Member Info for Barry5

Toffeeman, yes that's right. The target is 20m so the price will be the balancing figure dependent on the II take up. If there is little interest then the price will be lower. Hopefully, there will be greta interest but I'm not holding my breath based on the last few weeks. I guess we ought to be lucky that Andrew won't be doing the presentations!

Me too

announced and nobody interested enough to want to talk about it.

It's been on the cards so, provided they can get away ok, maybe it will give the SP some impetus. But 10% dilution is a heck of a lot to make up for.

I thought the board would be awash with comments but KIST PIs don't seem to be all that bothered, maybe because we are in the pole position.

Lots of posters on the SQZ forum, most not in favour on the current terms offered.

Kanu, KIST only in its's second year of trading and first year's results affected badly by impairments.

2021 Turnover 89m
2022 Forecast turnover 590m

Methinks there might be just a little bit of profit there!!

STAS, Craven Walker is 79 and the CFO 70! And they don't want any of KIST's BOD to join the merged company!!!!

Andrew Austin owns 17.25% of KIST (I hold) so no way that SQZ can buy KIDST without wrapping him in. telling him to p*ss off and not be part of a combined company shows there is not real intent from SQZ - they’re just counter bidding because they have to.

But it does make a lot of sense for the 2 companies to combine. For both sets of shareholders, shares in a growing, vibrant FTSE 250 company would be exciting.

My hope is that BODs sit down and work out something for all of us.

I hold KIST and have SQZ on my watchlist. This is interesting and some sort of merger could be beneficial IMO to both sets of shareholders.

It looks like KIST have had approaches rejected and that SQZ said that we'll buy you instead.

The KIST offer is 25% above current SQZ SP. A case of an upstart trying to get into the big league by acquiring an established operation.

Very interesting. The upstart wanting to get into a bigger league. SQZ's executive directors are 62,70 and 79 and they didn't want any of our (younger) BOD!!

SQZ are more than twice our size. Never seen this before. It might end in stale mate though!

Maybe a major will swoop in and try to buy both!

Watch this space

I topped up a bit this morning (just another 3,000 shares with some spare cash I had) but showing as a sale. Just wondering if others this morning have been wrongly classified.

Very positive Research Note from Alternative Resource Capital (ARC) with Near Term target SP of 75p and a Long term Valuation of 100p. MKA "significantly undervalued today".

When the markets settle (and profits taken) we should see this move up nicely

Just wondering whether the BOD could simply issue an RNS stating that in their opinion the SP is total crap. Ok, would need to be put a little more delicately than that but they have done it before by tabulating all the positives and to indicate their continuing confidence. Last time it did wonders for the SP. Can we have a repeat please?

Yesterday trading volume was 2.55 times the 10 day average, 39.9m compared to the 10 day average of 15.6m

On Friday the volume was 14.7m.

Seems to indicate that there was a coordinated (and sadly successful) effort to flush out sellers and scupper the SP. Buyers are still in evidence and I'm hopeful we've seen the bottom now. A few days at 4.5/5.0 will do for me for now. Let's go with boring!

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/DEST/new-xf-73-research-programme-bwm0fv7hg6o41op.html

This good news RNS should put a bit of oomph back into the SP.

Excellent

Just tried a couple of dummy trades.
Sell 4.68
Buy 4.75
on HL

"will" would indicate certainty whereas "can" indicates an ability to do something" so there is no way that an RNS could use "will" since it would indicate the certainty of the sale.

If that all sounds pedantic, sorry but every word is scrutinised in these RNSs to ensure there is no intention to mislead.

lots of info NOT lost. Sorry

I thought the Annual Report and Accounts were excellent. Very slick and lost of information, which is why I topped up again. I was actually quite excited about them (well I was a Chartered Accountant!).

The BOD are, to some extent, a victim of circumstances and they always had/have to act in the best interests of shareholders so, at the beginning when there was global interest in buying the company or its assets, BOD were right in playing off the interested parties to push up the value. If they had not done so, they would have laid themselves open to a challenge from shareholders.

Value was added by deals during the negotiations while the sale process was going on so it became a moveable feast. That was the tipping point. They should have stopped and set a firm timescale and either sold by that date or carried on their re-positioning for a few years and then tried again. We may not have liked it but we'd be a damn sight better off than we are now.