Strickly the new broker is not an investor. So when they do off load the shares, what will the buyers "investors" get? Well at a spread of 33.33%, they get an instant slap of eye-watering risk! (the broker is making a killing on evey trade if the spread is 33%!) after the initial hit the investor can look forward to many sleepless nights as they see the value slip even further than the intital 33% down. They can then sell and get off lightly or hold on and lose more. There has been a little volitlity in the sp, so if you have made a gain, take your profit before you lose it!
Yup random, it's painful. Thankfully I am in the same ball park as you. When I think of others on here who have put in much more I consider myself getting off lightly. Not sure if aim is people who have a lot of experience, or really do thier research. More inclined to think aim might just be for fund managers who invest widely, put a risk managed amount into aim stock and are prepared to offset the small number of winning stocks against many losing ones. I have certainly leant to keep out of aim from now on.
200k should achieve something if it is well spent. Is it enough to turn things around? I would doubt that. Will it be well spent? I don't feel confident. I suspect that this is just the start, the 200k is just going to be spent keeping Val going for a while and further share issues will follow. The big question is will this be an interim measure before a more inventive way to fund the company is employed? Likewise I feel pessimistic. It's too early to say if the broker is going to be more hands on. If things don't change we already know that the future will be a company that will find itself exhausted by its own pathetic fund raising activities. If nothing changes we will just have to push again and again for GM and /or SV to go because if they can't change now it will be clear that they are part of the problem and have no place in the solution.
Totally agree that share is a problem with voting out GM and SV (assuming that's the consusus). However I am a bit confused about the rules here. Is the vote based on the number of shares in issue when the resolutions where announced or when the meeting was scheduled to take place? Assuming its the later it is most likely that if the shares held by the broker count (not sure they actually do - the broker is required to complete the market that is supply shares purchased and buy shares sold) it is likely that they would support GM and SV so long as the broker thinks those two add value. Of course when the broker offloads the shares it all changes. The broker won't have the same voting power and the shares will almost certainly continue to lose value unless by minor miracle things can be turned around. If things do get turned around we all win. New shareholders get thier profit, our loses can be reduced a little and GM and SV can hold on to the gravy train. If they can't turn it around the army of digrunted shareholders swells. The only advice I can offer is not to to throw good money after bad when the broker releases the shares, wait and see if an sp increase can be maintained for at least 20 days before uping your stake here, derisking is the way forward.
Drac, I don't think the protest was a waste of time. Ultimately any protest can only be successful if there are people who hold large numbers of shares (i.e. having the voting power to block resolutions). That means that they will have meaningful skin in the game and meaningful amounts of money to lose. The whole ponit of the original vote was to protect investments from the mismanagement of the BOD. I think the jury is still out on the BOD's claim that they thought it unlikely they would be able to continue trading, but under the circumstances I can understand that continued mismanagement was considered the lesser risk compared to going into administration. As for the future I think that we have proved to the BOD that although funds have come from a large disperate group of individual investors (rather than a few institutions or big players) that we can organise ourselves, form a consensus and vote in a united and meaningful way. The subsequent issue of shares post consolidation will of course make it harder to get rid of GM and/or SV, but if things continue as they have all the BOD will do is add to the number of disgruntled shareholders and we have already shown we can organise to vote them out. The new broker seems a bit more hands on, maybe a more imaginative approach to funding might be taken (rather than relying on quasi charity donations from us). I say let's wait and see. If its just more of the same then every AGM from now on we raise resolutions until they are gone.
Oldblue the sp shown is "as if" consolidation has not occurred. If you look at the sp graph there is no massive uplift as you might expect with a share consolidation. I think this is something of a peculiarity caused by the adjournment of the GM due to disruption caused by cornrovirus. I am sure that in a few days/weeks (hopefully not months) this will be sorted out and the "true" sp is shown.
GM glossed over both VAL301 and val101 in the Edinburgh presentation as being in early development. I belive the last end of year accounts included some nice glossy pics to illustrate product/project process and I remember the 4 compounds were at different stages. Sorry I can't be more acuurate at the moment.
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.
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.
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.