Member Info for chasf

It's just the usual problem of a share that was bought up when it was really cheap, and has several bags in it for some. Given the fundamentals (which for a change seem to mean something here), once it has cooled off a bit, as some early buyers take their profit, it should head up again and gradually stay there. That's one reason I have it in my SIPP. Picked some up in that strange sell-off on the RNS. Anyway, it doesn't take much to move it since it's still tightly held.

Logged out and back in and it's fine. Might have been in auction? Anyway, it's back now.

IG won't deal in this at the moment: "non-dealable state"

The RSP had to get the shares for my last purchase from ISDX, which they haven't done before. I was confused when they were never logged until I checked the contract note. I wonder if they're getting harder to find.

It looks as though this business can scale up with sub-linear cost, which is always a good property.

It's the first time I've seen superstitious trading bots, but the ones here are keen on 7s, no doubt, to go by pricing. Chinese influence? Another limit trade?

MM bots clearly have a thing about 0.77, since it's now back on other side, so that was a good level to pick.

MMs must certainly be having a good day picking up 2m at 0.735 and flogging them for 0.79+

Sometimes the Nomads won't be happy with speculative things in an RNS, but since the price-sensitive aspect has been released indirectly in the form of a target volume, it's possible that in a presentation (tonight, for instance), RP can now give some sample financial returns using that volume, and depending on price of gold, margins etc. to make it more concrete (ie, spell it out).

I could get a quote, but only for much more than the 0.77 that just popped up. I suspect now that 0.77 was camped on the ask filling an order at that price, so any other requests (like my test ones) gave a price well above it, as I'd said earlier. So, it wasn't a lie, because it was dealing at that level, but it was misleading because only one lucky player got that price.

SP is as low as it is because of that 2m dumped minutes after the RNS appeared.

The quoted ask is a lie by the way. Can't buy anything non-trivial for that.

I'm expecting some interest tomorrow after tonight's presentation by RP, in which he might take the opportunity to show what it might mean financially to meet the 100kg target they'd set.

It's because the price is so high that a 1p difference between bid and ask also gives a tiny spread. Since the price isn't set to be convenient by MMs but by a computer algorithm looking at the book, it's not unusual for shares on SETS to have spreads of one or two times the smallest price unit for the share: if there's a gap between two entries in the book, there's a tendency to fill it, and especially between bid and ask if you want immediate execution.

I always enjoy them. It's that lovely disconcerting feeling I get when log in to my dealing site to find my portfolio has plummeted. Oh. It's because they haven't yet reprogrammed their computers to divide by 100. Can't be too careful.

"I realy do not have a clue how it can turn into a bio firm from what we had" By buying one!

Selling and buying back might be tempting ... but look at that spread!

Soon it will be time to "Sell in May and go away"!

The markets generally have been a bit like that. I wouldn't say 3 months, but since mid-Feb. As you say, it's just as well this is suspended (although that shows as zero value in my portfolio, which is disconcerting each time I see it).

As I understand it (and it's still quite obscure to me), the trouble arose because the calculation of the right percentage to re-invest involved a discounted rate for the shares, but as is not uncommon for AIM shares, the market price suddenly leapt by a huge amount (because Scancell was successful in its trials), and that meant that the previously correct percentage was wrong. OXT had been in that situation before, and in that case had taken advice from HMRC before the transaction; this time I currently assume they used the same technique they'd been told to use before, but something had changed and it was now "wrong". As you suggest, it seems a little bizarre that you run into trouble by being successful. If they'd simply lost the lot, the original investors would still have their tax breaks. Also, it seems savage to revoke the status, so that all the investments previously made were invalidated, allowing a big tax grab going back 5 years. (Welcome to Brown's HMRC.) This could now happen to any VCT at any time. Certainly, at the moment they are all saying, we're so clever this couldn't happen to us, but how can they be sure? More importantly, how can any VCT investor now be sure? You'd have to make allowances for a possible retroactive grab back, for years, even after you'd managed to sell on the shares! I wouldn't say that OT1 was dominated by Scancell in financial terms until its success (and that took some time). There is a set of small companies still ticking over, and at least some have reasonable prospects, but what now happens to them?