Member Info for semantic

Further.....applying the principle of Occam's Razor, what's left is the bigger picture as his motivation. He has more or less supplied finance when none has been available elsewhere, is ostensibly a long term investor, seems to have succession sorted out, so all that's left is the eventual result of his efforts over the past 6 years. If I am right then he is not aligned with most shareholders here who seem to have shorter horizons

Tyke68, I know no more than anyone but as an shareholder and observer, my guess is that TB is not bothered by the share price in the medium/short term, after all he has seen a share price a high of 22p and a low of 0.8p without changing from 29.9%. Why would he care about the fluctuations in the share price while it has no impact on him personally?

Steve124 The broker option was not really relevant and was only provided at the insistance of the IQAI Board, what was relevant was the very weak interest in a placing and the price demanded by placees to subscribe. The near paralysis of small cap fund raising in general ois easy to check if you are really intertested in the circumstances here. I think you describe a ‘Rights Issue’ in your last paragraph, though don’t use this term, this is something which is no longer practicable for small companies the cost would have been huge and the outcome uncertain – this is why the practice in recent years for very small caps has been placings with dis-application of pre-emption rights. The price is always set by the market, never the Board, what subscribers are willing to pay. Finally, more than £170k was raised (£370k actually) but only because Fab was able to take £170k, the maximum amount legally possible. It would have failed or been at an even lower price without that cornerstone investor.

Cautious11 regardless of who subscribes, TB/Fab could only subscribe to shares to take the combuned maximum to 29.9%. ‘close accomplices’ this is the kind of term which is libellous really, you assert it without any evidence. Finally any shareholder in the months after the placing could buy in at below the placing price – including today – at an even ‘greedier’ price to use your perjorative term.

Both: Why not assess the prospects of your Company instead, I presume we are all shareholders here?

Jimzi, what is the unfair advantage you allege ?

Broadly, my perspective is that TB/Fab have consistently held the maximum number of shares allowed over many years, Any dealings in placings, conversions of the CLs, or sales of shares during this 5 year period have not changed this. Any other shareholder is no more or less exposed than this holding, and it is difficult to see how any shareholder has been disadvantaged during this saga. A good example is the one you provide, during the period that Fab reduced its holding, so did many other shareholders, and any of them could have bought the shares again at a lower price, or participated in the fund raising, though without the restriction faced by a holder of 29%. What I struggle with, is how any of this is relevant to the operations of the company, you can argue the share price may have been affected, you can argue about trust, but there can be zero impact on any of this at the FDA and in the development of perfusion and in any and every other corner of operational activity being undertaken continuously by the scientists and medics here. That is what will deterning the future not wild and unsubstantiated allegations about TB.

Geeforce2010 That's not quite right. The shares were not 'bought back', they were new shares subscribed at a cost of about £170k which went into the Company, the maximum allowed. Without the headroom resulting from the share sales you refer to Fab could not have participated in the fund raising at all, and it would have failed, judging by the lack of interest in the broker option and modest take up of the placing. geeforce2010 this is a good example of the lack of objective research - much better to talk about the prospects for the Company surely?

Xviolet, Most of the posts seem to be about alleged manipulation of the share price by TB/Fab, somehow to the advantage of TB. The share price was 4-5p between September and December 2023, if the manipulation theory is correct, why didn’t he sell his whole holding at say 4.5p, i.e. three times the current share price?

Why was the placing supported by TB/Fab to the maximum (i.e. combined 29%), even though hardly anyone participated in the open offer, or supported the placing? History shows that TB has often supported the Company financially commencing four years ago with the £0.5m convertible loans and followed by maximum participation in placings subsequently. The facts do not suggest this is the action of a manipulative CEO. The problem here is that some shareholders have paid (including me) above the current share price and are under water, but nobody is more under water than TB. The small cap markets have been dire over the past year, and this includes IQAI, but the facts suggest that TB has supported the Company consistently and openly regardless. Blaming others for questionable investment decisions is a distraction from useful analysis of the fundamentals. The debate here has become toxic in recent months and nobody benefits

Can we move on and discuss the prospects of the business now?

But Jimzi, while that could be true it could equally be not true. If you think about it, if the investment case is sound, it doesn't really matter what you think of the CEO, after all, he's not the one conducting the Phase One trial, developing Perfusion products, and it is apparently irrelevant to GE, the FDA i.e. the real decision makers here. The shares have pretty consistently been held by TB and Fab at close to 29%. plus insiders. so about 40% in firm hands. I suggest the reason you make the assumption about trust is mainly because the shares have not performed as well as you had hoped in your time-frame - if I am wrong where is the evidence about your trust theory and how could it be true if (as far as we can judge) non of the important partners and institutions working with IQAI are having a trust problem ?

One of the problems here is that there is zero interest from institutions because it is too small. Many institutions won't look at anything less than £20m, and often £50m. This leaves the share price to be determined by whatever small shareholders do on any particular day. The average bargain size is truly tiny, today for example £225, £21, £20, £20. Many days £12k of transactions can move the market cap by £200k. Its obviously not a reflection of the value of the company - how could it be? However such is the declared despair amongst some posters here, that 'meaning' is extracted from a few tiny bargains when there clearly isn't any. Where is the discussion about the investment case here, pros and cons? Clearly there is much going on - it's not as if the company keep it secret . The insiders have significant shareholdings and are presumably just getting on with the job, or so we hope

Trevor Brown obsession is getting in the way of useful discussion about the Company. 1. Like all shareholders TB has seen the value of his shareholding fall this year (in his case by £1m+) difficult to see how he has supposedly gained as some have suggested 2. Critics of the placing have been able to buy the shares at less than the placing price for some months now after TB interests had to provide the majority of the funds because the market wouldn't. 3. TB has provided a significant proportion of £3m additional funding to the company over the last few years. Meanwhile the work goes on, much of on the public record, e.g. the FDA, and the share price, driven by mostly small volume (£12k's worth today) is interpreted by some as a communication of some kind.

Trek, wild assumptions are not usually your style. Suggest you check average Phase One costs from the same source, and then compare and contrast with IQAI’s Phase One costs, also note the intended number of participants on the Phase Two trial here…

Clearly the future is in smart building design, there really isn't an argument against is there. If you wanted to invest in the sector there seems nowhere else to go. Aukett has barely any visibility amongst the usual followers of small companies - two posts here in a week for example. The BOD aren't doing anything much to change this at present, but this is likely to change. One significant contrarian investor has taken stealthily taken a position. Over 5 years could this be a ten bagger (ground floor) or a hundred bagger (basement) - I have no idea and neither have you, but on a probable outcome basis, any downside such as there is, looks comfortably covered and the upside is in for zilch

Jim Mellon recently interviewed in link

Https://youtu.be/NC2ymIDs8Ic?si=3fCNdXmUkL81F6U2

Https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AUK/holdings-in-company-gog43km565blgyo.html

....I'm surprised by how quietly this was received

This is evidently a business which has NEVER made a profit over many years and evidently can only survive by arranging a placing every year or so. These are facts on which the 'pros' and 'cons' should be able to agree. As for opinion, my opinion is that peoples 'views' are derived from how many share they own and at the price they paid rather than any sincere belief in the company's prospects. There is not really any other likely explanation for the torrent or posts from Laura22 for example. There have been 29 posts today and not one word has contained any new thought on this company. Whilst there are shares on AIM which can be bought for a penny or so, there will be 'investors' buying them and pumping them for a quick trading profit - this has nothing to do the with the fundamentals of this company which are absolutely awful to any objective and intelligent commentator acting in good faith

Aberystwyth you embarrass yourself, but the sad thing is you don't realize it. Nobody on this planet would either short such an illiquid tiddler and equally such a low-rent situation couldn't support a "PAID" poster such as exist in your paranoid fantasy. It was a mistake to buy these shares but no do not solicit the cash of the wise who are uninvested to rescue from your own bad judgement

You spout such tosh Laura2022, the trades you refer to amount to a net value of £1200. If you present that as "some nice buys" you are clearly acting in bad faith. I think most here understand this but I am here to help tilt the balance against your more ridiculous unchallenged fictions

01-Dec-23 16:29:41 1.69 50,000 Buy* 845.00 O

01-Dec-23 16:25:39 1.636 31,293 Sell* 511.95 O

01-Dec-23 16:03:04 1.70 2,412 Buy* 41.00 O

01-Dec-23 15:25:15 1.67 50,000 Buy* 835.00

Other than in your mind there is Zero connection between FAB news and PYC - you are now deliberately misleading others and you know it

Ignorance or stupidity on display again, not sure which. A bucket shop placing at a savage discount is not a fund raising done 'remarkably well' TRENCH123