Member Info for Keithb1

Sorry TT, not prepared to waste any more time on you. People on here can make up their own minds about what we post.

That "nothing" was necessary to counter your misleading cr*p.

It might "plummet" TT or it might not. That 32.5c price is surely irrelevant anyway because it's weeks old apparently. We don't know what price it would have traded at if there had been any trades and who knows what price you could sell at even today . I daresay when it opens on the ASX it will trade at whatever price the ASX deems appropriate given its then net asset value and the demand or otherwise for the shares.

Just a bit of fun TT. Not much time and not much effort!

Based on my years of amateur (some might say amateurish) investing, managing my portfolio of relatively small holdings of shares, I am considering writing to the Home Secretary recommending legislation is passed to introduce a new crime into UK law. The legislation would be called the Prevention of the Abuse of Small Shareholders Act.

In general terms the Act would provide that any company Chairman (or woman), company Secretary, Director (exec or non-exec), employee , independent contractor or any person of significant influence in a company, either currently or in the past, who is or has been in receipt of a ridiculously high salary, unearned bonus, outrageous share privileges or any other benefit at a time when they performed no useful function or performed such a function without substantial benefit to the company should be guilty of the offence of abusing the company's shareholders.

Performance would be assessed by reference to the to the value of dividends paid to shareholders and the company's share price at all relevant times.

Persons found guilty of the offence of abusing shareholders would be subject to a custodial sentence of between 25 years and whole of life. The Act would also empower the presiding Judge to confiscate any/all remuneration/benefits received by an offender during any period he/she was found to be in breach of the Act with all funds thus confiscated being distributed equally to the company's shareholders by way of a special dividend. Naturally persons found guilty of an offence under the Act and their families/associates would be excluded from this dividend.

Trial would be by jury and in order to achieve a satisfactory level of convictions membership of the jury would be limited to those shareholders of the company in question who were victims of the defendant's crimes-sorry, alleged crimes.

The Act would also stipulate that any person (such as a person with a large shareholding) who had colluded or conspired with, or otherwise assisted in the commission of an offence under the Act by another person would also be guilty of an offence, punishable in the same way as for primary offender.

Finally the legislation would provide that the remuneration packages of all the afore mentioned persons, should be subject to the approval of all small shareholders excluding those who had been in receipt of any special share privileges not open to all shareholders.

Clearly in submitting this proposal to the Home Secretary it will be useful to quote examples of companies/individuals who conducted themselves in ways the Act is intended to prevent. So, if any member of the forum can bring to mind any such examples I would be grateful if they could provide details.

TT, most of us on here are, I suspect, amateurs (i.e. not professionals in the investment management business) and it would be more helpful if , rather than being insulting, you gave us the benefit of your obviously greater knowledge and experience.

Illaquens-genuine question. If BMJ can buy now why can't MM? Are the rules stricter for Board members than for others once the news is out?

You're not the only one confused Fiercey. It's difficult to argue with anything Tacotaco is saying-Board initiatives have, without exception, failed to provide any shareholder benefit, so why should this one prove the exception? But whatever has happened to the Sp this week, the NAV remains more or less what it was last week, so the SP is a bargain -isn't it? Confidence in the Board is at rock bottom, and that is what has driven the SP down. How is the Board going to rectify that? What can the Board invest in on the ASX that they can't on AIM? I have no idea and unless the Circular has come out while I've been in the pub, I haven't got a clue as to what will be so different after March 31st. I think it's absolutely appalling that the circular wasn't available yesterday when the RNS was released. It's reaching the stage where I wouldn't trust this lot with organising a p*ss up in a brewery! I'll stay invested because I can't believe it'll get worse but I certainly won't be buying any more.

what message would MM buying more now send out-faith in the future of the company or more skulduggery afoot?

I hope MM is reading all of this. It's about time he showed himself and faced the music.

You'd have thought it would be available by now.

Hello Fiercey. You had me flummuxed for a while there. What the devil is a "drama tic" I thought? Some reference, with regard to the Board, to a blood sucking little critter? Too many of my little grey cells expiring with old age I fear!

Hello Tacotaco. Yes clearly your negativity has turned out to be well placed, but the worst thing about how things have turned out is that the BoD have had to work really hard to create the pig's ear we've got now. As Willowman has already said , all they needed to do was sit on their hands and wait for the money to roll in and the share price to go up. Instead they thought they were Rick Rule and Warren Buffet rolled into one and traded our wealth away. And now they want our approval to carry on! With apologies to the great man-never in the field of AIM investing has so much been squandered for the enrichment of so few and to the disappointment of so many.

"or make an offer to the larger shareholders." who will no doubt look after us "smaller shareholders"
We "smaller shareholders" need to make ourselves heard. We need to attend the meeting the meeting on the 20th

Illaquens, are you a "larger shareholder"? If so how much of a choice were you given with regard to the strategy going forward? Or had the Board already painted you into a corner with no alternative but to leave AIM in favour of ASX?

I agree . The Board owes a duty to all shareholders not just the ones they cosy up with.

Your first paragraph is spot on Willowman.
I hold via HL and last time I enquired their clients will be able to sell shares held on ASX but not buy.
With regard to the SP, it's already picking up after the initial shock and the volume is still low so I don't expect it to finish this low at close. This will further reduce confidence in the Board, however as nothing they have done so far-consolidation, buy-back, ASX listing ,complex dealings re SFR shares has achieved anything positive at all. I can't see how they think they are going to instill confidence by offering a more active strategy.
Is anyone intending to go to the meeting? I think as many of us as possible should turn up. I shall certainly try to but there needs to a strong shareholder attendance to ask some difficult questions and get some honest answers.

The SP isn't where it is because MTR is listed on AIM. It's where it is because of the way the company has been, and is being, run.

There's next to no activity re MTR on the ASX so I doubt the price shown is the price you'd get if you were to try to sell.

With regard to the use of "clever" derivatives and in fact building up a wide portfolio of investments, I think they got carried away with their early success with MOD/SFR and thought they were cleverer than they were/are. When I first bought into MTR there were only 3 investments -MOD + the 2 in Spain and Thailand which came to nothing. It's all down to Botswana now-I'm not optimistic re the rest. All very disappointing and annoying.

Looks like you were right last week, Dontpanick