Member Info for giantsquid

I knew something was brewing because you couldn't buy in any large amount and it went on for ages!

Kev, I can assure you that for the last hour it has been impossible to buy more than £1500 on Halifax. It would let you buy below that amount but not above it.

Interesting that for the last hour, you could not buy more than £1500 on Halifax without it going to negotiated order. There must be a real shortage of shares and/or some big buy orders being filled in the background? I don't think it'll be long before the share price is on the way back up here..

And here's what the critics are apologists for davie;
The hacking of private emails, paying for emails that were stolen, the publishing of online smear campaigns, the interference and meddling in a company's internal affairs including the contacting of deal partners.. and yet the critics feel no shame supporting this? And to top it all, as if condoning that kind of activity wasn't bad enough, they refuse to acknowledge any of this tortious interference could possibly have caused WRN any damage? They just dismiss the whole thing and deny it had anything at all to do with WRN going into liquidation? What planet are these people on? Perhaps what they need to ask themselves is why it took tortious interference, smear campaigns and the theft of private emails for the interferents to achieve their aims? Could it be because when a desired aim is unlikely to be achieved without some kind of malicious interference, then malicious interference is the way to go? What it suggests is that the company did not fail of it's accord. It took outside interference to bring it about. WRN and those associated with it cannot possibly be considered solely responsible for the company going into liquidation. Had there been no interference at all, there is no reason why WRN would not have gone on to achieve it's aims. If the critics scoff at that suggestion, the way to have proven it (either way) would have been to not interfere; for the interferents to stay out of the company's affairs. To just leave the company alone and allow it to succed or fail in it's own time, of it's own accord. The only plausible explanation why that wasn't an option for them, why they had to interfere, why they had to launch smear campaigns and why they had to contact deal partners.. is because they knew the company had at least a reasonable chance of succeeding - so the only option remaining was to launch a virulent campaign against the company and attempt to bring it down. If there was any sincerity and decency at all in these so called critics, they'd acknowledge the TI campaign was a likely factor in WRN's demise and condemn it. To refuse to condemn, or even acknowledge, is to condone. And anyone who condones an act of corporate sabotage is of bad character and should be ashamed of themselves. End of.

DavieH, "there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of interference"

Are you sure about that Davie? I recall reading something about stolen emails? Yes I'm sure I'm right? And £25k having been paid? Sounds like interference to me? Or maybe you think they asked to borrow the emails in order to put together a smear campaign and that permission was given? Or possibly you don't consider theft of company property interference at all? That it's perfectly acceptable to steal people's private emails? Deal partners contacted, emails stolen, smear campaigns.. and you claim "there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of interference"? Something tells me you're not being entirely honest there, Davie?

Davie, if interferents contacted deal partners and launched a virulent smear campaign which ultimately led to deal partners pulling out and the deals collapsing, that's potentially a fatal blow for an emerging conglomerate that's still in it's infancy and at it's most vulnerable. If the smear campaign managed to put new, prospective deal partners off from doing business with WRN, the company cannot hope to fulfill it's ambitions. And if it can't fulfill it's ambitions, then ultimately it won't survive. You can't meddle in a company's internal affairs and then point the finger of blame at the company. You can't launch a virulent smear campaign making it impossible for the company to do business with prospective deal partners and then point the finger of blame at the company. If it takes any form of meddling and interference in order to achieve your twisted aims, the failure of the company can never be put down to mismanagement. If tortious interfernce hadn't happened, then I would agree the company alone would be responsible. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. It simply isnt possible to meddle and interfere in a company's affairs and then attempt to wash your hands of any kind of responsibility and put the blame on the company. If the company has been the victim of tortious interference which has resulted in deal partners pulling out, that's an extremely serious situation for that company and to just trivialise it and dismiss it as you are, and to continue to blame the company anyway, well it just shows exactly the kind of people WRN have been up against, and in my opinion it only adds more weight to what AE has been saying.

Davie, if it's true interferents contacted WRN's deal partners and were ultimately responsible for preventing those deals from going ahead, those same interferents cannot then claim (on a bulletin board for example) that the directors of WRN failed. For example, you can't sabotage a company and then claim it was all down to mismanagement! Yet that's exactly what appears to be the case here? Had the alleged interferents not contacted the deal partners in question, then there is no reason why those deals wouldn't have gone ahead? Afterall, WRN was main market listed at the time, with plans to list on several other exchanges. Interest, excitement and morale amongst shareholders was high. At that point in time, and for those reasons, WRN would have been a very attractive proposition to potential deal partners. So there's every reason to believe multiple deals were lined up. And if deal partners were lined up, they were already happy to do business with WRN, happy with the terms of business, happy with terms of payment, etc. With both parties happy, it's nothing to do with anyone else. If it took outside interferents to stop the deals going ahead by using and abusing the power of free speech and social media in order to launch a virulent smear campaign and put the deal partners off, ultimately leading to the company's demise.. then technically WRN did not fail. It was the victim of tortious interference, the perpetrators of which need to be brought to account.

DavieH says there is "nothing to see here" and claims it's all over, but he doesn't explain why he can't stay away? It's almost like he doesn't believe it himself? And then we have Roydyor who's spent every day of his life (literally) for the last five years hovering over the WRN bulletin boards along with his ever present pet parrot, the not-so-neutral-who-dya-think-yer-kidding Nigel, who sits on Roy's shoulder agreeing with everything he says; along with Roy's other pet, a wee loyal toy poodle called Andy who gets a biscuit everytime Roy thinks he's been a good boy (an Edinburgh Shortbread). And then there's Johnbri4 who made big money on WRN pre-suspension (he says) before oddly going on to troll it for five years and accuse them of all kinds of bad things! No I don't understand that one either, I don't think anyone does. Infact I don't think even John knows why he trolls WRN? Maybe he made too much money pre-suspension and it made him feel angry and bitter? Like you would expect making large sums of money pre-suspension would make you feel? LOL. Personally I think John's story smells fishier than a packet of kippers that's been left in the sun for 6 months, but there you go. I'm sure I read (somewhere) something about interferents contacting deal partners with the intention of thwarting deals? If true, that's what you call bizarre. Why would anyone do that? It's a deal between the company and the deal partners, and if a deal partner is happy with the terms (including terms of payment) then that's a private matter between those parties. It has nothing to do with anyone else, and if it takes malicious interference to thwart deals, damage somebody's name and ruin a company's prospects... then that company didn't fail; it is a victim. Just as those engaged in corporate sabotage can't be called good guys, or heroes; nor are they doing their country a service. Such people are a blight and an enemy to new business when at their most vulnerable stages. AE has previously spoken about the virulent campaign against WRN, and it isn't difficult to find clear evidence of that on social media, chat boards, etc. It goes way beyond a simple case of a few people having a negative opinion. If AE's version of events are true, then there's a massive injustice that needs putting to rights and that's why I agree he needs to follow through on his TI report.

Spikeyj, thanks for confirming that you can't answer any of my points! I guessed as much.

Spikeyj , you appear to have avoided answering most of the points i raised, so I'll fire them at you again;

1. Right from the opening bell there were far more buyers waiting to buy than there were sellers willing to sell. That, i believe, is a matter of fact. And it continued to be the case for many days and weeks thereafter. Further proof of that was the continually rising share price to 30 odd pence. Even when every shareholder had received their gift shares, there were still far more waiting buyers than willing sellers. Even if every shareholder had received their gift shares ready for the opening bell, there still wouldn't have been enough willing sellers to enable the waiting buyers to buy. So the first question is, how does a company with too few willing sellers and large numbers of waiting buyers deal with this situation? - without stepping in and selling sufficient numbers of shares so that the waiting buyers can buy? And don't say "if every shareholder had received their gift shares the sellers would have been there" because we know for a fact that the number of willing sellers was, for many days and weeks, considerably outnumbered by the number of waiting buyers - gift share sellers alone would not have been sufficient to create liquidity and enable the waiting buyers to buy. So, apart from stepping in themselves and selling their own shares, how else do you suggest they could have ensured waiting buyers could buy in the almost total absence of willing sellers? Over to you, Spikeyj...

2. If the allegation you're making was to dump and make money, why did the alleged dumping occur at such a low price? Why offload early doors for 10p or less, when they could have held for 30 odd pence? I'm sure they, and everyone else, could see the way the share price was heading. Everyone could see the appetite to buy was strong from the outset and that few were willing to sell. So why offload early doors if the motivation for it was to make maximum money? Your allegations make no sense do they? What you're alleging is perhaps comparable to a bank robber walking past the safe and making a beeline for the broom cupboard instead and making off with the mops; basically It's not what you'd expect to see if your allegations for the motivation behind the selling were correct. So again, what's your rationale for the alleged dumping taking place early doors at a time when large numbers of buyers were waiting to buy? at a time when the share price was clearly only heading one way? at a time when the number of waiting buyers far outweighed the number of willing sellers? Are you suggesting the alleged dumpers didn't want to make too much money? That they preferred to sell for 10p than 30 odd p? Over to you Spikeyj...

Taking a balanced view, and looking at this from both angles, in my opinion the following are most ikely to be true ;

1. The selling early doors was in direct response to the lack of willing sellers and the sheer number of waiting buyers

Davie, I'm not sure millions of shares were dumped? Do you have the exact figure or was that just a guess? It seems a little high to me as most buys were in the tens of thousands etc? Also i'm reluctant to believe they were dumped at all. The fact is, and i believe it is a fact, the number of waiting buyers consistently outweighed the number of willing sellers for many days and weeks. Even if the gift shares had been issued to all ready for the opening bell, the number of waiting buyers would still have greatly outweighed those willing to sell. Further proof that the number of waiting buyers greatly outweighed the number of waiting sellers was the rising share price. As we all know the premium to nav became quite big, fuelled by a continuous stream of more buyers than sellers. So how do you ensure the waiting buyers are able to buy if so few are willing to sell? What's the answer Davie? Do the major shareholders stick two fingers up and leave the buyers waiting? Or do they do the decent thing and sacrifice their own shares in order that others can buy? Even if that means selling large numbers of shares early for a far lower price than they would have got if they'd have held to 30 odd pence? Financially that makes no sense does it Davie? Or are you suggesting they were equally happy with 10p as they would have been with 30p? For any person allegedly money motivated, it certainly doesn't make sense does it Davie? But you think it does? Very strange. For a critic hellbent on painting them in a bad light, regardless of what they did it could be spun negatively; if they recognised the need to create liquidity (as I'm sure they did) and thus sell shares in order others could buy they'd be accused of dumping; if they refused to sell waiting buyers would have been left waiting and no doubt they'd have been criticised for that too. Aidan speaks about litigation and it's obvious there are some who will go to any length to paint them in a bad light. Quite why that is i have no idea, but it's not difficult to see evidence of what Aidan is saying. He just needs to deal it. Good update Aidan, in my opinion.

Hi putney, thanks for your post, I'm definitely tempted to buy a few k worth, will see Monday, I'll have the weekend to chew it over! Have a good weekend mate

I've been in and out of koovs over the last few years.. one thing that does put me off a little (as a potential investor, as I'm not currently invested here) when I look at the company's customer reviews and comments on twitter for example, (and also on Google play, koovs app reviews) there seems to be a fair few negative comments especially around slow delivery and slow to action refunds. I remember reading similar feedback well over a year ago. I don't know how genuine these reviews are but the tune doesn't seem to have changed much over the last year or so. The other thing that's noteworthy, the number of followers on Twitter looks about the same as it was When I last looked (about a year ago!). And also when you look at the tweets, there are very few tickups and retweets - typically most of koovs tweets seem to get about 0 to 10 tick ups which doesn't seem like a lot to me, especially considering how many people live in India. Are there only about half a dozen or so active followers and loyal fans of koovs tweets who like what they read and can be bothered to tick them up? It seems like it a little. I'll stay on the sidelines for now but may take a small punt on Monday. Longterm koovs could be huge and the current share price an absolute bargain, but partly for the reasons stated I'm still not totally convinced but it's definitely one I'll continue to watch even if I don't buy in on Monday. GLA.

T-lines? What a load of old rubbish!
You'd be better off reading the T-leaves or consulting mystic meg than relying on Lefkosia's T-lines!

Warren Buffet : "I realised technical analysis didn't work when I turned the charts upside down and didn't get a different answer"

"In the short run, the market is a voting machine. But in the long run, it is a weighing machine" - Benjamin Graham

Investors make the most money by focusing on the weighing machine part - look at ASOS and BOOHOO for example. Both endured months of voting machine madness in the early days with day traders trying to profit from the short term ups and downs. Those who ignored all that short term nonsense and focused instead on the long term weighing machine part made by far the most money, paid out far less in dealing fees and exposed themselves to far less risk from repeated mistimings of entry and exit. Same will probably be true here too - it's hard but you really do have to think long term and stay well away from the sell button. If you can't do that you'll never experience the riches of those who bought a stock for 10p and sold years later for £5 or £10+ (I'm sure Paul Scott can testify to that too after selling his 500,000 asos shares @ 9p = £45,000 when he could have made over £35 million had he held on to them for another 9 or 10 years). Warren Buffet once said his investment style is one of lethargy bordering on sloth. In other words when there is nothing to do, do nothing.

Predator, good evening. I agree, there's plenty of rubbish out there. The ugliest ones imo are those with many billions of shares in issue and strong likelihood of further placings and shareholder dilution. Shares like that are unlikely to ever get much above a penny or so, even a fraction of a penny in most cases. Koovs still has a relatively small number of shares in issue, far less than boohoo so that's a plus point in my book. And India is a huge emerging market so Koovs opportunity is huge - another big tick. And not forgetting the fact Lord Alli is a very wealthy and successful businessman who was behind the phenomenon that is ASOS - another very big tick. So in koovs we have a company with a tiny mcap and a huge potential market in India that's run by the man who made a huge success of asos, who just happens to also be worth multi millions and has himself invested heavily in koovs. And shares in issue is still relatively small. It's hard to find the true genuine gems on AIM but koovs does appear to tick a lot of the boxes regarding exciting shares with huge potential and current tiny mcaps.

Paul Scott, Saturday 21st October 2017, shareprofits :

"PS I owned 500,000 ASOS shares early on but sold them for an 80% profit... at 9p LOL!!!! Oh well, win some, lose some!"

500,000 shares @ 9p = £45,000

By 10th January 2014, ASOS hit £70.00 a share...

500,000 shares @ £70.00 = £35 million!

By 16th March 2018, ASOS hit £76.30 a share...

500,000 shares @ £76.30 = £38.15 million!

So it appears Paul Scott called ASOS spectacularly wrong back in the early stages of the company when the share price was still crawling along in the pennies and the company was still relatively small and vulnerable. No doubt the bears were out in force back then spreading their doom and gloom and advising people to short it, saying the rise to 9p wasn't sustainable and that the share was primed for a sharp negative correction! Maybe Paul Scott himself was saying these things back then? Presumably he must have been similarly bearish about ASOS back then as he is about KOOVS today - or he never would have sold out for 9p!

It appears then that Paul Scott was totally wrong about ASOS back when the company was in the early stages. He totally misjudged just how massive ASOS would become. He totally misjudged the size and scale of the opportunity that lay ahead of ASOS.

With regards to KOOVS, maybe he's right to be bearish, who knows. But then again, if he called ASOS spectacularly wrong back in the day and failed to spot the huge future potential there.. then maybe he's making the same mistake with Koovs and not seeing the true size, scale and potential here either?

It just goes to show, nobody calls it right all the time. Even the most respected financial bloggers and journalists out there can get it spectacularly wrong from time to time!

addicknt, there was a time not so long ago when you were adamant WRN was dead and that us shareholders had lost all our money. So you've already been proven wrong once, and big time, and as whet continues to grow, I'm sure you'll be proven wrong again regarding it's future valuation and prosperity.

Meanwhile, how are your shares in BCN doing? Not very well by the looks of it? BCN down - 65% since January 2018 - ouch.
Addicknt, BCN, wed 08:12 "Sadly I've topped up along the way and one or two of my buys look distinctly unpleasant"
So how are you feeling about that addicknt? A bit fed up by the sound of it? You do understand though that being a bit fed up with your own investments is no excuse to troll other people's?

I have to agree with Jambon on this one. He's absolutely right, investors should take a longer term view and ignore any short term ups and downs. That is the way of Warren Buffet and there's plenty of YouTube videos where WB can be heard giving advice and saying these very things. He admits it doesn't always work, a year or so after buying in a share price can sometimes go down, however as he points out if you take a longer term view generally speaking stocks go up over the longer term not down. But you have to think long-term. He says he learnt a long time ago you have to be patient if you want to make the really serious money. Of course there's other strategies investors can employ, day trading etc, but those strategies are actually far higher risk, result often in far less profit over the long term and then you have to factor in dealing fees which eat into overall gains and can become a significant cost if frequently buying and selling. Long term holders shell out far less in dealing fees resulting in far less eating away of their long term gains. Buffet obviously knows what he's talking about so it's not wise to try and reinvent the wheel, far better to listen to his advice and try to do as he does and take a longer term view and ignore the daily ups and downs. Once you buy in, he says to literally put it away in the bottom drawer and focus on other things. Then come back in a year or so. It's good advice but most investors are far too itchy fingered and are hooked on the buying and selling process and can't keep their fingers away. But to really capitalise on a strong uptrend like boo or asos you really do have to ignore the daily swings and keep away from the sell button. Easy to say, hard to do. The only way really is to do as Buffet says and just switch off and put it in the bottom drawer and come back in a year or two. If you keep looking you'll be tempted at some point to sell out, possibly way too early and could end up feeling sick as a parrot years down the line when the sp by then is many multiples of what you sold for.

KNK "personally I don't go around the threads saying hey look at me.. I got more shares and now have close to 100,000 in x company.. It's boasting"

KNK, CSFG, 21 August 2017 "Yes hold 15000 shares - it was 30000 shares"