Member Info for Crocqman

But Magsy and Punter have less than 1,500 posts in total between them.
The maths doesn't add up :-)

Let's not forget that this is the Angus board.
We shouldn't really have any Angus discussion on a thread on another company, so thought I would resurrect this very popular thread from yesterday. It certainly had a lot of people talking, and it's a catchy thread title too.

What news up next for Angus? Are we expecting any additional updates before the IQ answers are due at month end?

It's funny how all the rampers, who for years have been spouting non-stop about 'UK oil for the UK' and telling everyone what a great prospect the UK is for producing their own oil and to not be reliant on anyone else, are now overjoyed at this new prospect.
It seems that when looking to get the SP up (so they can trade whilst pretending to be devout LTH's here for the big prize), any tactic is a good tactic, even when it exposes you as a hypocrite.

MM's (or anyone else) do not get any advance notice of any RNS being 'logged'.
It is all done electronically and under strict security protocols eitehr by the company itself, or an authorised agency, and can be timed for release immediately, or at a pre-determined time (e.g. 7am).
No one will know from the RNS process itself that anything is imminent.

There could, of course be leaks from outside the RNS system and controls. In this instance, I would suggest any leak would most likely have originated from a connection to the program itself. Most likely a large number of people would be aware of the companies due to be involved, but less familiar with the rules for disclosing such information. Unlikely, I would think, from within Avacta itself, but always a possibility.

Regarding the placement point from greedo, if investment firms are discussing in unrecorded ways they would be breaching MAR regulations. I would think this highly unlikely, but with most things, always possible. This always seems a convenient 'truth' imo . Leaks, when you consider the volume of published RNS' would be an outlier rather than the norm, although with AIM, more likely that companies involved in price sensitive information are probably less knowledgeable around MAR regulation.
Everyone seems more keen to believe all is a conspiracy between MM's, etc, when the truth is generally more mundane

I have done just that this morning, Bananaman2,
Sold an underperforming FTSE share, half in here just below the Ask, and half at a limit.
Feel this may bounce around the 24-28 level until the next news

Only 2 weeks until the half-year results announcement, we will have a clearer picture then, and hopefully a more detailed forecast for the remainder of this financial year and an update on the dividend suspension, which will not be helping .
Still a hold for me

Presume the Schroders position is a combination of direct investment on behalf of their funds, coupled with PI holders invested with them?
The other holder just looks to have not participated in the placing.
Seems like a good proportion of shares unlikely to get churned any time soon.
Good news

Without going into too much detail, buys and sells are reported to the market as a 'trade', nothing more, nothing less, and these 'trades' need to be reported to the market within (I think) 15 minutes of execution (there will be some exceptions, like the late-reported trades).
There is no obligation to report whether the trade is a buy or a sell upon execution - part of an EU Directive (MiFID II - trade reporting), so sites like this (and even the official London Stock Exchange) will display the trade as a buy or sell on a best efforts basis, looking at the executed price and the bid/ask at the time of execution.
The actual direction (buy/sell) does, however, need to be reported to the regulator within T+1 of execution under the same EU Directive (under MiFID II - transaction reporting).
It is not an exact science as folk on these boards will often comment that a buy has been reported as a sell (or vice versa).
Many think it is deliberate and cite 'MM games', but it is nothing of the sort. It is just a best effort interpretation based on the known data at the time the trade is reported to market.
Brief, but that is the gist of it. Not too hot on late reported trades (after hours, or even next day) though, someone else may be able to chip in on this.

Never really read any MF articles.
They seem to be seen as an outfit that will publish a great, positive view one week, and then a contrasting, downbeat view the next.
Think it is all for clicks, sign-ups tbh, and they can, of course reference back to whichever view was the 'right call' at a later date to highlight their great insight in order to try and entice further readership (imo)

GSK for me has always been seen as more of a defensive stock.
One that is a steady eddie in the bad times. No huge swings, decent dividend, a fairly safe hold.
Growth via dividend reinvestment over time rather than big SP gains.
Don't think you will see the big movements here similar to the likes of oil/banks that you see going on a big run when the economic climate dictates.
Happy to hold as a core position in a balanced portfolio

Along with the 'Tempest' news yesterday, this highlights the robustness and diversified nature of the company, unreliant on a single revenue stream, inportant though they all are.
Good to see a rise, and hopefully, not just off the back of rising markets today in general.
gla

Thanks ocelot.
I was back to 60% green filtered comments yesterday, so normal service resumed after the video release last week.
Some interesting additional questions. Pertinent and forward-looking, as the IQ should be.

I think the answered Q about gas prices shows the company have been taking action to review and update potential at SF, but, no doubt, will get Alan and the gang sufficiently outraged for another assault today.

It has occured a few times now on the IQ now. Not sure I am comfortable with their continued reference to LSE/board posters in some of their IQ's. I know that will be how the Q is submitted, but many people/investors may not even know what LSE or 'board posters' relates to, so these references would be confusing. I think they should edit any reference to be more general in this regard, whilst maintaining the broader point of the Q. I do get their desire to defend their company from misleading statements from any source, this just seems unnecessary imo.
gla

If that is the case, II, would it be heard at the next meeting (20/8?), or would they convene a special meeting given the circumstances?
Presume it would just go to the next meeting

Their own calendar says the same
https://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/investors/financial-calendar/

They were under pressure to cancel the full year divi but ignored the advice of the regulator back in April.
Would suggest there is more stability now than back then, so expecting an announcement on the 5th for a further pay out

Medice,
Still time for a holdings TR1.
Although you would expect it on the day the new shares are listed, the deadline allows time for the holder to notify the issuer and for issuer to make the announcement to the market.

First day in weeks I've not had more than 50% of posts filtered.
My guess is that Alan is very busy watching the LSE interview over and over and disecting it all frame by frame in order to bring a new strategy to the table picking the whole thing apart bit by bit.
Seems he's talking to himself and his disciples primarily though.
Nice end to the week here and looks like a nice experienced team coming together for SF
Good weekend all

It is a great PR opportunity though, to release some news, make a clear case for AVCT and ensure the wider audience knows what is on offer (and distance the company from any negative aspects that may be announced).
WIll they want to make a bold statrement though?

Sadly, in the short term, the overturning of the planning permission is the most likely event for any uplift here.
Can't see it getting to the giddy highs of 0.35-0.40 seen prior to the original decision though, but maybe 0.25-0.30 range. Whether it will hold there though is another matter as I see many waiting on this opportunity to offload given the sentiment change since the original result.
Have always said IOW will be a long struggle. Folk seem so unrealistic in their future outlook here, particularly given past struggles and delays.
This, for me, has turned from a late 2019 target for some profit taking (based on Jan 2019 operational RNS) into a 2-3 year hold minimum just to cover current losses.Still see a future here, but this is still a high risk play
That's AIM though
gla

Thanks Dinoken.
Saw the Panmure upgrade, but not the target price they had set.
Slight difference of opinion to Credit Suisse who last Friday reiterated their 'underperform' rating and a 210 SP.
Happy to go with Panmure, certainly a LT hold for me with additions at anything around the current SP

Not everything is a conspiracy.
You think the whole announcement of the Extreme E collaboration involving multiple countries, companies, etc was deliberately delayed just for a 'mates rates' placing to occur on an AIM company ?
Maybe the collaboration could only approved if AFC could provide clear financial evidence to comply with any contractual requirements with Extreme E, so the fund raise was a necessary for this purpose.
In any case, if the news was known prior to the placing, then under MAR it would be a requirement to release this news when the placing was announced, so very unlikely anything was signed until after the placing imo