Member Info for Bankfool

I think we have the answer to a question asked a few weeks ago about if the sp could drop below the nominal value. I suspect that as others have suggested a consolidation is coming. As always people are free to make their own choice but I suggest not throwing good money after bad.

Mmm, well it might spike before a placing, but that does not make it predicable. I I keep an open mind on this market manipulation argument. The key ponit still seems to be that if you buy in on the rise you will quickly be locked in when it drops and if you buy in when the price is low you will lose money unless it spikes soon after, ie Val is more luck than judgement.

Gilders I don't think this is a share where charting helps. The tread is strong downwards. Yes there are moments when there are rises but they are spikes at what appear to random moments. You may look at the spikes as market manipulation or you might look at them as radom events, but in either case if you call it right it is luck not skill. Would be interested if someone can offer an way to predict the spikes.

Right back, year1970, I think that it will unreasonable to expect people not to buy at these levels and people do periodically muktibag too. The thing is that this share spikes out of the blue for a day or two and then continues its collapse. As I said earlier this week if you don't make money on this share in a week of investing it will just be eroded away. This is not a investment share its just blind luck. Issues like lack of shareholding, high remuneration, rns 's that are forever imminent are all warning signs. Being a mere shareholder I know I don't have much power, but hopefully if this board reflects this it will give newbies pause to thought before losing money here.

I can understand the sentiment "enough is enough" that has been expressed. The question is what can shareholders do about it? I previously thought we should vote out the BOD, but I don't think an attempt to do so would succeed and what would shareholders benefit other than the pleasure of derailing the gravy train. Personally I think the better course of action is not to put any more into the company and to choke the income stream until the BOD are willing to put their own money in again and inject some confidence into the company. Its the lack of confidence that is the real killer here and its time to force the BODs hand by forcing them to invest themselves, to show they have the confidence in the products and that this is actually a research company and not just a gravy train for the BOD.

I think it's fair to say that if you pay yourself loads your investment becomes trivial. If I put in 100,000 as a share purchase and if the gamble pays off I could muktibag and take out 700,000. What if I started a company with 100,000, paid myself some nice high wages and used cash injections from share issues to fund my wages? I could make myself 800,000 and let the company fail. But losing my 100,000 would be a nice trade off if I can walk away with 700,000 net and my gamble would be based on whether I could con people into believing that they were investing in something worthwhile.

I suppose it is of interest but also par for the course. I remain of the opionion that this is very much a share to steer clear of if you are thinking of investing and one to warn others of if you are already invested.

Hi roses, I can find details of their shareholdings on the valirx site, but more interested in their salaries. My line of thinking is that if you invest say 100k in your own company it might look like you have made a significant comittment, but if you then pay yourself say 400k a year then (even after living costs, tax etc) your comittment starts to look increasing trivial as time goes on.

Can't say I can find it on the website. That said I just found this:
https://simplywall.st/stocks/gb/pharmaceuticals-biotech/aim-val/valirx-shares/news/is-valirx-plcs-lonval-ceo-salary-justified/amp/
It does give a balanced view whist at the same time making the ponit that continued increases may tip over into excessive.

Ruga, Roses, Just out of interest how did you find this out. The accounts on the valirx site and the accounts at conpanies House don't show that information (as far as I can see). I think it is important information to have as it helps establish if the directors have skin in the game. I would appreciate it if you can you say where that kinda information can be found?

I think that's because people get sucked into val in tranches. It seems that periodic spikes attract interest in this share and new people take a punt not expecting the sp to coplase as it does. As I am over 99% down a 30% drop at today's price won't make much difference to me, but will make a difference to a new shareholder who might still think they might get it back. It takes a little time to realise that if you haven't made any profit in a week when you're investment is gonna evaporate to nothing and by the time you realise that it's too late, so again and again there will be tranches of punters who will realise that they are only going to lose money on this and understandably feel resentment. If there is one thing I have learnt)(other than aim is for mugs) is that you shouldn't put your money into a company that the directors don't. If they don't have skin in the game, you are a mug to take a bet they wouldn't

Interesting ponit ValJu, I think the problem would be getting the evidence to prove the point. If I ask "did you misrepresent the situation?" your best responce is going to be "no". Even with want appears to be a more straight forward situation with RBS when shareholders were duped by RBS into putting more money into RBS at the time of the banking crash, those aggrieved (understandably) shareholders don't appear to have gotten anywhere with there complaints.

Hi BP82, the problem is that investing in aim is high risk, we can't expect every punt to work out and even if it does work the cost of getting to trial let alone to market is going to high. If the company does not go bust then perhaps those who invest late will be the ones to reap the rewards. Perhaps LTHs have just got in too early and our investment will just be consumed in the efforts to get a trial off the ground. The fact that the BOD do not buy shares at this price is rather daming though. Sure there can be restrictions on when the BOD can buy shares, but that's not all the time. There are no rules to compel the BOD to buy shares, nor are there any restrictions on the remuneration they can pay themselves. The lack of buying and the rumoured high salaries (don't think there is sufficient info in the accounts at companies House to confirm) is a real killer for confidence in this company, likewise that lack of compulsion to buy and absence of rules on salaries means that the BOD can bleed the shareholders and the company dry and still not do anything wrong (criminal)

Mmm know what you mean, but if you made money you made money. I don't know what will happen next week, but if banks and builders continue to rise I might sell my Tw., maybe a tranche of Rbs or lloyds if I am in profit. As for Bdev, I think keep an eye on it for the next few months and if it dips to 650 I would buy back and leverage the profit I made.

Damn auto correct lol.

Just been listening to John Mcdonald implying shareholder's rip off the public. Personally I am not sold on that argument, but it occurred to me that HMG still have a big holding in RBS. Why not gift those shares to the public and give everyone a share in RBS profits so that the public at large can benefit? Too outlandish? Too equitable? Or is that just plain mad!?!??

I don't think that Val is a scam in the traditional sence. If there really are patients receiving Val products as treatments I am sure it is the result of researchers attempting to produce a treatment. I think the con element is that the "BOD don't seem to have any qualms about their salaries and funding those salaries by releasing mountains of shares (just checked how many are in issue - wow!) I am inclined to think if this is a con the only ones getting conned are the shareholders. Compare the holdings of directors against the total number of shares in issue to see how little they are personally risking.

I haven't seen any news today, nothing obvious to explain the 7%drop today. Is anyone aware of anything that might explain today's drop?

If it was sp relevant I guess an rns would be required, but that would be true of any sp relenent info. I think the problem is that talks always seem a bit vague regardless of the company involved. Looking at the news in share magazine https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/shares/share/VAL it looks like being in talks is bit of a non-story and to some degree it's our own fault getting over excited expecting meaningful and imminent results from talks. Think it's best not to get to excited about that sort of news

I think we are always waiting for the news that will boost our sp, but given my experience with VAL I would rather have delay than a RNS composed of nonsense issued. Fingers crossed for meaningful news soon.