Member Info for semantic

Bertie, Tyke and others. The directors are not responsible for the share price in the short term, this is a matter for the ratio of buyers to sellers. In actuality, the regulatory bodies are vey clear about the responsibility of directors in this regard and directors are pretty much hemmed in on legal actions they can take which they know will influence the share price. Longer term of course the directors actions will have an impact on the share price, but by long term surely we mean a few years. Other than mining for example, how can a business be developed materially in such a way that material changes could be communicated every few weeks?

Are the sellers exhausted. Ceteris paribus at some point the sellers who wanted to sell will have sold, and the supply will have ended. My instinct is that the pattern has changed - regardless of prevailing shareholder view about the Company. In reality we all buy or sell based on conviction (because we have equal access to the public information). If we are right in our decision and the share prices rises we can claim credit for our investment skill, and if we're wrong we can blame Trevor Brown again!

It could be that the share price is being 'walked' up slowly because there is a buyer, The 'institutions' you refer to are unlikely to 'suddenly become interested in the company at a higher valuation". A buyer or experience might take the view that at each progressively higher bd price, a certain number of shares will come out. This would be how an institution buys a micro-cap. Certainly the action of the past few days could be text book accumulation. Or it could equally be random market noise....

i am observing that the share price has changed direction though nothing new is in the public domain to provide an explanation. when the direction is down with nothing new in the public domain to provide an explanation, the conspi******s, market 'opinionistas' and other timorous posters pour forth paranoid opinions to explain the inexplicable - so where are they now ?

Rabbits caught in the headlights? The market whisperers are unusually quiet right now. In the recent past they have confidently 'interpreted' movements in the share price as meaningful (if its going down it must be for a 'reason') and they have communicated inappropriate panic amongst other timorous 'investors'. But where is their superstitious and primitive voice now? In their parlance, the 'market' is now 'saying' something different, but what is it (will they enlighten us please?)

They don't appear to have fast track, though it appears to be unusual to get it during the course of a phase one trial

Not really, the Phase one trial is nearly completed

To clarify the differences. The IQAI Phase One trial is for treatment of relapsed GBM only. The trial commenced March 2022 and first patent enrolled May 2022. February 2023 FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation for adult and paediatric GBM. December 2023 FDA granted Fast Track Designation for the development of gallium maltolate for the treatment of relapsed GBM

The

If shareholders had voted against this resolution the placing couldn't have happened.

Resolution 6: Disapplication of shareholders’ statutory pre-emption rights

Shareholders are being asked to pass a special resolution to empower the Directors to allot equity

securities, or sell treasury shares, for cash as if section 561(1) of the Companies Act (which gives

Shareholders certain pre-emption rights on the issue of shares or convertible securities) did not apply to

any such allotment. The authority allows the issue or sale of ordinary shares limited to shares having an

aggregate nominal amount of up to £270,945, representing 67,736,240 Ordinary Shares of 0.4 pence each

or 50% of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company.

The problem is that a rational Board will always raise money from share issues because

1. They can

2. If expenses exceed income (i.e. it is chronically loss making) this is the only solution available to the Company

3. The Company has been able to get the support of shareholders every year through the Dis-application of Pre-Emption Rights Special Resolution being passed

4. I can't think of a reason for a Board not to do it - can anyone?

One characteristic of small caps in the last few months, is that good news improves the liquidity of those companies announcing it, which counter intuitively, can cause the share price to fall because stale frustrated sellers are able to unload into the temporary increase in liquidity. For this reason even if there were 'good ' news, it isn't clear that it would be 'good' for the share price.

The authority, wisdom and knowledge many here attribute to 'the market' is today, typically revealed to be the activities of 15 trades at an average of 12k shares with a value of about £120. This is not the activity of investors I would suggest, but it is typical of activity here....Would anyone care to explain how such activity has any meaning ?

TheSeawolf. makes an interesting assertion 'the market' 'can see'. We can all agree that there is no evidence that there is an entity 'the market' with a collective mind, though what a comfort it would be if there were. What I see is that there are marginally more sellers than buyers (remember no share can be sold unless it is to a corresponding buyer), amongst a tiny 1.5m million shares traded for about £15k - an average bargain value of £550. If this is 'the market' then it has 'decided' that the whole Company is worth 13% less than last night and it . It really is time to act like adults here and not like frightened children imagining the wardrobe in the darkened bedroom could actually be a monster!

A few general observations, the factual basis of my observations are in the public domain already. BertieBasset. Financing, see the last auditors report on going concern etc, and previous years. Its all there if anyone is interested enough to research it. Tyke posted “Let’s see how the market reacts this time”, the answer is 24 trades and 1.5m shares have traded, at a VWAP of 1.3p or £820 per bargain. The ‘market’ here is clearly the same as the people waiting to see what the ‘market’ is making of it. Jimzi is probably never going to see things in an objective way. Fortunately he makes clear his predisposition to negativity and personalising matters, so many will just discount what he posts. I think Jimzi might help us all to understand his perspective if he were to be honest as to his reasons, presumably the main reason is that his holding, if he has one, is showing a loss. Jimzi’s 20p couldn’t sell statement is also incorrect, at the time of that spike, (research it) very heavy volume was a feature of that rise, I recollect 70m shares were traded one day and more than 100m over a very few days. A substantial holder could easily have sold their holidng in one trading session. I am perfectly willing to engage in serious debate if I can help achieve a balanced view here. There is a bull and a bear case to be made, and much in between probably

Jimzi, I suspect nothing will change your mind about this, but Fab are not insiders, if they were they could not deal in the shares legally unless they were not privy to market sensitive information. It is also the case that the combined TB/Fab holding remained at 29%, before and after any share sales and placing participation. Clearly it was not possible for anybody to know last year, what the share price would be a few months later, anymore than it is possible to know now, what the share price will be at the end of this year.

Tyke68, a similar exercise can be done for the other projects and products to arrive at an array of possible outcomes over time. If these potential outcomes can be weighted by probability and then aggregated, you will have a number which is a very sophisticated guess. Most investments are made on the basis of a sophisticated guess, how could it be otherwise - we can't know the future. For arguments sake let's say the projected total value in 4 years time is £10m on one basis and £100m on another, is either projection going to have a positive impact on present value? Stocks can stay overvalued and undervalued for a very long time. A possible spanner in the works would be a bid and take out of the company. Bids happen because the bidder's sophisticated guess is better informed than the value reflected in the then share price. The best defence against an opportunistic and 'cheap' bid is likely to be the insider's more informed view of value, an advantage in having effective control in the hands of those shareholders. Many here would otherwise sell out on a 5x current share price is my guess. In this analysis revenue and profit along the way is mainly useful to keep the lights on, as matters hopefully progress

Consider the share price ‘valuation’ of IQAI. A substantial number of shares are held by insiders who do not, and most of the time, cannot trade. There are no other significant shareholders. This is not unusual for a micro cap but it does mean that most holdings are relatively small and most activity is from traders rather than investors There is no independent research (exclude paid for research). So the price of shares is determined by the activity of the small shareholders that day or week. Sentiment (for that is what it must be since no shareholder is privy to exclusive information that caused them to buy or sell that day) seems to move wildly for no reason. Assertions are made as fact which are usually ill-informed or not thought out, but can never be based upon new information unless the Company has published it. As the share price moves around violently on small turnover observers feel the need to explain something which is most likely caused by randomness. Posters talk about ‘the market’ without realising that they are ‘the market’ for this share.

Consider valuation principles. Present share price is conventionally the discounted future value. Two problems here. It seems that other than insiders, few shareholders are medium or long term investors. They have bought the shares to sell at a profit next month or next year, and are focussed on and demand news which will enable them to do this. The question of what the value of the Company could be in three, four, five, ten years time, is just not discussed. Current market cap is around £2.5m. Nobody knows for sure that the market cap will be in three years time but it is what intelligent rational investors should be thinking about when trying to decide to buy or sell the shares. Anyone can do some desktop research on the value of a successfully completed Phase One trial, or (if it happens) a successfully completed Phase Two, what ‘ordinary’ revenue could be in three years time and what multiple to apply to that estimated number if so, what are the chances of failure over that period and so on. One thing is clear, the success or otherwise of the Company is unrelated to the shareholding activity of the CEO, the current obsession of many posters here

Tyke68 That's a standard resolution but not the same as an intention to buy, rather having a madater to buy should the directors decide it is in the interest of shareholders. I will post my thoughts on valuation in a moment

While directors might rightfully be concerned about the share price on behalf of shareholders, their power to influence it is extremely restricted by Company Law and FCA Regulations. Also the 'macro' environment is not something in the control of any Board and can often be the major component of share price changes. Look in general at the small and micro cap market and you will see evidence of the macro in many anomalous valuations. I can't find any mention of him suggesting buy-backs - where did you find that? The error (I would say) is to believe that the share price is a rational reflection of prospects, this is the 'efficient market hypothesis', but as Warren Buffet has said, the market is irrational quite often and is like a drunkard offering shares at random prices from time to time. In IQAI's case you can see clearly, that the shares can currently be bought for a fraction of what people were paying last year, but the illogic is to attribute 'meaning' from a circularity. The shares are 'cheap' so something must be wrong. Who was posting here when the shares were say, 5p that they were too 'dear'. Truth is counterintuitive one could argue. As to votes, the democratic structure of companies allows for different opinions to be expressed, however nowhere near enough votes against were recorded to effect a change in board composition. Ultimately a shareholder can simply sell their shares if disillusioned - nobody is a prisoner here