Member Info for marik

"The laws of defamation apply to posts on social media - including those made on this forum."
"...if anyone actually has any evidence of wrongdoing they should raise it with the relevant regulator"

@RegulatorUK makes very good points, this isn't an either or scenario both scenarios can be true.

"it is not the leak that is the issue - but a company that has consistently lied"

Leak not good, company not good, both bad, so try not claim otherwise. Don't condone the leaking of price sensitive information.

@ItIsWhatItIs99 funny name, considering that is what you are saying, it is what it is. Stop condoning this.

@Benny-Hill

I'm off my banger? Let's be realistic, there is absolutely no reason that price sensitive information was circulating outside of the official channels. Whether you like that or not is not my concern, but please don't condone it.

"...you were given the price sensitive information, and pretty much by the company itself..."

That is not true. The company insisted up until a very late stage that there was no need for a fundraise. What was being circulated was the opposite, which is why the company were forced to clarify repeatedly.

What you are saying is that the investors should be more concerned about how much they have lost, and ignore everything else?

"Are you really so naive to believe that 'price sensitive information was available outside of official channels' is actually unusual ?"

Sorry to burst the bubble, but last time I checked the acquisition of price sensitive information outside of the official channels was not the normal and accepted method of investing.

I am surprised you agree to this kind of behaviour whilst others have lost money as a result of it.

@wadogara, you make an interesting point , when you state losing £40k vs £500 are different. Are you saying that depending on how much someone loses will determine how they view the unusual situation that price sensitive information was available outside of official channels?

Would the lower quantity imply that you would look the other way?

"...It didn't matter if it was a lot or a little, It was the way that they thought they had lost it..."

@CalderKate, I have to agree with you. This is absolutely crucial to understanding the current situation in ODX. Price sensitive information was available to some, prior to the LTH being aware through official channels.

GL

We've no doubt seen a number of bear cases being presented which in my opinion miss some of the key points that Cineworld has to its advantage. But let's have a slightly closer look. Recent releases with Bond and Spiderman revealed a fascinating point, that the appetite for cinema is far from over. In-fact revenues for October 2021 were 127% up compared to the 2021 levels. The overall recovery for cinema seems to be on, and for Cine, the admissions are catching up with comparable 2019 levels. We shall wait for the official figures to be released, but figures mentioned in the FT indicate 88% of 2019 levels in December (2021).

Cineworld has a debt pile of $4.6bn (end June 2021 figures), and creditors have not expressed cause for concern. Despite the court case with Cineplex, the appeal lodged was indicative that Cineworld is unlikely to pay Cineplex and the structured entity in Canada makes it even less likely. Combine this with the priority of payments going to prior creditors, the likelihood of Cineplex receiving any damages is low. The best scenario for Cineplex is to accept a far smaller amount, which the two companies will, IMO, arrive to in the near future.

Recovery is going well and improving, Cineplex settlement is likely at a fraction and a strong roster of movies and resultant revenues makes the overall prospects for Cineworld positive. This could well provide a strong surprise for those going long and makes for a strong bull case which counters the bear case that progressively miss the above comments.

GLA

@Stas20, Benny-Hill is real charmer... LOL

"Don't assume a placing price puts a floor under the sp."

There is always a disconnect.

What a strange way to do business:

"... hugely disappointing that having acted in good faith to establish UK manufacturing for Government-issued COVID tests, we find that these tests are, in the main, sourced from China instead."

And then go on to sell their site to a Chinese company:

"The deal with Orient Gene allows…"

"£275M buyout"

Yes very much on the cards. Look out 2050, here we come.

"There is no certainty in life…"

Well said.

"...I am purely making the point that Institutional investors backing a fundraise is not of itself categorical assurance that the SP will improve."

Not only that, nothing has changed apart from CK leaving. Same, group of people running it. Will you believe their next RNS?

"5p placing shares taken up by institutional investors and wealth funds who will want imo at least a doubling of return before even thinking about letting any shares go"
Well, I'm not sure how many retail investors will wait to find out. Unless they want to play footsie with each other whilst we look elsewhere, this could be long time off.

"...your next mission"
No, mission in any any company. ODX is badly run and the lies the company came out with are blatantly clear to see today. Why state no-immediate need to fund raise when it's practically done? LTH had to find out via twitter. There is no amount of background information, research etc. that can be applied that can stop that. Most of the listed companies are fine, they run a tight ship, this one is exceptionally bad.

"The placing money "will be used to drive growth..."
They also said there would be no placing. Look what happened there.

"ODX literally told investors via RNS that they were eyeing a fund raise"
You are making a number of assumption, 1) that I have had years of experience with ODX - I haven't. I came in a few weeks back. 2) that the RNS was clear, it wasn't to someone reading it from an honest perspective 3) that I read TW's reports - I don't, I'm all for journalism, but I don't invest unless I see potential.

"However, your implicit trust in CEO..."
That's not how it works. I don't short and only go long, as I'm not interested in seeing companies that add zero value to the public and have no value. So I have to take some of this information on face value. Most listed companies are fine, but there are a handful who take p1ss. This happens to be one of them.

"...the company is still run by a corrupt misleading board"
Nothing has changed apart from CK leaving.

Phantom, you are glorifying the company lying, and information being leaked to "journalism" on a publicly listed company and retail investors finding out much later down the line.

I'm as genuine as they come @CaptainSwag.It's not fake news I believed. My research is based on companies financials, RNS's and my own experience. I take the figures and information on face value and read between the lines where necessary. With the majority of companies I have invested in, that works out perfectly fine. There have been bad ones, but this one has taken the biscuit.

If the company is lying, there is no amount of research or magic I can do with a blatant lie. Impossible to predict. I de-risked based on the assumption that a placing may happen some months down the line and yes as of today my profit is halved.

Let's say I was privy to the information that TW was given access to, there is no way I would be sitting here with half the profits, I would have run a mile and not touched it in the first place.

Anyways you win some, you lose some. Here I've gained some, could have been twice as much.

GL

Pearls of wisdom based on the assumptions that:

1) a company listed on a regulated market wouldn't blatantly lie
2) that a "journalist" would gain market sensitive info ahead of retail investors
3) information would continuously leaked

I've seen a lot of bad shows on AIM over many years, but this takes the biscuit.

GLA

Apology given.

Two months late... but there it is, the RNS which was months away and the fundraise that was not required.

I continue to hold, as I'm thankfully on a free. But it took a "journalist" to get the real story out. Don't like his methods, delivery and he could do a lot better by focusing on companies that have potential, but I guess that's not in his remit.

I'm feeling for the LTH, this is shambolic.