Member Info for dustofnations

> “That's less than 4% if they raise the full £6.5m (which appears to be the intention). Notwithstanding it's our company and our money, we now have 2 tiers of shareholders, and that absolutely stinks in my opinion”

This is bad maths . You are just assuming it will cost the same amount of money to raise £6.5 million than the previous £2.5 million. The fees for an open offer are a combination fixed fees and percentage fees. The open offer segment is proportionally more expensive than the II raise because of the prospectus, significant fees for handling paper processes, etc.

The last circular says costs would be at least £215,000 to raise £2.5 million via combination of OO and placing. That's around 8.6% — which is a lot.

I've been told the rule of thumb for an OO is about 5%-10% in fees, proportionally higher if you are raising small amounts (noting here, this is only for the OO segment). You can verify that for yourself. Seems that due to the modest amount of money raised last time it was at the higher end.

It sounds like you'd rather have no retail offer and let Tarquin Cannonball-Musket and other HNW investors get more shares rather than your fellow retail shareholders, just because *your* broker can't handle it. Crabs in a barrel mentality — if I can't have it, nobody should.

The company would not be behaving responsibly if it were to use a much more expensive method of raising money just to keep you happy, when a perfectly good way of raising from existing retail investors exists.

Another way of thinking about it is that we get Jason's wages thrown in for free if we use a cheaper way of raising money with lower fees. That is a win for everyone.

Fyoz — I disagree.

Standard OOs are extremely expensive to run because of the administration involved, to the point they often are barely worth it (e.g. they include paper-based solutions, people sending cheques, lots of legal administration, lots of intermediaries who want fees paying). These newer approaches are dramatically faster and cheaper to run; they net the company a much greater fraction of the proceeds.

Unfortunately, certain brokers can't be bothered to do the small amount of integration work necessary to make it work for their clients.

I don't agree that in the interests of compensating for poor brokers that the company should take a large financial hit in fees that would make everyone suffer overall by reducing the collective benefit.

That said, I do believe the fundraising platform should offer greater clarity as to the algorithm/approach how they allot those limited number of shares and scale-back, as it just says it's discretionary.

I strongly suggest people lobby their brokers .

In my view, the huge demand today demonstrates that QED priced the raise too low and were taken for a ride by IIs looking for a cheeky discount.

Anyway, it's done now, and as others have said, this is hopefully the last raise (at least the last pre-commercial raise).

Huh, Interactive Investor (ii) ARE participating, I've already submitted. You need to log into the browser, not the phone app.

Wtf, are you having a mental breakdown?

@Playtime, I've successfully placed the order in my ISA now, so I am not seeing the same limitation you are describing around the retail offer shares being available in ISA. It might be a broker-specific problem?

Thanks @Noob34. I don't use Windows, however, I just retried and it seems to be working now — whatever the issue was appears to have been sorted on their side.

@playtime, maybe you can retry now?

There seems to be some kind of glitch with Interactive Investor that means I can't place my order for retail shares in my ISA either. I think there must a problem on their side as it just keeps giving me a generic error message with no detail.

Is anyone else suffering from this?

> Is there a minimum based on holding (eg 1/50) for all those that do apply in time?

It's not an open offer this time, so there's no guaranteed methodology/allocation, it seems. I assume they will run it fairly though, and not just let one rich guy buy them all.

The fundraising event this evening was for institutional investors.

The snippet you are quoting is explaining that the formal RNS and documentation make the fundraising offer for existing retail shareholders (most of us) will be later.

Historically, Quadrise have always given retail holders the same deal as institutions to at least partly allow us to protect our investments.

Shocked at the share price of this raise at just 3p. I had expected the raise to be around 5p at worst. Really taken aback here at the discount being offered, it feels much too generous to the incoming IIs/HNWs.

Wonga, I agree that OCP is hugely promising, but the timelines have tended to be slippery.

IMO, the main thing is that Quadrise/OCP get it rolling in a reasonable timeframe rather than focussing on very specific timeframe. Trying to guess which week/month OCP will execute their trials has tended to be a very painful game in the past!

Hopefully our agent can really prove his value here by keeping the mutual schedule reasonable.

> We may get some meat on the bones during the podcast, hopefully Jason will have an opportunity to touch on some further discussion about Morocco and Utah and anything else that may arise before Friday.

Jack, seems to me that this podcast was recorded a while ago, so there's probably nothing too current in it.

One of the issues is that many American sites/sources still refer to "QRDSF" which was the grey market OTC ticker accessible in the US to trade Quadrise unofficially in USD via some brokers, but it doesn't appear to be active since the company renamed to just Quadrise. I suppose the ISIN (GB00B11DDB67) is technically the most stable reference, but it isn't very catchy!

In the spirit of trying to draw a bit of traffic to the new /r/Quadrise subreddit (to hopefully begin educating our American cousins about Quadrise technology), I wrote a short piece about how bioMSAR and MSAR Zero help decouple Quadrise's investment/economic proposition from the price of oil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/comments/1i6qkjx/biomsar_and_msar_zero_decouples_quadrises/

Crownos, with Lafayette IPOing soon (hopefully), I hope we can start seeing some cross-pollination with American investors recognising the value of Quadrise to their story and getting stuck in. I know they don't usually like to buy non-US stocks, but one would hope we offer a compelling investment opportunity.

BTW, @Crownos, I think I read some posts from you on the Petroteq subreddit in the past (I wasn't an investor there, I was just reading out of curiosity). Just to let you know that @SemaphorRed has started up a Quadrise subreddit.

There are many American investors on Reddit, so it might be a good way to start sharing the QED story, educating non-UK investors, and getting some much-needed visibility onto the company: https://www.reddit.com/r/quadrise/

Hi Wazaaa. Because your account hasn't made many posts/is new, an automatic Tapatalk anti-abuse feature requires a volunteer mod to approve your post manually; because you posted the same thing multiple times in the meanwhile it tripped the system. I've hopefully rectified everything now.

No, the way it works is:

Today's hypothetical situation:

1,000,000 @ 0.064 = £64,000

Take your example of a reverse split of 10/1.

Instead of 1.7bn shares in issue (approx), it would be reduced to 170 million (approx).

Therefore your remaining shares would increase in value to account for the change:

100,000 @ 0.64 = £64,000

Nothing has changed, the equation is still balanced.

It's just an accounting thing.

Evidently I was already replying at the same time as @Monsoon. I agree with @Monsoon's take — and it was much more concise!