Member Info for DINVOFT

Swsquire

I'm Inclined to agree - although not normally pessimistic I fear that despite all the talk about augmentation and accretion the fact that the board reserve the right to bring forward a continuation vote should they not meet either key performance indicators (for which they are depending on the same investment manager who hasn't yet) smacks of an easy escape route.

Probably the clearest indicator is contained in the final sentence by the investment manager ending with 'pursuing alternative solutions that maximise value for the Company's Shareholders'.

Sorry correction 'EGM'

EyesOfBlue - Couldn't agree more. Along with the substantial number of discombobulated shareholders who voted against the board at the recent AGM.

Starbright - I rang GSF today for clarification they confirmed that there are only 3 quarterly dividends this year with the next being Sept quarter end payable January 26 at 0.75p which the board are confident will be achieved as a minimum ?

Your para three 'interpretation of additional' says it all really. I also read it originally as anyone would particularly the continued reference to a 'special dividend'.

Call me a bluff old traditionist if you will, but in my book there is absolutely nothing special about the way this has been approached. My earlier post referred to obfuscation and I stand by that but unfortunately have to live with it or sell at a loss.

Thanks Trotsky - Missed the July 17th RNS year end results - what a plonker I turned out to be.

@Starbright

Thanks for the research done in your last post - most helpful. However it does not appear to escape the fact that if the next ordinary divi is not payable until Jan 26 then a complete quarter is missing and replaced by the special dividends. Whilst I am not suggesting that the 3p (2 x 1.5) is not welcome the way it has been presented suggests, as mentioned earlier by myself and one other, that a certain amount of obfuscation is at play which is not welcome, and to a degree justifies the approach taken by RM funds.

Am I missing something here. The last four quarterly divi paydays were :- 18.10.24 - 15.1.25 - 11.4.25 - 15.8.25. You would expect normal quarterly divi payment sequencing to be a pay date at some point in October 25. As far as I can find the next (apart from the special on October 31st) pay date is listed as Jan 2026 with the amount yet to be declared.

If that is the case it would appear that the 'special' is replacing a quarterly dividend and therefore is not quite so special after all and a certain amount of obfuscation is at play.

If anybody has alternative information please let us know.

A shave, enthusiasm and possibly a necktie, with a decent shirt collar and a suit to present himself to the US market as a CEO with intent rather than a bag of rags plundered from the nearest charity shop waste bin.

Trades are also not always recorded accurately - I bought a specific odd number at 10.24 yesterday but recorded here as a sell.

It seems GTS Securities have increased the bid to 6 cents which is just short of 4.5 pence. So at least that is something to be cheerful about (Hopefully).

I assume those pre market quotes at 5.00 bid and 25.00 ask are in cents rather than dollars - if not I'm off across the pond, even if I have to swim all the way with my holding as paper certificates in a polythene bag.

@ RachelsDad - With the luck I usually get the only positive tip I can offer is 'Don't walk in the road when there's a bus coming'.

St Ledger Stakes Doncaster September 13th 3.40pm - Not too long to wait - Let's just hope we have backed the right horse.

Starbright - thanks for the explanation re 'proxy' it adds to my understanding and is really helpful. Even so the board statement I believe is vague enough to potentially mislead wavering voters (if there are any) with phrases such as 'all the main proxy advisers' without further clarification.

My preference would be for the removal of the two existing board members but as yet am undecided on favouring two RM candidates.

Thanks for the potential voting dissection - very interesting.

GL.

This latest notice (today) is to say the least disingenuous. They claim to have the support of 'all main' independent proxy advisors to vote against the proposals with no indication of who, how many or what what constitutes 'main' or even independent.

What exactly do they mean by proxy - Collins dictionary describes this as an agent, attorney, delegate, deputy, representative or substitute. By including the term proxy the board could be describing almost anyone with an opinion that coincides with theirs - rather than the way it is presented as being the informed well researched view of major professional bodies and organisations.

I for one am not convinced by the painfully amateur approach they have taken to this campaign which also reflects on the performance of the board since inception.

Couldn't agree more Starbright - This latest RNS is indicative why.

Glass Lewis specialize in Corporate Governance appraisal not creating profitable companies in the energy sector, and considering GSF's record with shareholder interaction over the years, why on earth would you advertise a recommend from them for more of the same - talk about shoot yourself in the foot.

The note this morning from GSF investor relations says that two outside organisations, PIRC and ISS, have recommended voting against all resolutions. No additional detail or text from these recommendations is included in the GSF note. Surely it is important to understand how these 'analysts' have arrived at the conclusions. Is it after detailed research by industry experienced operatives or simply comment by friendly parties.

Tried googling both - with PIRC the latest report I could find was June 25 something to do with local authority pension schemes (I think) and ISS either came up as The International Space Station or an organisation that deals with workspace efficiency - neither exactly relevant to the task in hand.

If anyone can something more relevant it could prove useful in adding to the debate prior to voting.

GLA.

MikeM14

Like you I am with II . They tell me that being registered with their Shareholder Voting and Information service allows companies you are invested in to access shareholders details. Makes sense really - how else would we get to vote.

Interestingly I also telephoned GSF for info. Answering service as usual but within ten minutes had a return call - never had one from them before in the three years I have held shares - makes you wonder why.

GLA.

Also had a postcard today, and likewise wondering how they got my details - I'm invested through a platform so will be part of a tranche of other holders only listed with GSF as a bundle. Have signed up with GSF for news letters but that was email only.

Two little ducks !.

Seriously I have seen this sort of quantity traded for many years and have never either seen or arrived at a sensible answer. Lots of theories such as mm's adjusting their books etc but never anything conclusive. The other thing to consider is the accuracy of trade reporting - whether they are listed as buys or sells can depend entirely on the volume of trades being carried out and the speed of any price movement.

As well as which they are not always reported - I placed two buys in quick succession today, of similar amounts at around 2.30pm and only one has been listed (not the trade of 171626 shares - I am neither that brave or wealthy).

It is probably not best to rely too heavily on the numbers listed.