Member Info for semantic

Tyke, the new shares were readily bought by many old and new shareholders, so that is just not correct, also there have been 18 RNS in the past 12 months, an average of one and a half a month so the Board is not inactive either.

17th March, the market cap of IQAI was £2.9m. It raised £0.25m cash at 1p on the 18th. Yesterday 10 days later the market cap is £2.1m. There has been no news during this period. Rationally a business worth £2.9m which raises £0.25m cash should then be worth the sum of those two numbers, a little less than £3.15m, instead it is 30% less

Paladin, the Company raised £0.25m at 1p 10 days ago. Today the bid price is .85p after £12,300 worth of shares changed hands in 24 trades at an average bargain value of £512. How does this "benefit the CEO and his associates"?

Here we go again, there has been quite a bit of newsflow and many shares traded over past weeks, presumably eliminating many of the weak holders, short term punters, and pseudo-investors, however the share price falters a tad for no reason apparently, other than a few more sellers than buyers on a couple of days, and the board goes full paranoia/tb shenanoïgans/the world is coming to an end mode. Bonkers.

Maximillion, my response to your post about Braveheart

Proverbial wisdom tells us never to put all our eggs in one basket, but an inversion of that advice has been ascribed to the renowned humorist Mark Twain and the business titan Andrew Carnegie.

On June 23, 1885 Andrew Carnegie addressed the students of Curry Commercial College of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He gave pungent guidance to the learners which included a repudiation of the traditional adage about baskets and eggs.

The concerns which fail are those which have scattered their capital, which means that they have scattered their brains also. They have investments in this, or that, or the other, here, there and everywhere. “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is all wrong. I tell you “put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.” Look round you and take notice; men who do that do not often fail. It is easy to watch and carry the one basket. It is trying to carry too many baskets that breaks most eggs in this country. He who carries three baskets must put one on his head, which is apt to tumble and trip him up.

To make a general point, the quality of debate is only as good as the contributions here. Any thoughtful and curious contributor is quickly put off by the moronic and half- baked assertions of posters, who always seem to out number the thoughtful and curious ones. This eventually leads to a wasteland for discussion as the people who really have something to say will just stop posting. This is what is happening here. Does anyone seriously consider the evidence or lack of it? I made the point recently that newcomers here have not much idea about what IQAI does, so by implication, even less idea about TB, and do any of you seriously believe (for example) that an acquisitive predator would not make an offer for the business because of TB shenanigans. Its totally bonkers, but the real problem is the effect is to stifle intelligent debate

cautious, then how do you know about them and assert it is so? the quality of debate is enhanced if we stick to the facts, 7%-11% of the us population believe the apollo moon landings were faked and 40% believe in creationism. what percentage here believe that tb shenanigans is responsible for the 'under valuation' of iqai though there is zero evidence that this is so? you asserted that what i wrote was complete bull**** but were unable to provide any evidence.

No examples then?

Cautious, if what you are saying (emphatically) is true, please share some examples of this phenomenon of an investment company or acquirer taking this action with a £4m market cap company. Additionally i would suggest from my own experience that a 29,9% holder on the register is additionally a powerful deterrent

Tyke, its a chicken and egg situation. IQAI is barely visible (to anyone that matters) because of its tiny market cap. This leaves the share price subject to the whims and paranoias of so called private 'investors' I am aware that some here are patient or unwilling long term holders but they are not responsible for the buying and selling and myriad posts here in recent days. The irrelevance of TB is illustrated by the ignorance of many new posters here recently who have little understanding of what the Company does and by implication have no view on TB and his so called 'shenanigans'. The problem appears to be one of perception, if the company is so great why is the share price so low? In the absence of more reflective and intelligent analysis, the lesser thinkers here will recycle the TB factor in preference to doing some really hard thinking about their investment.

The point is the disparity of perspective here, every few days pulling up the plant like a child to see if there are any sings of root growth. If it is going to happen (and none of us knows) it is unlikely to be over the duration of a few months of holding

Nvidia, Apple, Amazon. There are many other examples, and my guess is that most 2015 holders had they been here would have sold Nvidia at $3 in 2016, Apple at $60 the following year, Amazon similarly $34 a year later...

Ten years ago, 50c, $23, $14, today $138, $246, $189. Which companies and what I wonder were people thinking about those prices in 2015?

I had a look and found we are listed under plug-ins on the Aycan site

Tyke thinking further about this, the news flow hasn't moved the share price for a while now, so even if the Company launches a publicity campaign it seem unlikely to have any impact on the share price. The serious buyers who are theoretically interested would be deterred as soon as they note tiny market cap, £2.5m is invisible for most serious investors. As far as I'm aware IQAI has no institutional interest and hasn't had any in the past except West Coast which was just a legacy hangover. The pitiful size of the average trade over many months would also deter serious interest.

The RNS states: "potential partners to provide funding for a phase 2 trial." I have no idea of the identity of the potential partners and like you, can only guess, but it does seem unlikely to be TB and/or gang

Tyke, the facts can be arranged in different ways but they remain the facts. One of the facts is a share price which stays more or less the same though the facts change. Do we at least have evidence that the paranoid TB explanations so passionately held here by some are demonstrably without foundation. If "TB shenanigans" were the explanation for the low share price, that share price and perception would be already reflected and built in. Then any news which was value enhancing would nevertheless result in a change in the share price because it was already discounting the TB effect and new information would still have an effect. There is no new TB effect to discount, only new news. It could be that like life there may not really be any meaning other than what we project onto it. This is what we are doing with IQAI. It seems impossible that all the facts we are aware of aren't of interest to anyone else. Is anyone looking, it seems the evidence it that the answer is no. Many were convinced that if only the Board communicated the share price would respond, now we see that that hypothesis was false....

The perspective of a trader rather than an investor perhaps

IB is the sole operating subsidiary of IQAI, so it is effectively the same company. Mike is CEO of IB but also the other executive director of IQAI, i.e. he is part of the Board of IQAI which determines strategy and finances the activities of IB. There are two NED's also, so Board decisions are made by TB, MS, VK, BS. and thus could not be made by TB alone.