Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Martinu - I’d say that HAS been a major direct benefit to Opti shareholders from SOH favouring SBTX reduction over umpteen placings & dilution.

Too many AIM companies wipe out shareholder value over time with placings. Of course, SBTX sales are a form of dilution too, gradually selling off the family silver. But at least, as you say, SOH created major added shareholder value from SBTX in the first place.

DireCons - you’re right. Shouldn’t overlook PBX. Ridiculous that it’s remained on Aquis though which is so illiquid. A move to AIM would create instant added value I reckon, even after factoring in the extra costs & legal responsibilities.

Affrm - there have been a few promising signs this year that Opti is starting to gain some larger partners in key markets. So sales are moving in the right direction, albeit far slower than originally predicted.

I don’t foresee any imminent raises, but they’re never telegraphed, so I could be wrong. However, Opti’s debt free, has a healthy cash balance and can always sell down more of its Skinbiotix holding if needed/desired.

Nobody knows where the SP’s heading and a lot will depend on whether there are any positive developments with Sweetbiotix. That would likely lead to a significant upwards re-rate. Without Sweet, I still see Opti’s SP as fair to undervalued currently. But that’s just my take on things - small caps are generally out of favour at the moment and the global economic picture remains very uncertain.

Beesty - I don’t think we’ll ever know the details of any individual offtake agreement Hex strikes.

That’s commercially-sensitive info they wouldn’t want to divulge, as it could weaken their hand in future negotiations.

Avanti Helium recently announced such a deal, without naming the third party or the price.

It’ll eventually become clear to an extent through the accounts. But that’ll probably be a consolidated figure representing multiple deals with different customers at different volumes & times. So it’ll probably still only be possible to extrapolate some sort of vague average price struck.

Nick - his indirect email is via Walbrook - optibiotix@walbrookpr.com.

Or you could try stephen.ohara@optibiotix.com. I’ve not verified the latter, but it follow the same format as the Company Secretary’s contact details as published on their site (david.blain@optibiotix.com).

Nick - you’re not imagining things. But we have been fed this line for quite some time now.

So whilst your non-dream may eventually come true, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

*by NEXT year meaning"

Morri940 - at the risk of nit picking / arguing in a phone box, if you type "by het year meaning" into Google, here's what it gives as an example:

"If today is August 11, 2025, "by next year" would include everything up to December 31, 2026. "

Mind, it also says "By next year means no later than the end of the current year; in other words, it encompasses the period up to and including December 31 of the following year." So as clear as mud really. Perhaps we're both right!

Pardariff - I don't think anyone's disputing that.

It's the lack of any update following slippage to an estimated schedule that we're highlighting.

As I said previously, estimates will inevitably slip at times. And that may well be down to factors completely outside the company's control.

However, when a company that's traditionally communicated well & promptly suddenly adopts radio silence about said delay, investors will speculate for themselves. It would be far better if Bo just set the record straight.

Morri940 - by the end of this year was the deal Tim set out.

Not "by next year".

If they have arranged a sale, they would also be obliged to notify shareholders. Which they haven't. So they haven't. Least, not yet.

Gotrader - Not sure if you're suggesting Taiwan has already been sold or justthat some future announcement might confirm it has been.

The former is a definite no, as it would be market-sensitive info which would require an RNS. The latter remains anyone's guess, which is why the SP continues to drift.

CaptainJack - fair enough. Sorry if I put your nose out of joint - I didn't mean to!

The point I was trying to make was that Nano's posts should be treated with caution AFAIC.

As Broomtree rightly said, once rockets start appearing you know "Houston we have a problem".

And before anyone shoots me down, I'm not saying Hex has any real problems. In fact, there's a lot of reasons to be cheerful here.

My only wish is that they'd keep investors better informed when estimates slip (as they inevitably will at times). They're generally very good at updating positive developments on X & via RNS. So they need to be equally slick at owning the slippages & promptly detailing the reasons for them. That way investors wouldn't need to speculate for themselves. Nature abhors a vacuum - and so do investors!

Couerdelion - correct!

For me, the bit where TEK's investment case falls down is when - despite reducing their stake in BELL post-IPO - shareholders received nothing.

No special dividend. No long term increase in TEK's SP. Just nada.

Instead, it was used to fund TEK's way-too-heavy overheads (e.g. Cliff's ridiculous reward-for-failure remuneration). And to reinvest in other companies TEK was incubating.

The basic problem with this model is that so long as it continues, shareholders are NEVER likely to reap any reward.

Instead, they just become a permanent source of funding for the company - its bank if you will. Whilst their stake in the sum of its parts is regularly diluted by umpteen placings (or likely worse in the case of BELL).

Tatty - to answer your last point, as I said before they were almost certainly using funds from holdings they'd sold but hadn't reinvested elsewhere.

Tesla, for example, was a top holding of SMT's for many years. But more recently, they've reduced heavily, perhaps (rightly) sensing a bumpier road ahead. That cash from the part-sale of Tesla & other holdings then sits there, until the fund managers find a sufficiently compelling investment case elsewhere.

Part of the managers' role is to ensure the SP of their investment trust represents fair value & that the discount to NAV doesn't become too wide. Buybacks are just a tool in their armoury to achieve this - and have been for years. They were doing it even when the SP was in decline, following its £15+ peak.

Hope this helps.

Whilst the significant gains more than compensate, I'm genuinely sorry not to be able to invest longer term in H&T.

It first came onto my radar in 2017 and I made my initial purchase that November. I built the bulk of my holding between then & 2023, at prices ranging from £1.96 to £4.49. The average (excluding my recent short term purchases a few pence below £6.50 once the deal looked done) was £3.29. So a great outcome, particularly after adding in the c. 5% annual yield.

H&T was one of those few AIM companies which consistently made a profit, generally delivered on its outlook forecasts & constantly grew - excluding the Covid period when all its shops had to close.

Earlier this year, conscious of how large a part of my portfolio it had become, I started engaging with CEO Chris Gillespie to reassure myself I'd done whatever due diligence I could.

I found him both approachable & responsive, providing straight answers in a timely manner. He welcomed my request to visit a local store and to quiz the staff, arranging for both the Regional Director & Area Manager to attend. I came away reassured, deciding not to reduce my holding despite its disproportionate size relative to my total portfolio.

My only hope now is that the new owners adopt a similar way of running the business and that all customers & staff who wish to continue engaging with H&T are treated respectfully & fairly with the same excellent comms.

Farewell H&T. It's been a great ride.

CaptainJack - my quote was taken word for word from Hex’s 25th July RNS.

Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Also your own quote twice refers to “early August” & in the first instance it reads “no later than early August”.

So Nano’s attempt to brush this aside still won’t wash with me I’m afraid.

Nano - that last post of yours didn’t ring true for me I’m afraid.

The exact wording of Hex’s 25th July was:

“Workover rig mobilisation and flow testing to commence in early August 2025”.

Which is a far cry from “anticipates commencing…” as you suggested.

You seem desperate to talk everything up. I’m all for enthusiasm & optimism, but not at the expense of the facts. In my book, you have to question any poster who constantly accentuates the positives, whilst glossing over any negatives (however small).

I think a balanced view is vital with any share, as no company gets it right all the time. Ultimately, it’s a case of weighing the successes against any setbacks and judging the company accordingly.

As a result, I’m beginning to question your true motives now. Which is a great shame, assuming you’re genuinely well-intentioned as I’d originally assumed.

Brentw1 - is "slip quietly out the back door" a euphemism?

Just checking.

Gino73 - fair enough. We'll let you off with a verbal warning this time.

Tatty - I presume the majority - if not all of it - came from holding sale proceeds they hadn't reinvested yet.

As to special dividend v. buyback. The buyback shares are held in Treasury, so they can be reissued at a higher price in the future (assuming SMT's SP rises over time). The company must feel that the shares will become more valuable in the future. And that this will ultimately reward shareholders better than payment of a special dividend. But of course the timescales are different. And they could be wrong!

That said, they began this more aggressive buyback programme when activist investor Elliott took a 5% stake & started rattling their cage following a few years of SP underperformance. When they first embarked on this turbo-charged programme in spring 2024, the SP languished around the 800p-900p mark. So they've done pretty well out of it so far, though of course things could change.