Member Info for lordloadsoflolly

PJMaaa - It'll always be a bumpy, volatile ride with SMT. That's the nature of the beast.

There've been many 10% + corrections over the years (both up & down). In a way this can be good, giving even the longest term investor an opportunity to average down, with a fair chance they'll time it half right.

* Dec 2025

Goldgeezer - you say: “What is the funding obligation if they announce a deal and the price rises to 50p!!! Clearly they’ve agreed to not enter into a deal until after.”

There’s nothing clear about it. According to IMM, they’ve entered into this latest sharing agreement firmly believing news flow will boost their SP above 5p before end Dec 2925. And Lanstead have done the opposite.

No-one knows who’ll be right.

But to claim IMM would willingly enter into any funding deal with Lanstead & agree not to do anything that might boost the SP before that deal concluded is just bonkers. And you know it.

Lanstead are - of course - NOT "in total control of the price".

That conveniently ignores potential positive newsflow.

Sure they have some influence. But that's all.

Hex : Tesla = Apples : Pears.

I’d seriously ignore that “friend of a friend” in future if I were you. He’s clearly barking.

Brondby & Spantrout - I never said it WAS desperate.

If you re-read my post, I said "investors must decide" whether it's desperation or confidence.

At the time Lanstead & fellow investors added, the closing mid-market SP was 4.305p. What it had done prior to that is largely irrelevant to the deal.

Sure, but Tim's hardly likely to say it's an unreasonable discount, is he?!

Brondby - that additional funding was also at 3.75p a share, representing a 12.9% discount to the closing mid-market price on 12 Feb.

Whether that level of discount's desperate or not is - as you say - debatable.

Nolupus - yup, it all adds up.

Investors must now decide whether this shows financial desperation from IMM. Or confidence that newsflow between now & December will make this a good deal for them.

Goldgirl - not really. It boils down to what's in the Fundraise & Sharing Agreement RNS.

Basically, I agree that Lanstead can't lose. They secured 50m IMM shares at a discounted price of 3.75p. And the "£1.875 million gross proceeds of the Lanstead Subscription will be pledged by the Company pursuant to the Sharing Agreement with Lanstead".

As Peterpharma himself pointed out "IMM then gave Lanstead shares, AND gave £1.8m back to Lanstead". So assuming the share price stays at or below 5p, Lanstead ALREADY have the funds to make their monthly payments back to IMM without having to sell any shares. Yes, they may sell some of their shares anyway, particularly if newsflow causes IMM's share price to rise significantly above 5p.

But if there is newsflow before end Dec 2025 and Lanstead think it's likely to have a PERMANENT positive impact on IMM's SP, they may wish to hang onto all their shares and fund the increased monthly payments some other way.

Peterpharma - you've suggested I "ask for clarification from the company if your (sic) struggling to understand the terms of a sharing arrangement".

Thing is, I'm NOT struggling at all.

It's YOU who's struggling to point me to the parit in the RNS where it says "They sell each and every month from March until December".

And there's a reason why you can't. Because it doesn't exist. End of.

Peterpharma - we’ve already established the placing RNS does NOT say Lanstead will “sell each and every month from March until December.”

When I asked you to show us the text, you couldn’t and just came up with some stupid bet which failed to convince anyone.

Yes, Lanstead will have to make monthly payments under both the previous and current sharing agreements. But how they fund those payments is up to them, had never been divulged and doesn’t necessarily involve them selling part of their IMM holding (though it might). Just because they did that previously doesn’t make it inevitable they will this time.

So please stop your pointless disinformation as it fools no-one and is a complete waste of time. Ta.

Cm22 - it’s also highly unusual for a fund to own as few holdings as Tek. And in such high percentages, in the case of Microsalt & GENIP.

Part of the larger NAV discount probably relates to this higher concentration of eggs in one basket. And part to Cliff’s failure to crystallise value from any holdings to date, despite previously guiding we’d be there years ago.

Not sure I can take all the excitement Monteacute.

Talking of which, where’s our lesser spotted Tigger gone? Too busy rubbing shoulders with his city chums no doubt (nudgy nudgy, daily dealy).

So it's NOT in the RNS. Despite what you said just minutes ago.

Why would anyone agree a bet with you when you say something one minute only to show it's untrue the next?

End of conversation.

So it's NOT in the RNS, even though you said this just minutes ago at 14.54 today.

End of conversation.

It's quite straightforward really.

If Peterpharma is so sure "they will sell the entire 16% that’s the agreement", he just needs to point to the EXACT wording in the RNS which confirms this.

Simples. Only he suddenly seems to have gone quiet again.

Peterpharma - to my knowledge, that is definitely NOT in the RNS. Suggest you point to the exact wording if you think otherwise.

Peterpharma - whilst Lanstead could theoretically sell the full 16.13% they now hold, in practice they won't & you know this.

Yes, they may sell at least enough to cover the monthly repayments agreed under their sharing agreements. But that's a very different thing.

PoorFarmer1 - why would today's TR-1 in any way boost the share price?

As previously explained, all it's doing is confirming what we already know. Namely that Lanstead have acquired an extra 53.5 million shares (at a 15% discount) via IMM's latest fundraise & sharing agreement.