Member Info for Bankfool

Drac, I think asking that much from them would be unrealistic, but insisting that "fees" whatever those are and bonuses are not paid, or at least paid in the form of shares would not be that unreasonable given the state of things.

Yup that's the size of it, the broker is there to complete the market. The shares in issue have to be owned, so if you sell they have to buy. They make their money from the spread, the differnce between the bid and ask prices. This is the main reason why if you are the broker do don't want to be holding the baby, especially if it all goes wrong. Of course they manage that risk by offering to buy for next to nothing for the shares if collapse is on the cards.

Thanks sf. Never got one. Think I better call Halifax today and register my vote. What date was your letter?

Hopefully things will change Drac, but my gut feeling is that this is the last puff on the cigar before it's ground out.

Mmmm does seem that they are managing thier risk Roses.
Well suppose my opinion hadn't changed, the RNS is better than a kick in the trousers, but not much better than being kicked in the trousers. Guess we will just have to see how things play out, especially with the outcome of vote on GM and SV looming.

Ah, Roses, that's informative, thanks. That said why get rid of the previous broker? Not complaining, as I said myself I think having a grown up at the table is probably a step in the right direction.
Not sure about the new broker's holding though. Monecor only held circa 3% so not sure why a new broker would want to hold 10 times as much (sounds like a missive risk, unless they plan to realese the shares relatively quickly)? . Also I would expect ValiRx to immediately release a holdings RNS or if this isn't required for the broker, to update thier website (it hasn't been, surprise surpise). However if there has been a 50% increase in shares and they have all gone to the new broker, then mathematically they have to be holding about 33% of the shares in issue as odd as that might seem. Hopefully we will be able to confirm major shareholder holdings soon.

Don't know hth. Might have lost my chance to vote? Halifax are not great with this sort of thing. Not that my votes would be enough to swing it one way or the other.

Hth I am inclined to agree, but it does look dangerously close to looking like a grown up has come along to help teach the kids about how money works.
Back in January I asked if the company would be here in a year's time. Its still far from certain.

What has happened to resolutions relating to GM and SV? Not received anything from Halifax yet about this.
Have people been able to register thier vote on whether to remove GM and/or SV yet?
How does that vote work? Is it simple majority of votes cast or is based on achieving a %of voting power?

I have had a look today's RNSs it seems that today has been better than a kick in the pants, but not much better.
The new broker https://peterhousecap.com/our-team/#Mg would appear legit and the aponitment of a director from the broker to a non-exec role at Val might indicate a more hands on and intelligent approach to future funding.
The funds raised I suppose will give a bit of breathing space, but I still don't see much evidence that change is coming.
I doubt that the funds raised will be instantly consumed in wages. If that was the case why aponit a new broker?
I don't understand the numbers in the voting results. I assume that in order to block a resolution circa 77 million shares (5% of the 1.536 billion shares in issue at the time) was required. However I am not sure about that.
Also confused by the news article that the shares had been issued to "new shareholders". How do you know? What does new mean? It seems if they really are "new" in the sence that they have never held shares in Val before they will be into a losser like the rest of us. Just can't see what the ponit of calling them new is, just seems like journalistic nonsence.

Tired, just looking over the posts from today and trying to digest the RNSs. I think your post is the best I have read so far. I hate that the BOD have run the company into the ground, seem unrepentant and unwilling to change. I also hate that they are likely to get off Scott free, but as you say we have got to think of our own sanity if we carry on bashing the BOD. Although we are responsible for our investments I really don't know what research could have identified the underlying mess as the last 5 years have just been a relentless drip drip rather than a single obvious event.

Totally agree HH, I have to assume a stable sp to make any projection as I don't think I can account for news related sp movements. It is fair to say that the issue of shares has been exponential as has the collapse in sp and the two are going to related. The key ponit I was making though is that 50% share issue isn't that significant compared to what can be issued. You could make an estimate of how long you expect the company to survive based on the numbers, but I think there are too many unknowns to make any credible predictions when it comes to that.

HH, I don't know what the scope of authority the BOD have to issue shares or what limits are imposed. But if you do have a grip of the rules I would strongly recommend making a complaint to AIM regulation and to the Insolvency service.

Just doing some rough maths.
After the last consolidation there were 30,177,214 shares
Last week there were 1,534,827,184 shares.
That means that the shares in issue increased by 4986%
Its was the issue of shares that pushed the share price below the nominal value of 0.1p (that and news or lack of that finally pushed it under). That should demonstrate that the issue of shares to increase the new total by 50 % is comparatively trivial.
It appears that based on a current share price of 2.8 p (I think that's what the rns said) you could increase the shares in issue by 3000 % before the sp gets pushed below the nominal value again.

I see there are people who are fustated about not being able to buy. I am not giving investment advice, but really do think what else you could do with you money before you put it in here. I really won't consider putting any more of my money in untill some sort of change has been effected.

Only just skimmed the RNS. I would say generally speaking positive. Still lots to be worried about, yet another change of broker, Share issue with limited funds raised, low provional post consolidation sp etc. But it does look like a step in the right direction at first glance. Will Google the new non exec after work and digest it all properly. Good luck all.

BJ seems to make sence to be a bit bearish. Without a dividend it might make sense to buy at a lower price with a view to make a gain later on. If you are very confident that bank shares will drop maybe even sell and buy back. Got to admit that's a gamble i wouldn't take lightly.

I was looking forward to my dividend payment. Balls

Granted, that is what it says, but it does not explicitly say that the company is insolvent. It only says it is unlikely to be able to continue trading in 6 weeks. Reading between the lines potential Insolvancy would be a reason to stop trading but again the statement does not explicitly state this. As we have all noticed we have gone beyond that 6 week period. are we in the relm of what is beyond unlikely or is there reason to think the company statement was just bluster? Not suggesting anyone is wrong here only suggesting taking the company statements with a pinch of salt.

Granted, that is what it says, but it does not explicitly say that the company is insolvent. It only says it is unlikely to be able to continue trading in 6 weeks. Reading between the lines potential Insolvancy would be a reason to stop trading but again the statement does not explicitly state this. As we have all noticed we have gone beyond that 6 week period. are we in the relm of what is beyond unlikely or is there reason to think the company statement was just bluster? Not suggesting anyone is wrong here only suggesting taking the company statements with a pinch of salt.

Thoth2, the last balance sheet did not indicate that the company was insolvent. The BOD advised that the company would not be able to trade if we didn't approve the consolidation, they did not offer any evidence that Insolvency is on the cards. However its all moved on now since covid 19 as the chancellor announced a week or so ago that the resructions around trading when insolvent would be relaxed. As the EGM has been cancelled because of covid 19 I don't think they would fall foul of trading whilst insolvent. Its much more likely that the creditors will pull the plug on them assuming that the BOD's threats have merit.