Member Info for K3VMC

Pokerchips, I agre that the bod is entirely responsible for where we find ourselves. When they first thought of selling this out, or how much they worked to get us here, I do not know. Europe72, I think fiserv will get their wicked way, but at about 4.5p. Cavendish and others will advise Mr Cameron, who will want to avoid further criticism, despite his very thick skin, and Fiserv will make an improved offer that Cavendish agree to vote for. There is an outside chance of a counter id, which I would LOVE to see. I hate these cosy director deals.

Europe72 "We'd prefer a piece of Bidco to a paltry 2.9p, no?" That is the crux of the matter. If it were only a case of Monitise being part of a more substantial corporation with a stable balance sheet, we could have had a paper offer which would allow existing shareholders to benefit from the massive investment in FINKit, as well as its massive potential. Instead, we have been battered down so far that many shareholders are ecstatic to accept this paltry 2.9p, when there is 1p in cash at the bank and 15p in tax losses, PLUS MVC and the potential of FINKit. THAT is what this out as a carve-up!!! THAT is why Cavendish is voting AGAINST this raid.

Pokerchips "would appear potential FINKIT customers would like to see MONI in the bigger,safer and trustworthy hands of a recognised parent company..." Of course, that is the good reason. I'm more interested in the real reason.

There is NO question that finkit is a reality. FINKit IS real. It exists. It works. It allows bank-grade financial API's to be built in days, rather than weeks. What we do NOT have, are contracts. Why is that? Who sets the commercial terms for these contracts? Were they over-priced? Is that why we have none, to-date? If so, why were the terms not reduced? Is the lack of aggressive pricing to blame? And was the knock-on effect of NOT being able to announce a commercial contract partly to blame for the current share price weakness, allowing an extremely low-ball offer to be attempted? Conspiracy theory?

In the bank. It really is that simple. SRON was making profits from day one. Yes, some placees took a 60-80% profit. Yes, many investors bought at 7.5p-9p and don't like a whole load of red on their portfolio, so have sold, but the profits are still being made. Market makers will take your shares all day long and store them up for when SRON says "You know we said we were making lots of profits, well this is how much we actually made". Then the market makers will sell them to you all day long. We can all do the arithmetic (hopefully), but this is what market makers do for a living, so expect them to win a lot more than they lose. The average punter will always lose more than they win. Patience and confidence will pay dividends here. Literally. AIMHO

Lee, I get frustrated at some things in life, but Moni doesn't even come close. This story is not finished yet.

It's an illustration of the effects of trolling, nothing more.

Really? I guess that puts you up with paramedics in terms of life-saving kudos. Quindell - I made a large profit Moni - I am making a small loss, but still in play Fitbug - Not involved Daniel Stewart - I made a large loss Worthington - Not involved If I had listened to you, I would have been out of pocket. If others listened to you, which I doubt, they may have been better off, or not. Compared to VH and PE, you are relatively harmless, but only slightly less irritating. ATB

Guesstimation "At least I don't consistently get trapped in worthless AIM stocks with a false belief they are worth more than Apple while chasing my losses to the bottom" 1. Congratulations on being a very, very clever person. 2. You have no idea of how others invest and whether or not they are successful. 3. At no point did anyone on this board claim that Moni was worth more than Apple. 4. I could have exited with a profit at several points, but invested more. 5. I still intend to exit with a reasonable profit, even if this carve up goes through. 6. Some investors were trolled into selling. 7. There are many very clever investors around, but very few hang around and gloat. 8. You know you make a habit of this, as I've seen on other boards. ATB

Always a troll.

Fanti, no-one got papers. I suspect there are no papers to get. When they have a deal that will placate the IIs, they will send out papers with an acceptable offer to vote on. This deal will go through with a revised offer, or there will be a counter offer. Mr Cameron must know that the Fiserv will be his last job of any note. If he doesn't get this deal done, he is a lame duck. I prefer a counter offer, as there will be no golden hello for Mr Cameron.

stew, there will only be a date for the vote if Mr Cameron is confident of winning the vote. With Cavendish vocally against the vote, we can reasonably expect other IIs to vote against it. Did you buy the 2m at 2.9p? I thought you sold a lump of shares on day one?

Stew, there won't be a vote on 2.9p. No-one buys 2m shares at 2.9p, if the final bid is 2.9p. PIs were the first to rise up, but Cavendish said what many large holders must have thought. There will be a revised / counter bid.

I would happily take a paper offer, at the right price and if there was a change of BOD. The bod lost my trust once and for all with this sell-out. Mr Cameron's Theresa May moment. They both thought they held all the cards.

Under 2.9p. If that isn't a leak of an improved offer, or even a rival offer, I'll eat my sombrero!!

I would vote yes to 4.5p. Nothing less than that. Even that is daylight robbery, but I could find a way to spend the profit from that, so I would take it.

"Considering Monitise's robust product portfolio and growth potential we believe that the current valuation is quite cheap, making it an attractive investment. This along with the shareholder activism may prompt Fiserv to raise its offer price going forward." This was never the final bid. The first step was to get the PI shareholders to their shares over, cheap. Having done that, they can now up the offer to IIs, who have a far better appreciation of MONI and won't be scared off the pot. Cavendish, lead the way!!

stew "Can't see nothing. Looks like BOD have recommended the offer which may means the position was worse than expected in the next statement" All it means is that the BOD wants the deal. Nothing more, nothing less. If Cavendish thought the same as you, they would be voting FOR the deal, yes? They are urging all shareholders to vote AGAINST the deal.. Cavendish holds almost 5% of MONI and the bod, in total, holds one sixth of one percent. Cavendish will get no salary, no bonuses, no options, from bidco, but the BOD will be handsomely rewarded. Ask yourself why Cavendish thinks the bid is rubbish, but the BOD wants you to swallow it. The vote will be rejected and fiserv will up the offer to buy off Cavendish. Fiserv happy, Mr Cameron ecstatic, Cavendish placated, but the poor PIs who were scared into selling out at the lows by the obvious suspects have been mugged. Always the way. When Cavenfish votes for an increased offer, so will I, but NOT before.

Fanti, thank you. Fullstack, I think we are in a scheme/scam. "In particular, a scheme must be approved by those holding 75 per cent of the voting rights in the company, and thus its success depends largely on the cooperation of the target company’s board and its shareholders, making it an unrealistic vehicle for a hostile bid." Admittedly, the bod has thrown the whole weight of its one sixth of one percent holding behind the deal. Beetham had 15 times their TOTAL holding!!! I presume they get more out of their new contracts of employment than the paltry amount they lose selling at 2.9p, rather than a decent bid. I'm no expert, but Cavendish has decided to vote against this, as will I. GLA

Now 115,500,000 Cavendish voting against the sell-out. Let's see if other IIs stick their heads over the parapet.