I thought you'd decided to retire from the field for the time being. In what way and where is Sparrow "well respected and influential"? He's certainly cheap. Not many people would agree to join an empty shell as CEO for no salary. For the record I never have nor would I accuse Sparrow of being underhand. I'm not sure why you think I'm a bitter person. Just the opposite.Nothing to be bitter about. I have a great life.You really should try and relax. Who knows a miracle might happen. haha, x
Whilst Sparrow might desire a big pay off the reality is somewhat different. The original game plan was to big up the value of SMA's assets to reinforce the NAV/share. In the outcome all that's left is a fast diminishing cash pile and some shares of dubious value in a highly speculative Canadian outfit. You talk about Sparrow's calibre but all the evidence points to a fairly shaky recent business history. As time marches on shares in SMA are looking mighty precarious.
You are quite right about sherry in general and most "en rama" bottling's in particular. They're very underpriced for such great quality. My personal favourites are from Lustau. However your other comments are tripe (which incidentally I find disgusting)
I am not Codders. I have only ever posted here under the Sarkozy handle and solely to comment on SMA.
So you're not going to address my point. Every time it comes to the crunch you're evasive and plain rude.You have a simple agenda which is to boost these shares at the expense of new investors. I've never read one credible reason from you why anyone would wish to invest in SMA.
You are deflecting again. You are avoiding answering my core observation regarding the intrinsic value of SMA and therefore the main obstacle to doing a deal. The first RTO I did back in the 80's was because we were too small at that point for a traditional listing. The second was the sale of a shell with no assets except the quote. I acquired control for a tiny sum, cleaned it up and sold it on. The third was in order to obtain a decent sum of cash. The last one was the sale of an unsuccessful AIM company which went for NAV plus a small premium for the quote. I can tell you that I have never met a RTO candidate that was willing to agree a deal for a shell at more than it's identifiable value. Another way is for SMA to somehow discover assets that just turn out to be more worth substantially more than they're paying. Regrettably I'm too old to believe in fairy tales. Finally, if the SMA BoD decides to go for a whopper deal (and are able to finance it) they could do it at 0.1p or less and issue themselves with even more warrants and options to acquire a decent stake if the investment pans out. Whatever outcome transpires you can be sure that the interests of the existing non BoD shareholders will be ignored. Your investment is dead money as far as the BoD is concerned and you'll be diluted to b'all.
It's a beautiful day here. Sunny and warm. Although it's true that I enjoy good food I take care of myself. Thank you though for your kind concern. I'm not bitter about anything. In fact the opposite. I enjoy my life and realise that I'm very fortunate. My concern is for the people who have and are being suckered into SMA by Pearl and his like. I don't deny that, in theory, it's possible to find a good RTO. However, the reality is that SMA has little to offer unless new investors can be persuaded to invest considerable sums in order to finance such a deal. Undeniably the core value of SMA is a few hundred thousand plus the "quote". It's just as easy for a private company to join AIM as it is to carry out a reverse unless the existing AIM company comes already equipped with deep pocketed investors/and or oodles of cash. I don't see either of those attributes in SMA. Therefore any deal that SMA does is likely to prove massively dilutive. My argument is and always has been that a deal cannot be realistically struck at more than 0.1p given the amount of cash and assets available within SMA. Any deal that involves SMA issuing shares at around the current share price would invite considerable scrutiny and cynicism about the underlying prospects of the RTO. I would also comment that it would be almost impossible to find investors willing to subscribe for cash around the current price level unless the prospects of the RTO were extraordinary in which case you would have to wonder why the RTO owner had agreed to sell his company and/or assets for a fraction of their "real" value. There is no escaping these fundamental principles.
It needs to move to 0.1p or lower in order to do a deal an outcome that looks increasingly unlikely
Which are the "famous" companies where Rupert Street has been CEO? The last two companies he worked at are now non operating.
You poor deluded fool
Sell. What sort of fool buys shares of a rather unattractive shell at 12 times NAV?
No. It may not be similar enough. Tax losses are notoriously difficult to use even if it's a company in the same sector.
Another sucker...
Tax losses will be very difficult to use unless the RTO is in a very similar business activity.
Do you know Howard Shore? Didn't think so. As to "lies" and "malicious false statements" you are quite wrong. Seems that I've rattled you little sausage!
I have nothing to be bitter about in relation to SMA. My point which you have glossed over concerns intrinsic value. Why would any incoming RTO candidate be willing to accept consideration in the form of shares which are overvalued by 12 times net assets? No legitimate enterprise would be willing to do a deal at more than net asset value per share plus a small premium for the listing (if any). If SMA had millions it would certainly be attractive but with only a few hundred thousand there will be nothing left over after the costs of a RTO are taken into account. There is a further problem relating to the dilutive effect of substantial number of warrants awarded to Giles & his chum. Hope springs eternal but you need to face facts. Or is it that you don't understand what I'm telling you?
I guess you're new here. I didn't say Giles was a failure. That would be daft. I was referring to the flotsam he's appointed since clambering aboard. Giles was brought on board by Shore Capital, the NOMAD which was fed up with the appalling mismanagement of Pearl, the previous Chairman. Clearly, Giles either didn't conduct a sufficiently rigorous due diligence or was legged over by the previous management. In the outcome it's turned out as I predicted. There's nothing underpinning SMA by way of hard assets other than a diminishing cash pot that accounts for approximately 0.04p/share. It's therefore hard to justify the current price of 0.50p equivalent to over 12 times NAV/share. The correct valuation of SMA is not more than 0.05 to 0.07p a far cry from the current level and well below the price paid by Giles. Unless Giles and his team can miraculously find a RTO candidate or other assets to inject where there is a substantial likelihood of value uplift SMA will likely be delisted in less than six months time. To suggest that the share price will ascend from this level is naive. Bear in mind that Giles has been in charge since December 2015 and that nothing of real significance has been achieved. This dog has almost had it's day.
These are financial minnows-not big names. The fact that they're prepared to devote any time at all to SMA is because they've failed elsewhere and are willing to offer their services on a "commission" basis. Other than Giles and his cohort there has been no hard cash invested in SMA. In any event Giles' investment wouldn't buy a studio apartment in Glasgow! Your expectations of SMA are ludicrous. This is a busted flush that'll be lucky not to end up in liquidation. The clock is ticking: tick, tick...
My reply was genuine and factually correct. I have been consistent in my observations regarding SMA whose shares are now of nugatory value (as I predicted). It's nothing to do with being negative. It's about truth and honesty and preventing innocent people from being duped by unscrupulous share promoters and their disciples. Your reply to my response (which you requested) was both rude and unnecessary. The truth sometimes hurts. Doesn't it?
I suggested £1000 on the basis that it's clearly a lot of money for you. If you like I'll make it a million but I doubt you'll be taking me up on my offer as you are clearly a coward