Member Info for Oldnewboy

Bowlers: 68 grand at an average now about 5.1p

U|nless you are very much richer than I am, it is an awful lot to have in a share like this. I imagine it is the result of an initial small investment at a much higher price, and is the result of "averaging down". That is fine, so long as it is not throwing good money after bad. But sometimes they do come good. The prudent rule is never have more than 5% of your total liquid assets in entirely speculative shares not supported by assets or earnings. And always money you can afford to lose.

If there is sufficient titillating news to get the price up to 6 or 7p, the test will be how many current holders that price will shake out. Personally my holding is only a few £k which I have mentally written off. If the price ever got to double my entry price I would sell half. Otherwise I am an irrational long term hold. I firmly believe the placing and warrants and subsequent paid hype was a fraud designed only to enrich the financers, which I assume may have included some of the departed board members. Has anyone said they would refer any of this to the grandly named Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, in the hope they might be more effective than their predecessor the DTI affectionately known as the Department of Torpor and Inactivity.

Maybe when my "retirement" actually results in me having some spare time, I should do so,

Mr R: just in case there may be some real information in relation to my gambling investment!

OK, how about some fundamental about market valuations, which might also help Bowlers understand why just because a share was ramped up to an inflated price does not mean there's any reasons for it ever to get back there.

Shares are either valued by a multiple of their EARNINGS (profits after tax) or by their break-up value (Net Asset Value). Some older investors like me and LTI are more interested in a share's dividend yield, in my case a growing one.

The average price earnings ratio of FTSE shares is currently 19 against a long term average of 16.

Like most AIM companies, MET1 has no income and hence only losses. Actually the whole of AIM makes no overall profits, resulting in a negative price earnings ratio of 0.15. If MET1's first half losses of £1.5m were repeated in the second half = £3m that would suggest a total valuation for the company of only £450,000.

There are 840m shares in issue, so that would make the shares worth only half a penny a share.

What about assets? The June figures showed £4m cash, and the exercise of the warrants brought in another £8m. Assuming the second half loss only consumes 1.5m that should leave £10.5m, minus whatever they spent on investments since June. Assuming those investments are worth what they paid for them that works out at 1.25p a share.

However MET1's accounts also include a £9m valuation for what they had bought before June, and if that is realistic then NAV would rise from 1.25p to 2.3p a share.

So as LTI points out, that means ever at Friday's closing 3.7p a share, anyone buying now is indeed paying a 60% premium over total NAV, and nearly 3 times estimated cash assets.

Why are some people buying, though in derisory quantities? On the GAMBLE that one or more of their investments might come good. But for the shares ever to be "worth" 50p again would either require the assets to increase more than tenfold in value, or for the company to deliver profits which would justify the company being worth 50p x 840m = £420m. If the share were valued on the FT 19 P/e, that means net annual taxed profits of £22m. At the current 3.7p a share the company would "only" need profits of £1.6m for a 19 P/E ratio.

I don't know how much Bowler has invested, but any significant upwards re-rating of the share price needs an awful lot of good news to justify it.

I think you’re right, I did suggest meeting once but now I’m not sure that wd be wise. I keep trying to ignore him but he is an expert cage-rattler. Will certainly stop if he does!

There is nothing to say about this company’s share price until we get news of something which can produce revenues in which they have an equity stake, or a fresh cash call with some justification for where the funds will be spent and for who gets what shares or options. He and I agree the sp is probably now more than twice twice remaining cash per share. I am in at around 4.5p and will hold regardless for a while at least; LTI can’t understand why some of us like to gamble. I might buy a few more but not till there’s a steadier floor.

LTI: clueless as ever

I forgot he needed everything spelled out in baby talk as he has problems following a discussion.

I apologise for not being more precise when saying most of us bought in at 2 -3 times NAV. Mr LiteralTI took that to include even those who bought in at up to 50p and didn't take their profits while they could. I made the stupid assumption only stupid people could possible think that. Only JS claims to have done that and not everyone is convinced he was not a paid ramper, but it doesn't matter. It is my suspicion, driven also by the collapse in dealing volumes, that the majority of current shareholders are only those who bought in relatively recently. So again it's not me who's clueless. Pots and kettles!

I note he has also not replied to my specific questions asking him to state which lies, and/or refuting my example below:

(1) do you believe MMS never influenced the MET1 price? (2)DO you believe the AI you quoted, resuscitated below, is correct in stating MMs do not influence the price, other than dictated by buyers and sellers? (3) Don't you think any of them are gamblers after a quick buck? In my day that was the job description of a jobber! (4) On what grounds are you so gullible as to believe the value of that piece of AI requited below against the contrary piece I provided you at the time stating exactly the reverse?

I don't think he has ever answered a simple question like these with anything other than an insult or another question, or some irrelevance.

Meanwhile Monday is another day, I would be interested in what the chartists are now saying?

he has only ever replied to any attempts at a civilised debate with questions or put-downs, and his recent efforts show no change.

Just for fun, from within LTI's 1525 post below:

Q "Where have I mentioned about market makers and their pricing?"

A: How about where you say also below "it is up to a market maker if they wish to take a position for their own account in a stock, but that will not be the case with Met1."

Q:" Where have I said that ALL transactions are matched on an order book matching system?"

A: ISn't that what this means: "that will not be the case with Met1. No market maker would be stupid enough to buy and keep for their own account ".

When the shares were being ramped the spread was minimal: do you really think the market makers are so lacking in greed they would not have been in on the ride as well. Only when the price started to settle down did the spread increase to a more normal 5%+ from which they can scrape a living but not make a killing.

To show you can back up your claims, do please spell out exactly what ARE the alleged lies, without asking me questions.

Specifically (1) do you believe MMS never influenced the MET1 price? (2)DO you believe the AI you quoted, resuscitated below, is correct in stating MMs do not influence the price, other than dictated by buyers and sellers? (3) Don't you think any of them are gamblers after a quick buck? In my day that was the job description of a jobber! (4) On what grounds are so gullible as to believe the value of that piece of AI requited below against the contrary piece I provided you at the time stating exactly the reverse?

Understanding and evaluating AI source material is a basic skill current generations of undergraduates are learning the hard way: you need to too, if what remains of your own brain hasn't got too many holes in it to be able to do so.

LTI: brain is mis wired/deteriorated, delusional, losing the plot etc etc etc.

We can all see he is ill and all his puerile put downs of others only apply to himself. He seems to fail to understand anything anyone says, including all of us who are well aware that most of us paid two or three times the NAV of the company. He doesn't know how to assess AI as an information source, relying on the first piece he finds which states that MMs don't move the market (I can't be bothered to resuscitate the AI I found which of course confirms MMs move the market since he would find some reason for thinking it says what it doesn't.

He will want the last word, which historically will be a put-down statement with no justification attached, and this time really is welcome to it. Calling me a liar with no evidence for the 4th time will not provoke a response: even cage rattling loses its effectiveness after a while. Some of us have better things to do than communicate with the intellectually deaf or challenged.

LTI rejects his own posts.

Oh dear.

I realised long ago you were incapable of reasoned debate and could only pick words, often out of context, and query or dismiss them.

But I have never before met someone who rejects the evidence of his own words, showing both your belief that MMs never take positions themselves which control prices, and naively using misleading AI to attempt to prove the point. Anyone else interested will be able to make their own judgments.

If you want help with your condition, a neurologist is probably the place to start.

LTI: and once again I repeat - you are a LIAR

Congratulations, you are an expert cage rattler. I bet you're fun to live with.

Call me a liar once and I could walk away. Twice -- I have now gone back to your old posts.

I assume my "lies" are my statements that you (1) incorrectly asserted that MET1 shares were all matched bargains and that the market makers only provided liquidity but had no influence on price and (2) showed naivety in using AI to reproduce a piece illustrating "garbage in/garbage out" which would be seen as such by anyone with any knowledge of how the stockmarket works -- something which seems to have escaped you despite you uninvited history of your value investing below (which ironically is strangely similar to mine.)

So does this support (1)?

Posted in: MET1

Posts: 32,613

RE: Share trade information23 Aug 2025 22:43

Onb

"Surely SETS is just the trading platform and still enables MMs to build up positions? If not, what DO they do other than function as unnecessary middlemen?''

To make money from the spread and provide liquidity. There is no taking of a large 'position' in Met1 trading for their own account.

And (2):

RE: Trades8 Sep 2025 22:53

SETS is a matched based ordering system used for stocks with high liquidity.

Market makers provide liquidity with stocks where liquidity is lacking, which means the market maker being the other side of a buy/sell in those cases.

Market makers role -

AI

''Market makers primarily ensure the stock market runs smoothly and don't typically move prices on their own; rather, they provide liquidity by always being ready to buy or sell, thereby reducing price fluctuations and ensuring investors can trade at a fair price. They profit from the bid-ask spread and, in times of high trading volume, their actions can facilitate price movements by meeting demand when investors rush to buy or by selling when a flood of sellers appears, though this is driven by supply and demand, not market maker-initiated price changes.

In what I hoped was my final exchange I suggested you might learn to admit when you are wrong, but I don't expect you to here: but you could prove me wrong.

LTI: you are also a LIAR

I am afraid you must be ill. If you hadn't posted the same factual warning about the NAV over 32,000 times I might be bothered to go back to and find the trail what remains of your mind has forgotten.

Here are some things YOU need to learn:

1. The market consists of gamblers as well as long term investors. Some of us are both. You are clearly not and can't understand us.

2. You are therefore posting on the wrong board.

3. You presumably have some massive inferiority complex about how the world perceives your intelligence, hence the extraordinary need to tell us your alleged IQ, as though that might equate to investor wisdom.

4. Admit when you are wrong, as I proactively did when the half time figures revealed the cash had been diminished even faster than I thought possible.

As you seem only able to retort with insults, goodbye so far as my individual responses are concerned, clearly falling on deaf ears, though I may occasionally refer to your postings if relevant or in need of correction.

Lunatic winners

True the MMs will have been winners: like the casino, they can’t lose unless incompetent. But they are very much not the ONLY winners. The real winners were those who subscribed the original 2p placing and then got warrants allowing further investment at multiples of their original stake which they could then sell into a market which exceeded 50p fuelled by gamblers. Many of them will have made money on the way up too.

LTI: clueless

What is the matter with you that you cannot have a civilised discussion without insulting others?

I have refrained from descending to your sad level, merely pointing out your apparent lack of understanding of gamblers’ market psychology. But if anyone is clueless it is the idiot who wrote that all MEt1 buys and were computer matched, that market makers don’t move the share price, and who believes the first nonsense AI gives him. Just try not to tar others with your own deficiencies.

JS: it’s great here in Melbourne

Sorry to see you were awake at 4 AM when you wrote this, jet lag is tiresome isn't it?.

Just for everyone's clarification, when you said you were "happy here at 3.79" you never meant to say that was your average price, did you? Simply that like some of us you are not a seller because you hope it may come right one day at a significantly higher price than that; or indeed today's closing price.

Roger: Negligible warrants left unexercised

To clear up confusion that is not what I was asking. We know what you've written. What we DON'T know is how many of those 700m or whatever it was SHARES which the warrant holders got when they paid their 2p into the company remain to be sold, or how many of them might actually be potential long term holders rather than in it for a quick buck. I agree entirely with what you say about the share price and irrelevance to many holders of NAV, precisely the point LTI fails to grasp. However in the event of it not being able to raise fresh finance when the money runs out, investors ARE likely to start looking at what actual realisable value remains in a breakup or takeover.

Is how many of the “warrant” shares have not been sold, still at 75% more than the 2p they cost, nor why operating costs have doubled the trading losses. Looks to me my previous suggestion tangible NAV might be more than 1.75p was wrong and now it’s almost certainly less. Maybe 2p by Christmas is overstated? At what price if any will these shares be more than a gamble? But I’m still holding, however illogical.

RSoul: todays RNS was an attempt to 'appease' the restless natives

A cynic or fundamental analyst might say that this just shows it's all smoke and mirrors, and there is no new news of substance to support a premium over the last 2p placing price, let alone NAV.

However for followers of LTI, if there are any, I have good news: I think his NAV calculations based on the last Annual Report and subsequent transactions underestimate the current TANGIBLE NAV, even assuming everything they have spent their money on except their one quoted investment is worth nothing. You will note I have set him a little test asking him to update his sums in detail, but he has failed to do so. And before he abuses me, no I am not saying the current share price is not at a premium to NAV, but I think even he has started to understand why that MAY be sustainable. Even if mathematically illogical.

Bowlers: With all this great news this stock should be flying

That was the point I was trying to make, or do you regard today's 1.3% recovery as flying? And as for the good late buys, look at the values, under £5k in the last half hour, admittedly more than the sales and hence presumably keeping the price from falling. But is this share price really supported by people punting only a few hundred quid?

Bowlers: I said we would fly up this week

Should we be worried about today's lack of enthusiasm? Can anyone make sense of the reported deals, nothing over a thousand pounds in the latest and mostly in numbers which hardly make sense, even for late sellers of the warrant shares. IS this a cat now so dead it can't even bounce? In my case no point in selling as I regard it as option money anyway, but it is difficult to understand what these trades really mean?

Bowlers: "Good point onb JS gone quiet stock can go up without his money if true"

More worrying if JS is not a fantasist then he was allegedly buying all the way down from way over 20p which did not prevent the share price from falling because the warrant holders who had procured shares for 2p were delighted to sell to him for 20p or hi gher, and all the way down.

The question is how many of us who bought in on the way down will sell when the price gets back up to where we bought, and how many still believe there is unrealised potential in the investments the directors have made or will make, and/or their ability to exploit their original land leases. We still have to see if the share price CAN rebound. All I see is formation of a very shaky base around 4p (and for the benefit of LTI, more than twice his outdated computation of NAV)

LTI desperation

No logical discussion, only one word put downs, I withdraw my previous Hallelujah plaudit, your mind or what's left of it is clearly closed to discussion.

I know precisely "why you paid a fortune for each 1.75p." It was a GAMBLE on a unicorn. You'll never get it. Go back to your investment trusts.

LTI: screw loose

As I think you once observed about a criticism of your good self, just because you think that doesn't make it true.

You are clearly incapable of proper debate, can't support your maths, and so lacking in empathy and understanding of market psychology I wonder if you may be sadly some way off the spectrum.