Member Info for Bankfool

Hi Nomlungu, interesting link. Guess it's too early to know for sure, but it is good to see a major holder who is not the broker! I would continue to take a measured view on the matter and look forward to something more significant in time.

And yet your feelings are so hurt you need to troll. True sign of a losser 60p

Well if it costs anything to sell then I would hold. No ponit in wasting money. Line your closest drawer with your certificate and forget about it for a few years

Spot on, a 125:1 consolidation. Also 2 directors removed.

Apologies for typos that snuck in there :)

Hi Roses I don't think share ownership is an issue, the % of shares owned by the BOD before and after consolidation was tiny. There will be PIs with bigger holdings than the BOD. Its more of a case of joining by invite. The director (s) has to bring something to table (expertise for example) as it were.
As for the broker off loading the new shares is a good thing, it means that the finance resulting from thier sale has been raised and there is now some money to stave off the threat of Insolvancy (GM's comment/threat of not being able to trade in 6 weeks time).
The broker is there to complete the market they have to buy the shares when they are sold. They make thier money by selling shares at a price higher than the price they buy them for i.e. the bid and ask prices.
The fact that the broker holds less than 3% of the shares means that they have maximised the shares issued and maxised funds raised if they are operating with a smaller float of shares less than the previous broker.
Not sure if there are any 3% shareholders, time will change /confirm that situation.
SP rise will be premised on positive news like a new director who can bring sonething to the table, updates on the compounds and share buying by the BOD or well known investors i.e. buyers who engender confidence in the company. To put it another way if I brought say 30% of the shares all it would signify is that I (an unknown PI) had confidence in the company rather than someone worth listening to owned a chunk of the company.
Essentially I think things as well as can be expected based on where we are. I would just sit back know and wait for the director aponitment we require.

60p sorry but I just don't understand your ponit. Are you invested here or not?
If not and you don't think it's worth the risk, then don't invest.
If not and you are thinking about it, then congratulations, you've called it right the sp can't go much lower in the immediate future as the company has been close to bankruptcy.
If you are invested and its worth while selling, why not sell?
If you are invested and its not worth selling or you don't want to sell, then just sit back a watch this play out.

Good post Freddie, I would say that the SAG has (or at least largely has) achieved its goals. The focus now is all at the ValiRx end, i.e. aponitment of a new director and then pushing the company forward. From a product ponit of view I think the next update will be the report on VAL201, unless something happens with the sale of VAL401. Either way I would not expect any significant sp revelent news for a while, so I will sit back and 'enjoy" the ride. In the meantime I hope we can maintain the good relations that have been built up by the SAG even if the SAG has been mothballed for now.

Damn, I was all excited for a moment. Good job I posted in the link! As for 2.5 to 2.99 % shareholders I think it would be nice if there were some bigger players who were not PIs, but time and product develment may change that (fingers crossed).

Hey ValJu, just looked at ValiRx's website. It confirms the number of shares in issue. Also that there are no major shareholders (as expected ). This means that the broker has off loaded the shares and whatever pool remains is less than 3% of the shares in issue. More interesting though is the directors holdings are 0.9% of the shares in issue. Before consolidation the total for all 4 directors was only 0.47 % so it looks like the remaining directors have been buying. Here's the link in case I am misinterpreting
https://www.valirx.com/aim-rule-26/shares-issue/

Well, some might be a bit disappointed today, but on balance it's been a good week. As my average is £111.11 per share (yup pounds!) I don't think there is any scope for me to get my investment back, but I am please with my part in pushing for change and I feel positive for the first time in years thinking about ValiRx.

Is that directors holdings on here or on the valirx website? I guess it will take time to update. Confirmation of the new total number of shares is on companies House as are updated director details, so valirx are doing the admin.

EyeGuy, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt but your posts are starting to look like a silly attempt to ramp.. The IP from Fit bio is IP brought from a failed company. They couldn't sell it to a major player which tells you something. It might prove useful to ValiRx in the development of their own products Val101, 201, 301 and 401. If those only 201 and 401 have had any substantial development. There maybe scope for something huge, but not yet. Any references to covid-19 are just silly. There is no link.

Totally agree EyeGuy. Mind you if you look at the graph for the last 5 years it's clear the company has been tankinking for the last 5 years. I am looking at this as the first green shoots (to borrow a much used political expression) of recovery now that the rot has been treated. I think news that could generate a meaningful rise in sp (the published results for VAL201) is in the offing, I just suggest a cautious approach here and not to get carried away with thoughts of an imminent jump in sp.

The volume yesterday was the result of the new broker off loading shares. I didn't see any big value purchases so no evidence that it is anyone other that PIs buying the shares. That said with changes at the top and perhaps with an update on the compounds (fingers crossed for the VAL201 results) things might change. Regardless of all that, we have seen in the last few weeks days with barely a few trades, the day GM and SV ceased to be directors that changed. The first bit of evidence to support confidence is there to see, let's hope that it will continue. GLA.

Hi Drac, it is legal to issue that many shares, there is no no indication that GM and SV did anything illegal in presiding over a period of relentless share issue. They did comply with legal requirements not to issue shares once the sp fell below the nominal value. You could argue that with such share issue there was never any prospect that any investor could have had any expectation of a return on an investment and as such the directors GM and SV were not acting in the best interests of shareholders and hence in violation of s172 of the Companies Act 2006. (you can Google the companies act and check the specific section). The question is whether that argument would stick.

Good post ValJu, I still don't think I will put any money in to valirx, but it was nice to read a post where a balanced view for unceasing a holding has been given. Hope it works out. I think there is grounds for optimism in light of changes at the top. Would be great if it could be followed up with steady, sensible and sustained sp improvements.

Hi Drac, we voted to remove them as directors. Whether or not they are still employees is a matter for the company, at this time I would assume that they are. I think it will be difficult to get a responce out of ValiRx at the moment as I am sure there is a lot of focus on internal reorganisation. I would give it a few days before chasing it up. I am inclined to think that they will neither confirm or deny as we have no say in who the company employes I have struggled to get a responce out of ValiRx in the past, but I think the smart play if you want to rebuild trust is to give you a responce, even if that is that they won't disclose it. The thing is that if GM and SV are still emoloyeed they do not have any say in setting the direction. If its a real issue I would have a look at how you can make a FOI request, I think the guidance will indicate if that is something you have the right to ask about.

Eyeguy, I think you must be a newbie with VAL. There is nothing to see here. The 50% share issue is a fund raising event to pay bills following a share consolidation that was required because the shares had fallen below nominal value. The trades all seem to be of low value. Nothing is brewing, this is a company that's trying to get its house in order. Good news may be forthcoming, but nothing is going to happen till the directors have been replaced.

The key thing is that GM and SV's influence has been curtailed. I can understand a lot of ill will directed at them, but I would abandon any attempts to sue them unless there is fact based evidence that can demonstrate genuine wrong doing. It's not that I am happy for them to get away with it or anything like that, just don't want people to throw money away on that course of action if there isn't suffient evidence to back up claims of wrong doing. Personally I am looking forward to the future rather than looking to punish them.