Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Interesting that "Jong-Hee Han. Promoted from the company’s TV research and development team" is being elevated by his criminal boss. Wonder what his involvement was with the appropriation of NANOs tech. His previous job title suggests it could be him who organised the heist.

Interesting comment from Harwood:
"Whilst some holdings will no doubt be sold in the coming months, it is our view that the majority of the remaining portfolio should be sold over the course of 2023 as by then the impact of COVID will have hopefully abated and this will create the most value for shareholders."

That means that even after the near-term returns of cash, a substantial portion of the trusts holdings could still remain towards the end of the two year period, leaving a door open and ample time for potential further developments?

Largo are a Canadian company who may be of interest to IES holders. A vanadium miner who are transitioning to become producers of flow batteries sourced by their mining output. Last month they changed their name (formerly Largo Resources) to reflect the change of emphasis. Another indicator of confidence in the technology backed by serious investment.

Selling offers a quick and simple exit if you don't have the time or energy to engage with Gresham House's spiteful, illogical and unnecessary attack on small shareholders. If you sell now you will be getting less than the theoretical value of the assets. The actual value, though, is highly debatable due to the overhang created by Gresham's proposed two year deadline for disposal of assets, i.e. effectively a forced sale or "fire sale" situation.

It is also worth noting that Gresham have proved less than reliable over calculating the NAV: https://quoteddata.com/2021/11/gresham-house-strategic-announces-nav-overstatement-2/

The wind up is still subject to a vote (13th Dec), but seems inevitable due to the distinctly odd behaviour of anonymous institutions who, for unexplained reasons, have somehow been induced to back Gresham's selfish, inferior proposals. The reason this is strange is that it appears to be against their own financial interests? Former GHS chair David Potter recommends voting against these proposals: https://portfolio-adviser.com/ex-gresham-house-strategic-chair-details-conflicts-of-interest-at-trust-in-open-letter-to-shareholders/
Perhaps the regulators ought to investigate how and why institutions were induced to vote against their own financial interests? A small anonymous group imposing something detrimental on themselves, as well as on the majority of shareholders seems unusual, to say the least.

If you "stick" then you will probably be stuck with greedy Gresham's wind-up proposals, assuming they are passed. To any reasonable person they are ridiculously complicated, but can perhaps be simplified into 3 main parts: 1. quick return of cash via the "B share scheme" - essentially this would give shareholders £3 per share payable later this month, 2. The tender offer - this seems to be a way of offering shareholders a choice over holding onto all their shares or surrendering part of them now in order to release more cash quickly - as I understand it the number of shares actually liquidated will be proportional depending on the overall total number tendered, i.e. you won't know exactly how many you are selling until the process completes, it will be a proportion of those you tendered, and the price will be slightly below the calculated NAV at the time, 3. the liquidation of all the remaining assets by various means including eliminating reserves and disposing of holdings, all to be returned to shareholders as cash at unspecified date(s) within the next two years.

Please appreciate that this is a simplification and is merely my lumbering understanding - feel free to correct or improve it - I would guess that most small shareholders have even less of a clue than I do about this woeful abomination foisted on them by Gresham. Investment trust holders deserve better treatment.

Let's face it, they are paid to come up with some old twaddle to satisfy punters incessant demand for a story. It doesn't much matter what they say. Preferably it's credible, but all that really counts is the bottom line, as Mr 'moony' Beam will tell you

Stop exposing your "sustainable bottom", Baked. No wonder they call you "beam"

Market seems to be realising that Omicron may not necessarily warrant the prudent govt responses - evidence from SA suggests it is highly infectious yet only produces very mild symptoms - if confirmed that could actually be construed as a positive development, as it could theoretically crowd out the Delta variant and potentially provide widespread natural immunity against other strains. It may alternatively prove deadly of course, but SA evidence is the best we have so far.

ORPH SP seems to be in a downwards spiral irrespective of events, but LTHs should be focused on the next results - previous one gave grounds for optimism, imo.

So Blue, do you think this research means nothing to them? Oh, Vienna.
(80's joke for the oldies)

Friday's fall was obviously Omicron related, Norreason, disputing that seems pointless, especially without any justification or reasoning. Seems like you need to take off YOUR blinkers, or maybe repurpose them as a gag, to prevent gratuitous rudeness.

"a statement from the governor's office said the company would get a $27m grant for creating jobs in the state."

"Joe Biden, who's trying to ramp up chip production in the US through generous subsidies."

Seems like Samsung are the ones being "bribed" in this case. Makes a change.

New variant might threaten another "extension" to the characterisation study, perhaps? Seems it has almost double the number of mutations on the spike than Delta had. HC study seems to be chasing a moving target far too slowly.

37 minutes with CEO Andrew Wass and chief finance officer Chris Scott:
https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/gear4music-small-cap-online-retailer-shares-update-ii522051?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Copy%20of%20NEW-DLY-ENGAGE-ii_afternoon_round_up_171121%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=16255742&spUserID=MTIxNjc2Mzg5MzQ0S0&spJobID=1874067881&spReportId=MTg3NDA2Nzg4MQS2

Be aware walletinvestor is computer generated content. Just some algorithms based on a limited set of data, not expert opinion. Robotically forecasting several years ahead shows a basic lack of common sense or credibility on the part of the programmers, imo, and their failure to alert casual readers to the real nature of their content makes them seem deliberately misleading and untrustworthy.

"770 an easy target in the next week or so" - Darren, a week ago.

What's it doing next week Darren? Lottery numbers? ( :

The lack of urgency in the HC testing has been there from the very start, and it is becoming increasingly illogical and indefensible. Either abandon it or get on with it, but what is the alternative? Current vaccines offer some protection, but nowhere near as much as expected when they were introduced, by the public or by experts. Government needs to wake up and smell the statistics.

Not really. Their record doesn't indicate any special knowledge. The only discernible pattern is that usually after they sold, the SP rose, but there's no real correlation. Nearly all of their sales are at lower prices than current.

They did cash out a lot, a while ago, at much lower prices, but that is to be expected of a successful small company, at some point the directors want to crystalise the rewards of their success and turn it into a house or something, otherwise what's the point of it all.

Both plans were announced before the price movement, so no suggestion of impropriety there. The precise wording is "Immediately following the Demerger, Prudential will retain an initial holding of 19.9 per cent voting interest (and a 19.7 per cent economic interest) in the total common stock of Jackson. Prudential intends to sell down this initial holding within 12 months following completion of the Demerger, subject to market conditions, such that Prudential expects to own less than 10 per cent of Jackson's total combined voting power of its common stock."

So that's actually down to LESS THAN 10%, (rather than precisely 10%), by next September. Curious give-and-take situation.

The saboteurs have so far wiped £7m off the trust's value since they kneecapped Helen Sinclair. They sure know how to look after shareholders interests, those financial geniuses, and paragons of corporate governance.

Jeffries upped their target price to £9 today, but Darren's short seems smarter in the "short" term. Well timed, sir!

If only there was some sort of study we could do to find out more about this persistent COVID virus situation. Oh wait, we ordered one more than a year ago. No urgency though, let's wait for a few more waves of death and have some more meetings. Said the government.