Member Info for Oldnewboy

Maidit, you are welcome to believe that "sentiment is everything" but it is not about INVESTING which requires some prospect of actual PROFITS one day, which QDE is woefully short of. And " if we are to get back to sensible levels after been beaten black and blue from £2.13" it will have nothing to do with the 4pm warrants which will obviously not now be exercised because the market price fell so fast the slow warrant holders could no longer guarantee themselves the instant profits they had anticipated from people who believed a market value 133 times the current capitalisation could one day actually make sense again. The only real question is how much above 1p can another privileged group of insiders expect the market to support when the next warrants are issued at 1p or below.

LTI: "CLOSER TO NAV"

Please tell us what you think this now is, and show us your workings.

Genuine question I can't be bothered to work out as you are clearly the expert!

Please share your calculations so we know how much below 2p current NAV is, so silly gamblers like me can decide whether they want to pay a premium for something which still has no actual EARNINGS.

LTI: are you going to produce an updated NAV calculation for us so we can all know how to value it as an investment trust, as you believe is justifiable?

Anxiety: "no one knows" what? It should always be possible to work out net asset value from the last published balance sheet and RNSs since, plus research into the current value of MET's quoted investment. I can't be bothered, having spent much of my life doing precisely that, because unlike LTI (and you, apparently) I don't believe that MET's NAV is the only driver of the market price, which is just as likely to be inflated by those who hope for long term value one day and don't mind paying a premium over NAV. This is where LTI and I diverge in our understanding of what drives markets. Sometimes it's no-hope gamblers like me with a tiny percentage of my assets, and sometimes we strike lucky, even if on the back of a scam, as I believe LTI finally claimed he had also once succumbed to doing at well above his [outdated] calculation of NAV.

LTI

Could you give us your latest calculation of NAV based on your estimate of remaining cash plus MET’s equity stakes in QUOTED entities? This way we can all know how much of a premium the current market price represents.

If you could avoid insulting me as part of your answer I would be grateful.

LTI

When are you going to impart something useful, like using your mathematical skills to produce an estimated update on this share's NAV, rather than wittering on about one of your other investments?

How much of a discount do you think a gambler should consider makes the share "cheap"?

And perhaps LTI will now admit his belief MMs never influence the price was incorrect. It will be interesting to see what evidence of manipulation the FCA produces. Taking a position is not of course an offence, it’s just them having a flutter like we gamblers have been doing. Manipulation must involve collusion or propagation of misinformation, the latter of which shd result in collars being felt.

I speculated early on you were a risk averse failed bank manager! Still no thoughts on who these equal fools are who appear to have stumped up £4.4m at 2p a share? No imagination I suppose, or curiosity!

LTI PATHETIC

Insult vocabulary deserting you?

What is pathetic is dismissing anything outside your patently limited financial experience.

Again I ask you to enlighten us: who do YOU think could be so stupid as to put £4.4m in at a premium to your previous but now overstated NAV calculation of 1.75p UNLESS they know something we don’t, or can punt this for fun just to mislead us.

And you previously asked me to own my mistakes. I did, except they were mistakes made with my eyes open, not from prejudiced stupidity. Do you now accept my average price per share calculations and would you like to apologise for your prejudiced stupidity in effectively calling me a liar? I bet you haven’t got it in you to admit here you were wrong!

LTI Sorry you can’t follow any plot not conforming to your tunnel vision, and can’t see how moneylaundering can work. Equally you seem not able to believe I have (for fun, illogically, not related to NAV but certainly swayed by £4.4m coming in at 2p) doubled my previous huge 50000 stake thus producing the average I claimed and can prove.

As previously I won’t waste any more time with you as you are a rude bigot.

LTI unlike you I have absolutely no problem admitting my errors: in this case my belief the froth and the spin could continue to support an illogical premium to the net asset value and that I could beat the market makers in their manipulation. But my exposure is peanuts and if my 100,000 shares at an average under 3.3p all go belly up it will not affect whether I eat that week.

But unlike you, I like many here, understand the concept of a flutter and fun money; fun of any sort I suspect being rather absent from your life.

Now for the third time, why would people put £4.4m into the company at 2p with no sweeteners unless they WANTED a market they could sell into at a loss to wash the cash? No thoughts? No knowledge of money laundering?

LTI I so hoped you would have overcome your ability to insult anyone who has superior knowledge to you: like how the market makers LOVE low cap AIM stocks (a) for their lack of supervision and (b) ability to shift the price on small trades.

I see you are no help on why anyone would take up the placing, nor where such funds may originate from.

Try learning how to make your points, however ill-informed, without needing to demean anyone with a different view: you might find they are more readily embraced. But then why should you bother, since you believe you know all, but are limited to now outdated NAV calculations and your success in a non-speculative mining trust which I had sold after it cut its dividends.

LTI, welcome back. Sad you still don't accept that market makers themselves take positions and hence can and do move the prices, I thought I had convinced you of this basic truth long ago.

However, more interestingly, why do you think some people were happy to pay 2p a share without any warrants or other sweeteners, and should we assume they are long term holders now? The only logical alternative I can see is that the £4.4m arrived in suitcases of cash, and they are happy to be selling out at anything above 1p, which would be more than they would get at a conventional money launderer where I believe the discount rate is somewhat nearer 60%?

"Learning" wrote "How are they going to sell the new shares at 2p...."

I think you are confused about how fundraising works.

In a normal company privileged (and sometimes existing) investors will be offered shares in the company at a big discount to the prevailing price on the market. This was the case with the 2p per share offer when the SP was over 3 -- a massive discount. The expectation is not usually that such investors will either expect or be able to immediately sell their shares for a profit, but that the pricing means the company has some confidence that at some future point -- maybe years not months or days ahead -- the company will have used the money they have raised to make the shares worth more, thus providing a reasonable and healthy profit.

That is why unless the £4.4m is from money laundering sources, happy to turn 100% dodgy cash into 100% clean cash, but only at a hefty discount, it should make sense for those nursing losses to average down and join those who thought 2p would be worth significantly more one day. On the other hand if MET 1 IS a money laundering laundry, then if the £4.4m was dirty money, the owners would be delighted for MET1 to launder it into clean money at 1.75p a share, since I believe the usual going discounts rate for laundering sums of this size is 50% or more.

It does raise the question why whoever just paid £4.4m would have done so unless they know something we don't?

Either that or it is a final roll of the scam dice with those who profited from selling sweetheart option shares costing 2p to mugs like JS for anything from 50p downwards. just "reinvesting" small change in the hope of another profitable ramp?

It does raise the question why whoever just paid £4.4m would have done so unless they know something we don't?

Either that or it is a final roll of the scam dice with those who profited from selling sweetheart option shares costing 2p to mugs like JS for anything from 50p downwards. just "reinvesting" small change in the hope of another ramp?

1. Someone thinks it is, to the tune of just subscribing 2p a share to raise enough money to fund Met1's latest third party investment.

2. However this brings the total number of shares in issue to over 1,000 m, which means at 2p a share the market capitalisation is over £20m.

3. After the previous funding and warrant issue the Net Asset Value was something under 1.75p a share, and will be less now.

4. The difference this time is that since the placing anyone has been able to buy in at much the same price as the placing; there appear to be no preferential warrant entitlements to the current fundraising, and also no incentive for any remaining shareholders from the previous warrant scam to sell out at these prices.

So as throughout Met1's history the current share price is assuming there will be major increases in value from some or more of their existing investments, with no evidence that such added value can be achieved or engineered.

As I have very little skin in this game at an average price of under 5p, I have doubled the number of my shares by buying today at 2p. There is no more logic to this than my previous purchases, but at least if it does all prove to be a unicorn I shall sharing my losses with £4.4m others, and poor Bowlers. If JS really has lost millions, more fool him but he pretends he can afford it. Logic would suggest he too should be averaging down?

I suggest more patience. If there is any evidence any directors put any money into the company other than through their "friends" and their 2p warrants, that MIGHT be the time to follow them.

But I think it'll still be some time before hell freezes over, or pigs really fly.

I might be wrong, hope I am as I am still in for a couple of £k at under 5p but wish I didn't own this in an ISA so I could use the tax loss.

Maid: I think you are confused about the 200m shares. The market price will not affect how much money the company receives for those shares: it will get 4p a shares as and when remaining warrant holders get their last chance to buy those shares, and sell them to someone like you or me prepared to buy them in the market for more. Or of course they might convert in the belief it's a good long term investment.