Member Info for Oldnewboy

IntheDark: Churn

I fear it can and will go on for a very long time, as in an earlier post.

What interests/surprises me is that the price is holding up relatively strongly despite the huge value of sales against purchases, eg today:

Vol. Sold 3,183,713

Sold Value £128.40k

Vol. Bought 621,406

Bought Value £25.40k

There will be some constant profit taking if the price rises, and speculative holders cutting their losses if it doesn't. This could last months until only those not expecting to scalp 10% on a £500 deal give up and play elsewhere. The question is whether those of us left in will be holding a worthless pile of junk or an SEIS style 10 bagger?

LTI’s reliance on AI nonsense wisdom

If you ask a different question you will get a different answer:

https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=do%20market%20makers%20manipulate%20price&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5

Your last crossed with mine and I am amazed to see you now accept market makers provide a role.

However beware of relying entirely on AI to fill in your knowledge gaps: remember it is only as good as the material it harvests, as it cannot tell truth from rubbish, as your extract demonstrates.

There is no limit to your ignorance. The “person” selling me or buying my shares is most likely to be a market makers, not a matched SETS trade as you previously claimed.

You have only ever had one useful thing to say and have said it 32,000 times too many.

You have offered zero other useful input, clearly understand nothing about the mechanics or the psychology of the stock market, probably because of your demonstrable lack of empathy.

Why not wait until you have something NEW and USEFUL to contribute and give us all a break.

LTI: “ a buy is a sale and a sale is a buy”

Please do stop revealing your ignorance about how stock markets work and misleading people.

I thought you had learned that retail investors’ bargains are NOT matched pound for pound (plus or minus the spread) as you previously claimed, and that MARKET MAKERS play a vital role in moving the price. If you are going to pontificate, best to get your facts right.

Given the trades today and the falling share price despite JS busy out their mopping up, could I ask again what I asked previously:

NickBee wrote "Cmon, nobody is basing their investment decisions on what is said here."

Serious question: what ARE you all basing your "investment" decisions on? Other people's estimates/hopes of where the sp might end the day?

Remember, a decision to do nothing is as much of a decision as to buy or sell. I am sitting tight on my small holding, now averaged down to a bit under 5p in the hope the optimistic will be right (for no good reason) but in the expectation the share may collapse below NAV unless one of their varied stakes turns into a ten-bagger.

And please remember the share dilution caused by the exercise of the warrants does not mean there is any reason for the share price EVER to get back to its previous double digit highs without some spectacular earnings or capital gains.

Does anyone agree today looks like having been another MM shake of the tree? Or is everyone stunned into silence because the little spike on Friday has not been maintained?

Miner1: hear hear.

But of course market makers or individuals with big holdings can also affect the market price. Presumably someone considers putting money in at these prices, confident they are not going to be the last to buy and left holding a worthless shell.

NickBee wrote "Cmon, nobody is basing their investment decisions on what is said here."

Serious question: what ARE people basting their "investment" decisions on? Other people's estimates/hopes of where the sp might end the day?

Looks like another MM shake of the tree today?

LTI carped ''Now this increasingly looks like an embryo Venture Capital or SEIS fund '': obviously utter nonsense - you have a lot to learn.

As you might write ????? or "strange".

As with your obvious problem with percentages and the role of market makers, I am afraid it is you who needs to learn not to preach from ignorance.

You say MET 1 can now be "informally called" an investment trust. Indeed, you could call it anything you want, but an IT is plain inaccurate. ITs invest largely in other quoted companies. It is the MARKET which provides the basis for their valuation, and they indeed usually trade at a discount to net assets for reasons much cleverer people than you find difficult to explain: maybe you think you know the answer?

My earlier suggestion was to try and tease out from you some basis on which you might be prepared to hazard a valuation, but as so often you failed to understand the question so dismissed it in your uneducated way. [Oh, DO let's trade educational qualifications, though having been caught out boasting about your not very massive IQ, beware.] VCTs invest in unquoted companies, and EISs and SEISs invest in start ups. This seems to me a much better "informal" description of MET1 as is than yours. I would like to read your counter ARGUMENT, rather than an ex-cathedra dismissal with no logic for your judgment.

Oh, and one of your one liners had me allegedly backed into some sort of corner? Do explain. If you can string the words together.

LTI IQ

Sorry you missed my earlier post responding to your strange boast about your 167 IQ: I’m sorry to say mine is a few points ahead of yours.

For someone allegedly in the same league you find too many comments “strange” or just met with question marks.

A wider soul advises me to ignore you to stop revealing your limited analytic abilities and limited understanding of market mentality.

LTI: fear and greed

Sorry if you're slightly inferior to my IQ is not able to keep up. It is exactly the point I was making,.

LTI

You could quite possibly be right: indeed, it may not even be "worth" 1.75p. That however is not currently stopping its shares valuing it at considerably more. Aren't markets tiresome places to try and explain rationally? No wonder you get frustrated, unable to understand the eternal market drivers: "Fear and Greed"!!

LTI: tax breaks

Tax breaks are also a major factor why many VCTs trade at a discount, and because their apparent income is often in fact a return of capital.

But ignoring tax, if people prepared to take the risk of losing it all, as IS the risk with SEISs, are prepared to invest in non income producing companies at a premium, why should not AIM gamblers be any stupider to be doing the same, assuming they are doing so with their eyes wide open as to the risk?

LTI

Thank you for showing you have no advice now to give on whether a premium over the NAV might be justified if this has transformed itself from an investment trust into some kind of VCT or SEIS, other than to say you would not "pay a premium" [presumably over NAV] for a stock that has no revenue or profits. But isn't that exactly was SEIS investments are, or are these something else your concentration on dividends (which constitute the bulk of my investments) preclude you from considering? I realise you like to split hairs and pretend your references to the share price and estimated NAV were in some way unrelated, but do you think the same arithmetically correct warnings are even more relevant now? And how do you feel about how long the share overhang will take to work its way out?

Question for LTI really.

You suggested early on this was some sort of speculative investment trust and implied (but then denied) it should therefore be valued at a discount to NAV like BRWMT. Now this increasingly looks like an embryo Venture Capital or SEIS fund (but without the tax incentives). If it were (and the investments were not also potential scams), how do you think it should be valued? Start up investments often have neither income (nor by definition profits) nor tangible assets, but do have asset value calculations based on how they are spending their money. Is there an argument MET1 should enjoy similar treatment?

One fact you may rightly point out will hold it back is, just like the original warrant shareholders represented a huge potential overhand of stock, now largely crystallised, so too will the natural temptation of the many investors nursing huge paper losses to get out if the price ever allows them to achieve break even; and also the subsequent temptation of people like me in recently to cash in half their shares if the price ever doubles. This process of churn till you get real long term investors rather than traders could take months or years to play out.

LTI: valuations

I think all of us who actually have any shares here would love to see the price higher than we paid, but valuations need some sort of fundamentals than pure optimism to support them. All we know is the MET1 directors have spent some of the cash they attracted from original investors who became warrant holders and who could get out with profits of many 100s of a percent. They have put out various RNSs with sexy words like uranium, nickel and whatever and taken stakes in companies of no established value.

The test will surely come as the price approaches the average purchase price of many people's holdings who averaged down -- something between the current price and between 7 and 20p.

IF we are to believe JS, his alleged syndicate will be sitting tight even once they start showing book profits: I shall be fascinated to see if others share his faith. I think I will, though if the price even doubles over my book price I will sell half like a shot and stay in for the zero cost ride, which is surely what most sensible people less rich than JS would do?

My putative ex-banker and risk averse LTI suggested early on this was some sort of speculative investment trust and implied (but then denied) it should therefore be valued at a discount to NAV like BRWMT. Now this increasingly looks like an embryo Venture Capitalist fund (but without the tax incentives) I wonder if he would like to give us an opinion on how to value it.

Anxiety: AI as a source is only as good as the published material available on the internet for it to harvest. There are many paid puffs, hence this summary of the positive bits. You note there is no information about any of their “assets” producing revenues or realisable gains. This company has little intrinsic value as it needs to spend all its money getting something profitable out of the ground.

Anxiety: always check your sources.

Where did you “pick up” the optimistic puff you posted? Remember this company’s Cayman Islands friends paid for a series of puffs which looked as though in reputable journals when the price last soared to stratospheric valuations.

JS

Afraid you have revealed your Walter Mitty moments again in failing to answer the question. Why should any of us be jealous, if what you say is true about your achievements, you must be an example to us all. I don't think you know how most people own gold, do you? If so please explain why you prefer physical gold bars over those methods.

Since some of you still seem to value them.

1. The market capitalisation IS ONLY the number of shares times the share price. There is no other definition. To the extent sentiment is involved, that is reflected in the share price. Those of you buying now are hoping what they've spent the warrant money on will come good, and are prepared to pay over notional net asset value.

2. I hope it was just a typo earlier, but every 1p movement in the share price of a company with 840m shares does not move the market cap by £840m, but by £8.4m.