Member Info for DanTheMan105

As I read it (please correct me somebody if I'm wrong)
1. Capital have reduced their shareholding from 4.9% to just over 3%
2. They have about 73m shares currently lent out (to shorters?)
maybe they are expecting those shares to be returned as the SP rises on news and shorts are closed, and are housekeeping their holding accordingly, maybe to avoid going over 5% (reason?).
Does this analysis seem reasonable?

I am on the Beta site, glad to see that it is showing the correct details. After a hiccup the other day, when Chrome was objecting to its certification, it seems to have come good. And to my mind they have improved the fonts on the user and thread names since a few days ago, much more readable.

Hope so - still going up as I write. I notice that the author of the report is still referring interchangeably to the Government IPA Guarantee scheme as 'lending' and 'underwriting', perhaps, as a journalist, he knows he doesn't quite know, and can't be bothered to look up the facts. For his benefit, and my own, I looked up
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-guarantees-scheme

I hope this makes it a little clearer; the government were never going to loan us any money, indeed under EU rules I don't think they are allowed to. Rather, they would guarantee or underwrite the loans from other bodies, making those bodies more likely to give us the money.
I think that is the correct interpretation; I hope someone will set me right if it isn't. Dan.

I don't see AIM - look on the 'SXX Share Price' page on this site, about 6 in. from the top - shows the indices in which SXX is listed.

Yes, I had a look just now. My first impressions are:
1. You have to sign in - maybe because it's Beta, maybe this is a new model of operation. My normal mode is to watch without signing in, only doing so infrequently in order to post. Maybe this will cause me, and maybe others, to post more reactively - and would that be a good thing?
2. It's not as easy to read, not on my PC monitor, anyway.
3. I like the auto-updating trades, especially the 2m buy at 15:00:57; I've yet to notice is the chat auto-updates.
4. That's all, so far.
Dan.

Thanks very much for enlightening us. I note that the article was published just over a month ago, and that the writer does not know how long or how deep the tunnel is to be; perhaps he lacked the interest or the humility to look those facts up. Am I alone in thinking that it would be surprising if he was party to specific information about our negotiations with IPA. I am reminded a bit of that snooty article in the FT a while ago.

I agree with Chilting. A growing company cannot expect to have the same number of shares as it it had when it was an idea on the back of an envelope. There is a view that early adopters have an entitlement to make seriously many times their investment when the project comes to maturity, even though their contributions would hardly buy a shovel in the world of the real project. Too much debt puts all the shareholders at greater risk of being overtaken and expropriated by bondholders and creditors, and losing everything, even as the project succeeds. We should be satisfied with doing very well from the success of the Company, and not get carried away with dreams of riches.

I notice that we have come in for a few kind words from Tom Winnifrith in today's Bearcast on the Shareprophets website, a pretty rare event for any company. He also speaks highly of our Kev. Perhaps the weather is really on the change.

Great news, obviously, and hopefully will swiftly resume supplying gas to Bassa, but, unless I've missed an important detail, I can see no reference to actually seeing the colour of their money; there must be sufficiently encouraging noises from the government to resume supply, but I will be happier when we receive news of bills being paid, this, after all, was what the cessation of supply was all about. And a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year to all. Dan.

Strangely, a similar drop happened about this time yesterday; a bunch of about 20 AT sells. Still, price recovered soon afterwards, hopefully same today.

Journalists are bullies, probably couldn't do the job if they weren't. They like nothing better than putting the boot in on a recumbent subject, unless it's crowing over others' misfortunes. And if they've managed to cause those misfortunes themselves with their malicious scribbling, then so much the better, shows their mighty power.. A loathsome profession, bah.

Forgive me if I am duplicating, but it is my impression that there are serious restrictions on PDMRs dealing in their company's shares. Specifically, before financial results are published, or at any other time when there is unpublished information likely to move the share price by more than approximately ten per cent. https://www.out-law.com/page-11693 So if anything exciting is going to happen, it is only likely to be after a decent period has elapsed. IMHO

I find I have to make a humble and unreserved apology in relation to my earlier post about the 'Sheriff of Aim' staggering 'from bar to street to bookie'. It wasn't Shane McGowan, It was Chris Difford (Up the Junction).

I have a vision of the 'Sheriff of AIM' (bah!) in a crumpled suit and an open necked shirt, staggering 'from bar to street to bookie' (apologies to Shane McGowan) trying to chase his losses.

I note the effusion on 'Share Profits' (sic) reiterating the venal poisons belched by Muddy Waters et al. If I might paraphrase, "if I don't get my way, I'm going to scream until i'm thick". Sic transit the children of the forking wealthy (apologies to Hugh Cornwell). I have always felt that short selling is an essentially fraudulent practice: if you think a share is going to decrease in value, it would be more honest to go down to Joe Coral and have a bet on it.

So farewell then, PTV. Gi' us a handout, that was your catchphrase. My remaining 81p stake in this bunch of shysters has dwindled to nought. I shall keep the entry in my portfolio, like a rat's tail nailed to a barn door.