Member Info for LWHL

Good luck with your flutter here.

Only around an average daily volume and the actual sums involved were really not remotely 'bigger buys'.

While it can be fun (and occasionally informative) reading these chat boards, I hope you have in addition to this, at least reviewed all the RNS material for at least the last 12-18 months as a partial basis for your purchase?

I mean, it is entirely your money to play with as you see fit, but goodness me, of all the punts to take, you chose this one?!

As long as you have only put in what you can potentially afford to lose entirely, is my only piece of advice to you, on the basis you say you are new to share trading.

Keep in mind, if/when this gets a spike at some point (and assuming it does not top out around this level from a much lower price than today), there are likely to be quite a few other traders and trapped investors who are going to be looking to get out too.

And if the Stal deal ends up the way of the Juv deal, then, well, like I said, good luck with your flutter, because then the potential upside really is going to be hard to imagine, IMO.

Fair enough, if that is what you believe.

I hope you and your fellow shareholders do go on to make sufficient gains from your investment here, to have justified the financial risks, time and additional hassle that comes with private company ownership in a non-leadership position.

If you are one of the big boys in this name, then it is more feasible of course, IMO.

The previous points I made are no less valid however, and ultimately I disagree with your opinion that this was the only way shareholders were going to make money here. Which is fine of course. All the best.

Not bitter. Not a holder here, but sympathetic to those who are clearly not being treated as they should be.

And mindful of the potential macro fall out and consequences that this type of activity may lead to as well.

But to your point: anyone who does transfer from their ISA loses the tax wrapper benefits. As well as in most, or perhaps all cases here, presumably having to lock in a net loss too, which cannot even at least be offset against tax, in order to become a minor shareholder in a de-listed company, with far fewer protections and BOD obligations than is the (theoretical) case with a listed entity.

Amazing nonchalance in your comment, vitocorleone!

Presumably the obvious names, at the expense of those whose hands are tied with the planned de-listing.

Not a good look IMO. Either for these outfits who are taking this path, nor for capitalism more generally, but there we go.

Well that is simply not true, because I did.

As to whether this is going to be profitable for entrants in and around current levels, time will tell.

I hope so naturally, but I take nothing for granted.

I am going to call out misleading statements though, which is disappointing to read on these generally excellent forums for opinions and ideas. GLA.

To add: you also cannot trade them in the same way as when they are listed of course, so I actually am not sure if they even would sit in your trading account.

Don't quote me, but I think they get transferred to a trading account from the ISA account that you hold instead. Not sure what happens if you only have an ISA account. Perhaps they post you physical share certificates like the old days?

But if I were in this position, I would contact my broker and accountant as a matter of urgency to clarify.

Worth looking into the nuts and bolts of being a shareholder in a private company, for those unfamiliar with the experience. It is not for everyone, but it can have advantages. As a main shareholder anyway. Cannot comment as to being a minority shareholder in such an entity. GLA.

Perhaps they could mention in that conference that they have seen what has been happening elsewhere recently, and will not allow their small shareholders to be treated in such a fashion, in the event they ever look to move away from AIM?

Perhaps assurances of premium cash offers for those who cannot follow a de-listed entity, or something similar?

Not going to hold my breath. Anyway GLA.

My pleasure! FWIW, I hope it does not happen here.

I am not impressed with what those other outfits seem to be doing...the excuses they seem to be using, while not entirely without some merit, are IMO somewhat masking a variety of other, often self-inflicted issues, not to mention what seems to be a clear disregard for fiduciary duty that is meant to apply to all shareholders, not just a chosen few.

You could forgive those who might come to the conclusion that, after financially supporting company X for years and all the risk and opportunity cost of taking such a decision....when one such company finally gets to the stage of being in a position to reward those supporters...rug pull for all but a very few at the top table.

Ultimately, I think AIM directors - and those within this particular space especially - really should look a little closer in the mirror when it comes to why they are finding it so difficult to continually raise large amounts of cash.

Just a few thoughts and opinions, which you are all free to disagree with :) GLA.

In the examples of C4 and ETX (and those other ones of late too), you are not going to be able to hold shares in an ISA once they de-list, so no, I mean sellers.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that this company is going to follow suit - I have absolutely no idea - but that theory might explain the 'jittery' sellers.

Perhaps the sellers are ISA holders who have seen what has been happening in this space recently?

Just a thought....

Yep. Any sympathy people might have had with some of the sentiments expressed about the declining power of the UK markets, will probably evaporate when they think about this a little more closely.

Does not matter if the raise announced today was at 20p from the current SP, for those shareholders that cannot continue on the de-listed journey, so I guess the SP will react according to how many people become forced sellers now.

I guess lots of nice, cheap shares for the favoured two shareholders? Disgusting, to my mind.

Totally agree that we need another Big Bang to try and pull our country out of the quagmire.

But equally, this is another company that looks like it is going to effectively screw a load of their smaller shareholders (those with shares in an ISA, or otherwise unable to invest in a non-listed entity, for example).

No mention of a premium cash offer to buy such holders out, or something similar, is there?

Drips with disdain in parts, IMO.

Agree with you about the amount of C-suite pocket liners, which does seem to have become turbo-charged since Covid.

Not speaking about this particular company, because I do not know in this case, but generally it looks to me like the era of free money being over is exposing all the lifestyle and fraud outfits on AIM. Few of which have shown much financial restraint whatsoever over the years I have been involved/followed - especially in this particular space - and must IMO take a lot of the blame for finding themselves in this vulnerable position.

Not to mention the fiduciary duty to all shareholders obligations, not just one or two.

Hey ho. GLA and I hope it works out for you here.

If future governments want to at least maintain the impression that they are going to be able to afford to pay pension obligations in full, on top of servicing the (spiralling) national debt, in 15-20 years time, among other things, then a Maggie II Big Bang is IMO going to be vital to this end (and even then probably not enough).

They will need to do anything and everything to attract global quality to list here. Nothing wrong with light touch, although the free market must be allowed to play out. It was the GFC bail outs that were the issue, not light touch capitalism. The bail outs were the opposite of capitalism. And should never have happened.

At some point the politicians also need to deal with the undeserving poor appropriately as well, but in danger of straying into a manifesto that would never see the light of day now, so will leave it there :)

Just because there are 'many more crap companies' (than this one), does not make this a quality company, worthy of investment, either.

As witnessed by at least two of the major shareholders, who decided to allow their positions to be diluted, rather than participate in this raise.

Pathetic levels of inside buying, with dilution that was so bad for existing holders, you struggle to see a bull case, even if you really want to.

Entirely justified lack of trust/faith in the BOD, based on their track record...since the year dot really.

Lack of Stal update continues. After the Juv abortion, faith in the entire pipeline hanging by a thread, IMO.

Absolutely nothing on the old cancer trial stuff either for ages, which was what first interested me all those years ago. If it is dead, just tell us, rather than the corporate waffle about progressing talks, which is/was clearly rubbish.

And yes, from a technical POV, so many far better technical trade prospects right now, so it fails from both an investment and a technical chart perspective too, IMO.

None of which means it might not have a (short) spike or two at some point before it goes pop once and for all (not 100% certain of course, yet IMO virtually so)...but again, better rainbows to chase than this one for a pure punt too, IMO.

But no harm in having different opinions :) GLA.

Well, HL, Interactive Investor and AJ Bell are simply custodians of ordinary people's money, so I do not count them (apart from noting an increase in retail positions here).

Fair point that PMI remain unchanged according to that (which surprises me, to be honest). No opinion on Nestle, as I know nothing about their investment management protocols.

I seem to remember PMI finally exiting Woodbois (if memory serves correct) quite a long time after they should have, to my mind (not on my radar now, so no idea in either direction now), a couple of years ago or so. That is another company that....threw up some interesting SP activity at times back then, some might have concluded. But I digress.

If anyone (apart from the BOD of course) is going to make money here, it is surely going to be AOP.

I can easily see another update at some point signalling extreme financial distress and a 'rescue' from AOP....either a loan on terms that might as well mean this goes into admin, as far as other shareholders are concerned, or perhaps an all share cash offer, at a price that also means no other shareholder walks away without a material loss. Sub 1p type of thing.

The longer the radio silence, the worse the reality, IMO.

None of which should have ever happened, nor can be easily explained away either, IMO.

But hey, I could be wrong. At least about the end price here. I am absolutely convinced that I am not wrong insofar as some of the other stuff that has taken this from pounds to not even pennies now. Hey ho. Not my job to investigate. Nor anyone else it seems, lol.

GLA (except the BOD).

Yep. That exact potential market mover moment influenced my sell decision on PAAS and my trim here.

If the market likes the print, I have plenty of risk on equities (including this one) to ride some more before further potential trims.

If it comes in hot (and if this one does not, IMO the next one likely will), then I have a pretty decent amount of dry powder to deploy accordingly. GLA.

Absolutely. Meat on the bone detail, proper CEO share purchases as soon as allowed, and confident forward guidance too. All three needed to kill the short thesis IMO, but I would settle for good news on the first two points, to retake a few here for (almost) certain.

Worth paying a bit more in those circumstances, because IMO the jury is still out on the CEO here.

The above would go a long way to dispelling some of these (justifiable) concerns.

Not that I might not jump in again before then for another small punt anyway, if I see a price that becomes too tempting :)

If not for those considerable Barker purchases, I would have thought that another raise was in the offing, perhaps being announced at the same time as the formal update.

Enough of a discount to allow the shorts to exit profitably and without a squeeze.

Enough to give the big boys the option to load up further and offset the inconvenience of the action itself.

Enough to ensure the smaller shareholders were suitably screwed (as is often the case).

But perhaps I am too cynical - and like I said - those Barker buys undermine that theory anyway.

Still following this one quite closely but no holding at the time of print. GLA.

It astonishes me that anyone would consider this a credible investment whatsoever now.

Even for a punt, you are basically relying on winning the greater fool game here, on the basis that this is a business with an entirely untrustworthy management team. Never mind the highly questionable lack of commercial acumen.

Have any remaining holders tried to contact the company to find out what is happening with that third party, who were apparently responsible for the management team here misleading the market regarding those prescription numbers?

An act which itself was significantly influential in retaining some existing shareholder support, and likely just as influential in luring in new investors as well.

Absolute barge-pole territory IMO, but to each their own.