led to a demonstrable loss of an orderly market or if a specific rumour required a formal correction to maintain transparency.

Consider your post read and corrected.

"Independent" means having no personal, professional, or other connection. However, for some posters here, it seems to mean whatever they choose, regardless of the official dictionary or legal definition.

Indeed, not all in red are sells, and likewise, not all in blue are buys. In fact, when it comes to buys and sells, the only people who truly know are the buyer and the seller, while everything else is shown in grey. On this platform, the buy/sell labels are simply the algorithm’s best guess based on the mid-price at the time the trade is published.

"All IMO of course"

Be cautious when sharing opinions that could be seen as allegations or touch on defamation, as you might end up having to justify those views. Sometimes it’s wiser to keep them to yourself unless you have the funds to cover the hefty legal costs of defending them in court.

Regarding the new NED, Justin Fraser, he was likely approached with the idea of offering him a seat on the board to boost legitimacy in governance matters when dealing with the FCA. Having a specialist on your board carries a lot of clout with organizations like the Financial Conduct Authority.

Thats a good idea @Newuncle_ you could call it The Three Stooges

Question is @ZagEgypt do you understand how an RTO works, what is involved and how long it takes and, in this instance, they're talking 3 of them. The share will be tied up in red tape and in suspension for years.

When they say good buy they have their hand held high moving it left to right.

If they're talking triple RTO's now its unlikely we will see this relist any time this decade.

I have a main market share that has been suspended for 18 months. AIM isn't the only market with problems currently lots of companies are feeling it. My bank shares did well last year but not so well since Iran exploded and the motor loans debacle.

@SamiRZ The National Trust is my closest neighbour, and I can honestly say we don’t even come close. Here, we’ve got 760 hectares of woodland bordering Forestry Commission land and 704 of mixed arable and grassland. In Pembrokeshire, it’s 5 hectares of arable and grass, mainly hillside, and in the Loire, 240 hectares of woodland plus 14 of open meadow but hey, follow your fantasy if it makes you feel better.

I’m interested in the QHE results and where they lead; that is why I am here. This stock remains on my watchlist after I sold up when the massive dilution dropped.

I still find it difficult to reconcile the fact that the institutions reportedly made contact with the company, rather than the company pitching to the institutions, yet the company still felt the need to provide a discount. Under normal circumstances, when an institution approaches a company for a significant stake because they believe in the asset, it often comes with a premium. Giving a discount in that scenario doesn't exactly signal board confidence; it suggests a desperate need for liquidity.

By offering that discount, the company effectively created an "instant profit" scenario for those participants. It is standard market practice for a portion of those holders to "flip" for a quick 10%+ gain, which adds even more selling pressure to an already bloated register. Now the share is likely to incrementally fall until the price aligns with the offer price.

There is nothing nefarious about watching a share and interacting with others on a forum. Sharing information and critical analysis is the specific reason these boards were created. If you only want to hear positive sentiment and ignore the capital structure, that is your choice, but it doesn't make the detail any less real.

I still see QDE lol

@Magpie1862 Of course, that’s also an admission that you don’t do due diligence when it comes to investing, since reading and understanding expansive text is a prerequisite. Wait, is that QDE I see? Now it all makes sense.

"You’re talking static share count maths. I’m talking how markets actually trade."

I saw your suggestion, @MrH_m, but the reality is that your trainer analogy was also based on static "on the shelf" maths.

The difference is that I’m factoring in the entire supply chain, including the overhang. Markets trade on the interaction between immediate demand and total available supply; ignoring the 16.6 billion new shares recently added to that supply isn't "how markets trade," it’s just ignoring the fundamentals of the current setup.

An active market involves both buys and sells, and when you have a massive issuance "in the warehouse," that churn creates a ceiling regardless of how many buyers are at the front of the queue.

As you say, no point going in circles. The Sagebrush results will show us soon enough whether the news is big enough to lift the weight of 50 billion shares.

GLA.

"If only two pairs of trainers are on the shelf, the next buyer pays more..."

@MrH_m, you are only showing one side of the equation. The opposite is equally true, and then you have the churn on top of that.

To use your trainer analogy: it doesn’t matter if there are only "two pairs on the shelf" if the warehouse out back is holding 50 billion pairs and the manager is desperate to clear space. As soon as those two pairs sell and the price nudges up, the warehouse drops another ten pairs onto the shelf to capture the profit.

That is the reality of a 50 billion share register. You are looking at the "shelf" (the L2 Ask) and ignoring the "warehouse" (the massive overhanging supply from the recent 16.6bn placing). In a stock this bloated, the "available stock" isn't just what you see right now; it’s the billions of shares held by people who will happily fill every buy order the moment the price ticks up a fraction.

Price moves when stock is taken out, yes but when the supply is effectively infinite relative to the buying power, the "levels" never get cleared. They just get replenished. That is why the price is static despite the "blocks" being taken. You call it absorption; I call it a ceiling. Until that warehouse is empty, those trainers aren't going to £210, no matter how many people are standing in line.

"The kid doesn’t take anyone else’s opinion on board... Where are these 50bn shares on the ask then?"

@MrH_m, I always read what somebody says, ingest it, and reply point-by-point—so where you get the idea that I don't take on other opinions is beyond me. I’m simply filtering those opinions through the lens of mathematics rather than sentiment.

To answer your questions:

1. Where are the 50bn shares on the ask? They aren't on the L2 because placing participants and institutions don't dump 16 billion shares into the "Ask" at once that would be market suicide. They sit in the background and drip-feed the bid. Looking at the L2 and saying "I don't see 50 billion shares" is like looking at the tip of an iceberg and claiming the ocean is empty.

2. Why didn’t the price collapse? Because of the very "absorption" you mentioned. But remember absorption isn't growth; it's just churn. If the price is "staying at the same level" while blocks are being taken, it proves my point the "needle" isn't moving because the supply is perfectly meeting (and capping) the demand.

3. Why do bloated stocks spike? They spike when a temporary vacuum in liquidity occurs, but they almost never hold those spikes because they lack the £5,000,000 per 0.01p of capital support required to maintain the new valuation.

You say the price moves on "available stock." I agree. But in a 50 billion share company, the "available stock" is a moving target. Every time a buyer chases the price up, a "placing flipper" sees an opportunity to exit another block.

It’s not "theoretical" stock it is paper that exists, carries a cost basis, and is currently being churned through. You’re happy the price is static; I’m pointing out that it’s static because it’s now too heavy to lift.

@SamiRZ, you’ve hit on the core of the debate, but there are a few misconceptions we need to clear up regarding "value." Firstly, you mentioned the £5m–£6.5m cash as a sign of being undervalued. It’s vital not to confuse cash on hand with Market Cap. Yes, they have the cash, but they had to print 16.6 billion new shares to get it. When you have 50,000,000,000 shares in issue, that £5m cash pile only equates to 0.01p per share. With the price at 0.0305p, you are already paying a 200% premium over the cash backing.

You suggest the company is "undervalued by 300%" based on its product, but that product is currently unproven. While the 2.76% helium concentration at Sagebrush is a great headline, in this industry, concentration is just quality flow rate is what determines commerciality. You can have the highest concentration in the world, but if the reservoir pressure is low or the rock is tight, you have a science project, not a business. Until we see a sustained, commercial flow rate from the upcoming tests, the current £15m Market Cap isn't "cheap"; it's a speculative valuation on a high-risk asset.

The "simple" math that often gets ignored on this board is Liquidity Density. Back in December 2024, it took only £650,000 of buying pressure to move the price 0.01p. Today, thanks to the massive dilution, that same move requires a staggering £5,000,000 shift in Market Cap. Even if you argue that only a "fraction" of shares trade at once, a 10% float on this register is still 5 billion shares—which was the size of the entire company 18 months ago.

We aren't playing with a "thin float" anymore; we are trying to move a tidal wave with a bucket. Confidence and catalysts are important, but they still have to push against the physical weight of 50 billion shares. If the news at Sagebrush is anything less than miraculous, the sheer volume of "placing paper" waiting for an exit will act as a permanent ceiling. It’s not about "losing your shirt"; it’s about acknowledging that the "needle" is now 7.7x heavier than it used to be. That isn’t an opinion; it’s a mathematical reality. What this company needs is a share consolidation before any news drops to help move that needle if its positive.

"You must have lost your shirt years ago when this was MSMN imho"

Nope, I do my due diligence I don't invest blindly.

"You do not need £5m of buying to move a £16m AIM stock by 0.01p if the free float available at that level is thin."

@MrH_m, you’re talking about a "thin float" on a stock that dumped 16.6 billion new shares into the market less than two weeks ago. Where exactly do you think that scarcity is coming from?

The logic that sub-penny stocks "spike all the time" ignores the sheer scale here. There is a massive difference between a stock with 2 billion shares clearing a seller and one with 50 billion. To move 0.01p, you aren't just fighting the "offered" stock on the screen; you are fighting the gravity of a massive register where every microscopic rise provides an exit for billions of shares of "placing fodder."

You say the question is whether the placing stock is being absorbed. I agree but math doesn't lie. Absorbing billions of shares takes an immense amount of capital. If you think the "needle" moves just as easily with 50 billion shares as it did with 6 billion, you aren't accounting for the sheer volume of paper now overhanging this stock. Confidence and catalysts are great, but they still have to push against the physical weight of the issuance. Currently, that weight is 7.7x heavier than it was in December. That isn’t an assumption; it’s a mathematical fact.

You’ll likely argue that only a fraction of the shares are traded at a given time, creating that "thin" float but that argument falls apart when you look at Market Depth.

Even if we assume a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) 90% of shares are "locked," the remaining 10% float is still 5 billion shares. In December 2024, 5 billion shares represented nearly the entire company. Today, that "fraction" alone is a massive wall of liquidity that must be chewed through just to nudge the price.

Scarcity is a physical impossibility with 50,000,000,000 shares in existence. Every time the price nudges up, you aren't just meeting the L2; you are inviting a tiny percentage of those 50 billion shares to take a profit or cut a loss. Even a tiny fraction of holders deciding to sell creates a volume wave that dwarfs retail buying power.

You aren't playing with a "thin float"; you’re trying to move a tidal wave with a bucket. To sustain a 0.01p move, the market value has to find £5,000,000 of new support. You can't ignore the 45 billion shares "under the bed" they are the ceiling.

All my helium stocks are performing well, along with my fertiliser investments. Hydrogen and renewables are also doing great, especially solar. Companies producing electrolysers for the hydrogen industry are on the rise too. Governments suddenly taking renewables more seriously again, as governments seek to decouple industrial processes from natural gas. It appears a certain Labour energy minister was bucking the right trend after all. With helium expected to be in short supply for the next 3–5 years, I hope no one needs a new phone anytime soon if you do, it’s best to get it now before prices skyrocket in the coming months.

"Investors buy in sell in £, not by counting shares :-)"

They do, @Umaz, which is exactly why I stated the values in pounds rather than shares.

The fact that it now requires £5,000,000 to achieve the same 0.01p movement that cost only £650,000 less than five months ago is staggering. Market cap is simply the share price multiplied by the number of shares in issue; however, what actually dictates the ability to gain value is the relationship between liquidity and volume.

The capital requirement to move the price has increased 7.7 times. This means for every £1 of buying pressure needed in 2024, the market now requires £7.70 to achieve the same result. When the share count is this bloated, the "pounds" required to move the price even a single tick become an insurmountable barrier for standard retail volume.