Member Info for semaphorRed

"I would much rather have his incorrect assumptions than your drivel constantly berating someone.

Its honestly embarrassing watching the constant attacks on someone who's only crime is providing information and hoping."

But the information was presented as fact, argumentatively, was proven to be incorrect nonsense and now has been just glossed over. At best this is posting disingenuously and doing so under the cover of bombarding the board with sometimes dozens of posts per day. You may not know this because you've only posted 6 times and are obviously new here which isn't suspicious at all 🤔

Takeover chat has been ubiquitous with this share for many years. There's no evidence for it, and in my opinion it's nonsense. We barely have II interest in a small amount of shares and even when we do they end up selling quickly. And from that we get people talk about IIs buying the whole thing? Evidence suggests the opposite and the argument that "they'd want the company while it's cheap" is faintly ridiculous - yes, you can say that about anyone buying anything. They could buy it now if they want but won't because there's no proven product, and when there is it'll be priced with the assumption of a market wider than any single buyer. While anything's possible, I don't see us *ever* being bought.

"And why does the influencer select the 'strong buy' option every time?"

They're a professional stock analyst. I assume.

Better on Reddit.

"46G is obvioudly referring to material news which would have an RNS."

I know he is, and I agree with him. My comment is that, in addition to RNSable news of which we're still waiting, there may have been very significant progress behind the scenes in the last couple of months on a number of fronts that we're not privy to, which is what happened last year while we were all (understandably) fretting only to find out progress was actually being made.

"was Q2 going to be a very busy period"

It could've been very busy *without* updates by RNS. We know H2 24 was.

I can't see how MSAR is going to be on the Leandra tomorrow without the Cargill contract - we're getting way, way ahead of ourselves.

"that the trial will begin in May,"

"The trial is expected to commence in May"

Sorry, but it's basic English really. "Expected to" and "will" have completely different meanings.

"assertion that an expected event is cast in stone"

I don't even think it's an expected event, for me that's going too far. It's guidance, but I heard it as May being the soonest it could happen. I think that June would be just as "expected" as May.

"crucially was not the reason for the trial ending."

I don't think it was. But equally, Maersk took a decision so unusual and unexpected that they essentially hid from the decision, lied to the market, and ran away. It's a poor example, therefore, of a likely scenario during a LONO trial.

"Everything you say now about MSC could equally have been said about Maersk. How did that work out?"

The exception that proves the rule. Buoygate. The termination of the trial was caused by randomly striking a buoy. If we avoid literally crashing the ship, we're home free.

"However, again, the decision that matters is whether they sign a commercial agreement or not."

Yep. It's like signing that marriage certificate - the bit that makes it all legal. But there are precious few marriages that fail to proceed in the registry office. Most of the time there'll have been years of getting to know each other, living together, maybe even exchanging expensive rings and inviting stakeholders from far and wide to share in the moment. The signature at the registry office is indeed the single moment that seals the deal but everyone knows that deal was nailed down far, far in advance.

"when they make the decision that matters is when they have all the data, that’s not a “legal” point, it’s reality."

Incorrect, that's not how people make decisions. Decisions are made in steps. People (and companies) don't go along collecting data indiscriminately and make an all-or-nothing decision once they have it. MSC has signed a binding agreement. They already have almost all data required - including data about their own business, the global market, regulations now and in the future, fuel availability and prices, and how the Quadrise product suite may fit into this matrix now and in the future. The tiny amount of missing data is this: will a test of Quadrise MSAR fail a LONO trial where it succeeded in an interim LONO previously? The answer is almost certainly not.

"My point is not based on belief but basic commercial reality"

No, it's based on your belief rather than my belief. I also believe that my view is based on basic commercial reality. While legally you are correct, basic commercial reality is that you would not embark on time consuming and expensive test unless you were certain, if the tests proved positive, you would proceed. The decision is, thus, made before the test, not after. Otherwise they'd be testing every fuel and technology in the world, and then decide whether to use them after testing. That simply doesn't make sense. I don't believe this is controversial. I can't see under what scenario MSC would reach the end of testing, receive the LONO, and then decide not to use the fuel. For me, the *commercial reality* is that this is simply impossible.

"The decision that matters commercially is whether they choose to buy it and adopt it commercially. That decision will not be made until MSC are satisfied it’s what they want to do."

Yes. I believe MSC have already made that decision. I don't believe they would go through all this time, legal wrangling and expense unless they'd made a firm decision to use the fuel. Of course they need to test it first but that's perfunctory. If test driving a car cost you £500, it would have to be a truly shocking test drive for you to not go ahead and buy it.

"What matters is what MSC do with it when it’s completed in 2026. If they buy into it going forward then it’s mega, we do need a lot to fall into place to get there."

I disagree with this. I believe the decision is final when the Leandra sets sail for trial.

"The Sp and volume does not inspire confidence that anything is happening in May"

Your assertion is that stakeholders in the company are regularly committing crimes by leaking non-public information to the market, at no benefit to themselves, to inform the share price?

No. The share price and volume have nothing to do with the likelihood of any future event with Quadrise.

"Out of interest what’s people’s thoughts to the share price once we get the Cargill agreement signed? Back to 7p?"

I think that's about right, unless it comes with the start of the Leandra trial, in which case obviously much more.

No. I am Spartacus.

More irrelevance we can just get from any news site.