Member Info for Oldnewboy

Bowlers

I think you are right, we all spend far too much time on here than is probably good for us or anyone else, but as someone remarked several days ago it is a strangely addictive circus.

I thought for a time the level of debate had risen slightly from the gutter but the needless insults keep resurfacing to interrupt any reasoned discussion, like who buys a share when you sell it or vice versa (usually a market maker I’m afraid LTI).

Bowlers if you were referring to me as the “old boy who knows what he is talking about”, I thank you for the compliment; and your perception! But at the risk of nitpicking like LTI I don’t think I have ever given any ADVICE whether to buy, hold or sell this utter speculation. I have revealed after a narrow escape in the 20s I am back in at 5p, but with only half my usual massive £5k stake. If it falls and forms a base around 4p I’ll buy another 50,000. If it starts rising I shall attempt “masterly inactivity”, but I failed last time and probably will again.

I’m going to try and not post for 24 hours but am old enough not to beat myself up for my failings.

LTI

I know you can't bear not to have the last word, and enjoy picking nits with anything you can query about anything anyone else writes, but if you are going to hold yourself out as some sort of authority you should really try and get your facts right.

Your are right to say that shares are exchanged between A and B at a price - in highly liquid shares the SETS system can be used to match buyers and sellers thus bypassing market makers.

Yes, but MET1 is NOT a highly liquid market, look at the trifling value of punts happening each day.

And just because SETS can be used to match buyers and sellers, it doesn't mean they always are.

I have no doubt you will want to dispute something here, but like others I have tired of your one track thoughts (and the fact you post everything twice for some reason). Your are right about net asset value. You are wrong to suggest it is the only basis for the valuation of a share.

Meg

I was being potentially sarcastic about him moving the market. To give him his due I am not aware he has made any claims as to any great holding in Pantheon. It may be like me only originally £5k, my max in this sort of lottery.

JS: Pantheon: Great, I hope it is your buying there which has lifted the share price more successfully than at Met1.

JBatch

It's dentists and bad teeth for me with these gambles, the only gain is Pantheon up 17%. Northcoders, Touchstone and RWS are all down between 12 and 42%. Which is why I am happy my dividend paying shares give me 5% average on their current value which is considerably higher than my book costs.

I am assuming these are more likely to be joined by MET1 tomorrow, though I hope the optimists are right.

LTI

I think on this occasion I trust more the information from those who understand the roles of market makers, which you seem not to.

And as I have long suspected your bewilderment at what we gamblers is explained by the fact you have never bought such speculative shares.

I fear with your banker's risk averse mindset you are on the wrong platform. Also missing the fun of a flutter which with under 1% of my assets in 5 such shares I can well afford.

Miner1 and JBatch

Sorry I should have made clear I was replying to Laura.

Trouble is I don't think there can be any experts here, other than those who point out the premium over net asset value which all of us except the warrant holders have paid, which is not necessarily an argument against buying -- unless you believe a trickle of sellers (or a mass of unsold warrant shares) are in danger of driving the price down further.

If they spend their money wisely, there is no reason why the company should not be worth the current 5p or more in time. Whether they have that skill remains to be seen.

The published accounts show the directors paying themselves very modestly so I would hazard a good guess as to who have been the major beneficiaries of the ability to exit at higher than the placing or warrant prices.

I think all of us who have any more substance to our posts than the two most recent by those who know/hope the price will rise tomorrow recognise that this is an out and out gamble; that the price in the short term could go either way until there is some evidence that anything the company is doing has a hope in hell of producing first revenue and hopefully a profit; and many people are put off by the share consolidation and resulting gift to warrant holders, and the paid ads.

And JBatch I am embarrassed to admit I was one of the idiots initially sucked in by the ads in the low 20s, and doubly embarrassed because in the last century I was a financial journalist writing about investments. But as they say, dentists have bad teeth and car mechanics drive old bangers. In my dotage I had no idea that companies publicising their own shares no longer had their directors' collars felt and the shares effectively delisted through peer-pressure ostracism. Although ancient, I am not too old to learn from my mistakes, and am comforted that my total exposure to a total of 5 gambling shares of this sort represents under 1% of my liquid dividend earning shares and their average 5% yield.

Thanks.

Am I right to assume you are a fundamentalist who also uses charts?

Either way what is your view of the two bullish posts about tomorrow's opening? A re-test of the previous 4p floor seems more likely to me, thus widening my existing small loss on my tiny 5p punt.

Spreadbetting

Thanks . That’s one trick I think I can’t be bothered to learn in my dotage.

Thanks BagMann, you are confirming what I have always believed to be the case, but some others apparently think all the buyers and sellers are automatically matched, which they are clearly not.

Dusty re Laura

Presumably she knows how to short, which I don't and which I thought only market makers and professionals could do through stock lending.

I see from a Google search that some brokers do offer such a faclity in stocks which THEY hold. Is this not another example of how brokers and market makers can independently hold positions which may give them an incentive to see the price move one way or another, quite unlike the matched trading through SETS which LTI told me authoritatively was the case?

Jbatch

Could you tell me what would constitue a sensible discussion about a share with no independent valuation of its various intangibles, and no predicted revenue stream. For that we have to wait the next annual report: any investment or disinvestment before then will be entirely speculative.

In the current valuation void a sensible discussion does not consist of someone "believing" that the price will rise or fall to x or y. It DOES consist of understanding the differnce between a warrant and new shares issued to cover them, and what equity dilution means. In the case of this company it can also embrace whether the price is being artificially manipulated, either by probably illegal paid adverts, or people either paid to ramp or with nothing better to do than pretend they have shareholdings which they may not have. For this reason whether the postings of JS are fact or fantasy are very much my business, thank you, because a potential overhang of the sort of shareholding he claims to have bought, mostly at much higher prices, constitutes a natural resistance point if the share were to start rising again.

By the way, does anyone know (or care) where has Laura gone?

Ah, if we are into FAITH you have got me. I prefer to see some stigmata, or at least have some reason to believe they might appear.

I think most people of faith like to pretend their is some factual basis for their otherwise irrational beliefs and practices.

Why should the price move either way? Isn't it just the ratio of new buyers to old sellers?

BagMann

Thanks, makes more sense than LTI’s simplistic SETS response: maybe not the fount of all knowledge his postings suggest.

PS to previous

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?

LTI

Many thanks, I am clearly SO out of date.

So on any one day the sales info on this site should equal the purchases.

In which case we can work out how many of the 93m warrant shares have been sold (or indeed if we go far enough back, how many of the 300m)

Next week should be the possibly final shakeout then, subject to the chartists not all agreeing it's a massive BUY.

Next funding, do you think they would dare risking an open offer to their 85% speculative ownership at a discount to NAV?

LTI

Are you suggesting the market makers (we used to call them jobbers” only match purchasers with sellers, viz never take a position? I’m learning something every day, very welcome at my age. But are you sure you are right on this one?

Dusty could we please agree to disagree on this, but in a civilised and respectful way not typical of this board.

I think knowledge of the potential overhang of share sales, from ex-warrant shareholders and allegedly heavily invested investing giants as JS claims to be, is absolutely fundamental in understanding future share price movements, as I was trying to tease out for S's benefit.

But that's only a crutch I use after nearly 60 years of stockmarket experience; although most of it was admittedly in the very different world of pre "big bang". But that's why I also think it IS all our business whether JS and his possibly illegal concert parties exist, and that claims like JS's, whose trades do not appear to show up in the trading records, are dangerous, not just for us but potentially for him: as they say in the warning whenever you post a message "information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse. This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison. If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse click here."

Have his several critics "clicked here"?

Despite my age I am never to old to learn, nor admit when I don't understand something.

S earlier "all I am seeing is many buys at full share price and more and more of these sales and very little movement in the share price".

Can some tell me what are represented by the trades which appear in grey at the top of the dealing page after the market closed? This seems to be the only record of any deals of any size -- and I mean the many millions needed to shift the 93m recent warrant conversion share issue. Are these off market deals or what? How do they happen? The reported daily dealings are all miniscule.

Has anyone gone back and added up the total sales since the warrant shares were issued? I realise this is not a widespread view, but I think a lot of those "new" shareholders who came through exercising their warrants may only have sold enough shares to pay back their warrant costs, and are in "for free" with the balance, hoping for something more than 5p.

If the volume and value of share sales continuously outweighs buys and the price still stays steady, it would normally suggest the market makers have a lot of stock on their hand acquired at lower prices, which seems impossible. Has anyone younger and wiser than me got any answers? LTI perhaps??

S

Are you confusing EXERCISING warrants, when the warrant holders pay their 2p to MET1's coffers, and when they subsequently sell some or all of their shares to optimists like us who think they may one day be worth more than we are paying for them.

If you click on my name you will find an earlier post explaing this in more detail, if I have understood your puzzlement correctly?