Member Info for glenmorangie

Continued

The market’s failure to make money for its investors is in my view likely to be due to a combination of several factors.

Smaller stocks: AIM vs the Main Market

First, AIM is deliberately regulated more lightly than the Main Market of the stock exchange, in a bid to encourage smaller companies to seek a stock market quotation and raise money without too onerous a regulatory burden. But it is this lightness of touch that may have attracted a disproportionately large number of company promoters more interested in their own enrichment than in building profitable and sustainable businesses. Some proved to be outright fraudsters.

Second, a significant proportion of AIM is accounted for by small companies involved in oil and gas or the extraction of other natural resources. In many cases these companies started with just the right to drill or mine and turned to AIM to raise the money needed to fund development to the point that the oil or other resources could be extracted and sold. But this is a highly risky business: numerous things can go wrong, technically, legally and financially, and many of these companies never reached the stage of profitable extraction. If they happened to be led by the kind of questionable managers mentioned above, things were even more likely to go wrong.

Third, AIM was home, during the dotcom boom and bust, to many small technology companies that sought to ride the wave of enthusiasm for the internet in its early days. Many of these companies were founded on little more than an idea and had no path to profitable exploitation of any online traffic they were able to attract. Numerous AIM technology firms went bust or saw their shares lose almost all their value when the bubble burst.

Fourth, AIM offered until recently a very generous tax break: there was no inheritance tax to pay when AIM shares were bequeathed as long as they had been held for more than two years and certain other conditions were met (the rate of IHT relief was recently cut from 100% to 50%). But this may have encouraged investors to relax their standards and put money into companies that they would otherwise have avoided – and unscrupulous operators were there to meet the demand.

What does the future hold for AIM?

While the AIM All Share index has broadly gone nowhere over the past two years, the number of companies quoted on the junior market has been falling. From a peak of nearly 1,700 in 2007, the number had fallen to 679 by mid-February. In the year to February just 10 companies joined AIM while 61 left, said UHY Hacker Young, the accountancy firm.1 Companies leave for a variety of reasons, including a move up to the Main Market, a takeover by another company or a decision to become a private company.

Marcus, the whole point of the example was to show how easy it was for Companies operating on aim to screw

over the shareholders because of lack of proper regulation and desire by the regulators to police their activities, that would have been

impossible to do under the main market.

I am sure there are many people on this board could give their own examples. That was just one of many I have been involved

with.

Doesn't matter how confident you are in the management team or significant the owners club, I guarantee something will come

from left field which will leave you feeling; that's not fair or how the hell can they get away with that.

I so hope I am wrong because this is my last investment in aim and it would be nice to go out with a big win, that we can all

celebrate.

By the way did you know this is aim's 30th birthday this year - 1995 market created, wonder how many PIs will be celebrating that fact.

Heres's an article by Fidelity international reviewing its 30 year's

AIM at 30: is it still worth bothering with?

Published 18 June 2025

Richard Evans

Fidelity International

It sounded like a great idea for everyone: a new, more accessible stock market that would help newly established businesses raise the money they needed to grow while giving investors the chance to share in their success, with generous tax breaks thrown in.

That was the thinking behind the advent of the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) as London’s ‘junior’ stock market when it opened for business 30 years ago this week.

How well has AIM, as it is universally known, lived up to those hopes over the subsequent three decades?

Performance of the market as a whole has been, to put it mildly, disappointing. Even with dividends reinvested, the FTSE AIM All Share index has fallen over those 30 years. Smaller stocks listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange have done far better: the FTSE Fledgling Index, which includes companies of broadly the same size as those on AIM, has gained more than 1,000% over the same period. Please remember past performance is not a reliable guide to future returns.

Some AIM stocks have, however, done extremely well. Fever-Tree, the premium mixers brand, has grown to a market value of £1.1bn but it remains on the junior market. Jet2, the budget airline and holiday firm, is worth £3.8bn and Young’s & Co Brewery is valued at £519m; both are also still on AIM.

For all these successes there have been plenty of failures and not a few scandals. Numerous companies have cancelled their AIM quotation or gone bust over the years, and their shareholders, often private savers, have lost all or almost all of their money as a result. Among the most notorious failures were Quindell, a claims management firm, Langbar International, an investment company, and Patisserie Valerie, the bakery chain

Why has AIM performed so poorly?

The market’s failure to make money for its investors is in my view likely to b

StartBright, fully agree with your summary.

Have had quite a few aims stocks go south on me through lack of proper market governance .

The worse one, a stock I thought was nailed on was Hague & London Oil - I thought I was going to be a millionaire on that stock, small o/s of about 25 million and I owned a nice chunk.

The CEO did a deal to take ownership of revenue producing gas fields that were generating turnover of 30-40 million. We were backed by a French

multi-national power supplier.

We were removed from trading temporarily at 12p,same day as announcement, with a promise of bringing us back in about 3 months after the deal was complete.

The deal was completed and we took ownership of the gas fields, revenue starting coming in. Then he announced he would keep us suspended

as their were other imminent deals in the pipeline. He purchased other fields from a UK company that were a disaster and had major impact

on our cash flow.

3 years after he removed us from the market he announces that we would have to sell our only revenue producing asset for a few million to pay off debts

and wind up the business. He did this the month before Gas prices exploded during Covid. If he held on another 2-3 months that asset would have been worth 10-20 fold. The PIs lost their full investment.

The deal was never disclosed properly with the Company he sold to and he then pis--ed off to America never to be seen again.

There was no intervention from market authorities, to compel him to return to the market after a set period of time, he basically

screwed us over and got away with it. No questions asked.

Obviously I should have had (m) million in front of all of those numbers.

Here is a question for the board while we wait for the next dynamic PR release.

Can someone give me their thoughts or Hazard a guess on the following ;

We raised $23.01 million through the 'strategic fundraise' in March 2025, we then paid Glencore $15 for the buy back of their

shares, which should leave circa $8.01 in the bank.

Question; why do we only have $3.9m in the bank on the 26.06 ? (per PR release below 01.07)

That means we burned through $4.1 in 3 months.. does that seem right or am I missing something ?

This is from the audited results PR on the 01.07

Strategic fundraise and Glencore share buyback

o In March 2025, ZIOC completed an equity fundraise (the "2025 Fundraise") for gross proceeds of US$23.01m, with a group of investors with significant experience in the mining industry, project and infrastructure development, and strong relationships in Republic of Congo ("RoC"). Key investors included:

§ Greymont Bay LLC ("Greymont Bay"), whose investors and advisors include Mark Cutifani, Tony Trahar, Tony O'Neil, Phil Mitchell, and Heeney Capital Resource Partners

§ Gagan Gupta, Founder and CEO of Arise

§ Sir Mick Davis, a highly successful mining executive accredited with listing, leading and building Xstrata into one of the largest diversified mining companies globally prior to its acquisition by Glencore in 2013

o Use of the Proceeds from the 2025 Fundraise

§ US$15m of the gross proceeds used to repurchase, and subsequently cancel, Glencore's entire 43% equity shareholding in ZIOC, resulting in the termination of Glencore's Offtake Agreement and Relationship Agreement with the Company

o Offtake agreement with Gulf Iron and Steel ("GIS"): As a condition of Greymont Bay's cornerstone subscription, marketing rights over 20% of the iron ore products from the Zanaga Project has been allocated to GIS, a consortium of strategic industry entities seeking to develop integrated steel facilities supplied by high-grade pellet feed iron ore to the Americas and the Middle East.

· Board Appointments: Strengthened leadership with key appointments

o Martin Knauth, CEO, appointed to Board bringing over 30 years' international mining industry experience.

o Phil Mitchell appointed as Non-Executive Director, representing Greymont Bay, bringing extensive strategic and financial expertise from his tenure at Rio Tinto and current role at I-Pulse Group.

· Cash balance of US$0.11m as at 31 December 2024 and a cash balance of US$3.90m as at 26 June 2025.

So is there going to be a formal bid process, as stated in the original project plan ? and if yes then when ?

The original project timelines are obviously up in the air now, but nothing in the latest PR adjusting timeframes for

outstanding project key milestones ? I take it they have to be achieved before a formal bid process can take place.

You would think it would be easy to deliver clear status updates to the market on an already defined project plan

I worked for large multi-nationals most of my working life and if I delivered management/Project updates like

these guys, I would have had my b---s in a sling.

Beardozer

It just doesn't make sense to me, why would you prep the market for imminent news then not deliver.

When the CEO states 'I look forward to updating shareholders shortly', you would think to make that statement,

he was absolutely confident that progress on the various workstreams were at such a level, that a positive PR could be delivered.

The fact we get nothing bar some twitter nonsense, is bloody frustrating and annoying to say the least.

I hope there is a reasonable explanation for the lack of PR feed.

They must know the lack of official updates is killing market sentiment and SP.

So they are either doing this deliberately for whatever strategic reason or they cannot get any key objectives over the line to the extent that

they can release a positive PR.

I am sure there are other reasons but I don't really want to think about them.

All these issues would be resolved if management would release an official PR, giving an update status on the outstanding project key milestones.

Why wont they do this ?

They keep setting target dates and setting expectations on news flow to the market and fail to deliver, It is now 6 weeks since the last update and nothing.

I don't know about everyone else but when the CEO states 'look forward to updating shareholders shortly' I am not think 6 weeks +.

Martin Knauth

I look forward to updating shareholders shortly on the value upside potential of today's results, and on the progress across our key project workstreams as we work to further actualise the extensive potential of the Project."

So what timeframe is 'shortly' in our new management teams eyes ? - that's 2 weeks now.

The Company is in process of completing an evaluation of the Net Present Value ("NPV") upside of its planned DRI product - the results of this will be announced shortly

Maid, I am quite sure that is notification of their increased position from zero to 15.12 % - where does it state that these shares were sold ?

Hi Maid, are you saying that we have still to get an official PR stating that Maximum Media Network Limited sold those shares ?

Hope this is not a Friday/Monday PR - sorry guys but we have to push project timelines back by a quarter.

Don't want to imagine what that would do to the SP.

Fingers crossed for positive update this week.

One thing is for sure, if we do not receive a positive update(s) by the 30th then there is going to be an impact on the SP.

Not holding my breath, It all seems very much 11th hour like we have experienced in the past with previous management, Extensions to project timelines would be my guess.

Believe me would love to be wrong.

Over 2 months under new management and not a squeak, they are the guys that set the project timelines and to be honest this

far into Q2 and nothing from them, is pretty dismal. I hope this is not a sign of things to come.

I thought new ownership, new way of operating and communicating with the shareholder base and market, hope my negativity

is waylaid by excellent updates very soon.

Does anyone think that the management team are going to deliver on any key project milestones in the stated timeframes,

per their March presentation ?

Only 2 weeks to go of Q2 and zilch updates thus far - hate waiting on these 11th hour updates, doesn't fil you with confidence.

Comments welcome.

Iconic Labs PLC (LSE:ICON), announces that it has received a valid Conversion Notice from Maximum Media Network (formerly Linton Capital LLP).

So, that's another 2 million shares (or about 20% increase) added to the 0/S in the blink of an eye, at a conversion price of 0.0173. for £35k -

Thought we were fully funded by ABO ? Why the need to issue such a large chunk of shares at such a huge discount and when

were these terms agreed with Max Media ?

how wonderful for max media to get them at 1.7 p - think Max have already sold for significant profit ?

The company seems to have a very worrying past of massive O/S dilution through these conversion notices.

So is this a free for all up to the tune of £2,985,223.22. ? - if that is the case then based on the low share price conversion rates the directors seem to give, the o/s is going to go through the roof at a hell of a speed.

FROM THE LATEST AGM

to authorise the Directors to allot shares up to a maximum aggregate nominal amount of £2,985,223.22.

Wonder why they didn't put in a max o/s value in the AGM instead of the monetary value ? That's how they got to 500 billion o/s shares in the past.

I see from the RNS of 25 Aug 2023

As a result, the Company's existing issued share capital of 46,996,580,000 ordinary shares of £0.00001 was consolidated into 4,699,658 ordinary shares of £0.1, each with one voting right. Admission in respect of such new ordinary shares will become effective and that dealings in those new ordinary shares will commence on 30 August 2023. As a result of the consolidation, the ISIN of the ordinary shares will change from GB00BD060S65 to GB00BRBJ3P08.

After the above took effect there was a whole series of notifications on conversion of securities and allotment of shares to various entities which took the o/s to the current number and then suspension.

Hi maidit308

Does that mean there was a 110 billion shares in the company before the reversal ? - never seen a number like that

on the o/s (11,000,000 x 10,000)

If the exec team are to fulfil the timelines of the new project plan, then there should be PR release updates

before the end of June on ;

1. DRI LAB TEST RESULTS

2. PIPELINE OPTIMISATION STUDY

3. UPDATE PROJECT ECONOMICS

You would also hope that there would be an positive update on power generation supply to the support the project before

going into Q3, as that is when we are suppose to start a formal bid process, as per project timelines.

I hope we don't get hit with continual delays to project timelines, It would not be a good trait to carry over from the previous

management team.