Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

Pardariff - agreed.

But execution weighs heavy on the SP of companies like this. It’s mainly why Hex has held up so well, cos it’s communicated effectively & delivered what it promised on time.

Minor slippage in arrival of the workover rig isn’t a biggie, providing it’s properly communicated. Slippage of this - & flow testing - into September as you mention WOULD be a significant issue, particularly if no timely explanation were given.

But I don’t see that happening myself as it would run totally contrary to Hex’s exemplary planning & comms to date.

Span - I'm all for that .... providing it stays realistic.

Early bird catches the worm!

Span - I don't think many would class early August as anything up to 14th.

3LB - agreed. Inez test result CAN'T be fully priced in yet, as it's still unknown. The SP may not rise that significantly if it simply confirms what Bo has already implied. But you can bet it would fall if the result's below current "guidance".

25th July RNS also stated "Based on current schedules, Helix .. anticipates commencing testing operations in early August 2025".

Small slippage is no big deal (yet), but I do think they should put out another tweet or RNS to keep us informed.

They're very good at updating us on production facility progress. But that may be interpreted as an attempted distraction from the workover rig delay unless they keep us posted there too.

Peterpharma - instead of rising to the bait every time, why not just leave them to talk amongst themselves. They’ll soon get bored.

Just filter any posters you think aren't adding anything to the debate.

It's a lot easier than engaging with them, which - with the most exteme "contributors" - gets you nowhere.

Therefore, send not to know for whom the BELL tolls, it tolls for thee.

Another huge Tek success story. Well done Cliff for that special dividend of 0p. Oh and for the 0p-ish share price too.

Bonneville - General Custer? More like General Bluster.

No point in engaging with Pokerchips. He sees what he wants to see & ignores any facts that dispel his theories.

I've now added him to my little green box of the invisibles.

Pokerchips - this will be my last on the matter, so no need to keep replying as I won’t respond.

Of course everyone understands you need to invest before you can create any thriving business.

There also comes a point where that business needs to show returns from said investment. Otherwise it’s just another AIM lifestyle company, paying its Directors handsomely whilst gradually diluting its shareholders to oblivion.

I agree there’s still a chance (albeit small) that IMM will eventually come good for investors. But, even in biotech terms, it has already had MANY YEARS to demonstrate the commercial viability of its drugs. And yet all we’ve got to show for it so far is eye-watering dilution, umpteen duff Lanstead financing deals, a perma tan CEO constantly feeding us hope which never materialises and a low penny share price.

I’m astounded anyone can think that’s progress or that the history of this company suggests we’re now finally on the cusp of riches. But for all his faults, Tim’s a good talker and I guess some will always want to believe his every word even though, historically, they’ve usually flown in the face of reality.

Best of luck here Pokerchips. But as your name suggests, you’re taking a huge gamble and I fear the cards may be stacked against you. Over & out.

Span - possible but unlikely’s my verdict.

Poker - whatever the reason for those vastly increased costs they still have to be paid for.

And given IMM’s precarious cash position (particularly as the latest Lanstead deal’s proving a complete turkey), that presents the company with a problem.

Only it doesn’t really, as they’ll probs just do another placing (like the previous two they said weren’t needed) and it’s the shareholders who’ll be stuffed.

Don’t think we need more time to tell us that.

3LB - anyone’s guess, but I’m with Broomtree on this.

Classic risk:reward conundrum. Wait & you might pay more in return for greater certainty. Bid sooner and you might pay less if accepted. On the other hand, you risk showing your hand early & starting a bidding war.

I suspect any would-be suitors will hold off until the dust settles. Meanwhile, assuming successful 4-5 well production within the next 6 months or so, Hex itself may become the acquirer of other assets to deter any potential lowball offers.

Pokerchips - re point 3.

They may have LOOKED at costs. But that would simply have confirmed they’ve gone UP - see 6th August interims:

“… higher operational costs in research and development, which rose to £0.7 million from £0.5 million in the previous year. Administrative expenses amounted to £0.4 million, a ‘small’ (33%) increase from £0.3 million in 2024.”

Yes, that kind of resolution is often defeated.

TW is nothing more than an annoying wasp on a summer’s day. He’ll soon buzz off if he’s ignored.

Owennoone - It was probably just that - noise.

TW’s full of hot air.

3LB. - you’re welcome! I’m no expert either, but I think you’ll find most would-be acquirers will initially offer the least they think they can possibly get away with. An opening salvo if you like. Bit like Dragons Den when they come in asking for a silly low percentage of the business, then end up having to give away far more

As I said, in the case of H&T their suitor made four incrementally higher offers behind closed doors before H&T would even entertain talks. These then ultimately led to a final - even higher - bid being put to shareholders, who accepted (at a 44% premium to the previous closing price).

Slimey123 - I agree those risk analysis exercises increasingly found in annual reports are utterly pointless.

The UK has become way too risk averse. Like the way a school will risk assess their end of year show til they’re blue in the face. Rather than doing what really matters - like actually rehearsing for it.

Same with businesses - obsessing over risks to the nth degree, instead of using that same time & energy to ensure the business flourishes (and is therefore strong enough to survive any real or imaginary threats).

I don’t think IQE’s diversification has been its main achilles heel. The different sectors it’s in move at different speeds and show differing levels of demand at any given time. So to continue that dreaded risk analysis theme, you need some degree of insurance policy, which diversification offers you.

One issue with IQE has been that long development leadtimes mean it has to commit vast capex upfront, for a future return which has often failed to materialise because markets have moved on in the interim.

Their margins have also consistently been way too low, which I find odd for a company claiming to be market leader. Normally that position gives you pricing power. But not, it seems, with IQE.

The company has also had extremely poor leadership from the last two CEOs. Drew was a classic technical guy whose commercial skills were sadly lacking. Whilst Lemos appears to have had a dream, but no ability to turn it into reality.

At least Jutta has a financial background which will hopefully save IQE from collapse. Our best hope now is for a Taiwanese sale, leading to a leaner, meaner IQE with lower but more profitable future sales. So in a way what you were talking about. But perhaps more from site rationalisation than product diversification.

As I understand it, that exact scenario I described (except for the hostile bid bit) happened with my largest holding (H&T).

They received three or four initial bid approaches from the same company, all of which were rejected without consultation. Then the two parties clearly discussed between themselves what WOULD be a mutually acceptable figure, before finally going public & putting this higher figure to shareholders.

3LB - surely any Board can turn down offers it deems significantly undervalue the company without referring to shareholders?

Though they run the risk of that then leading to a hostile takeover bid.