Member Info for shychap

"Shychap, if you're referring to so-called "mischief-making" by Elrico’s son, Alex, then it seems you’ve rather missed the point. It was quite clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab aimed at Mr Winnifrith — hardly the stuff of betrayal. But let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that it wasn’t mere mischief. Perhaps the suggestion that the board should not stand for re-election was, in fact, a serious and considered opinion. Are we now classifying differing views as unworthy of being voiced?"

=====

Obsisian, you could help your cause if you stopped taking us for fools. Lemming Jnr obviously wasn't joking on 4/12/25 when he wrote: "I have suggested to CEO Stuart Ashman on multiple occasions to frustrate the activist group by not putting anyone forward for re-election this year."

And Eldric wasn't joking either when he added: "Alex isn’t wasting his time. His suggestion—one I fully support—isn’t without purpose. It’s designed, quite deliberately, to frustrate the likes of Simon Chapman and his small battalion of PI's (Whatever), who seem to believe they speak for the majority of shareholders…what exactly would a vote against the Chairman and CEO accomplish? Certainly nothing transformative. So yes, I agree with Alex—though mainly because I fancied wearing the cloak of a vindictive prat for a change. I’ve no doubt this will irritate a few people, and I’ll probably be banished to Coventry for an extended period. Frankly, I couldn’t care less."

The whole family is so misguided that it defies belief. The only purpose of an AGM is to hold management accountable to their shareholders – and every shareholder has a right to vote against the directors if they want to. Moreover, SBTX claims to adhere to the QCA Code so must be held accountable on that score too.

The Lemming rhetoric is straight out of the twisted Ashman playbook, namely a clearly stated aim to deny 99.99% of shareholders their rights in order to prevent one or maybe two known adversaries holding the directors to account.

This Lemming appeal was so obviously detrimental to shareholders, their rights and to corporate governance that it seems impossible that they would own up to it. But they did own up – apparently with pride.

The deluded fools couldn't even see the damage they were doing to themselves. How can unaffiliated shareholders (ie the vast majority) trust the Lemmings ever again to represent their interests? It's clear for all to see that the Lemmings will do anything in desperation to try to protect their golden goose, Ashman – even if it hurts/disempowers all shareholders.

As may now be obvious to them, this kind of sabotage can backfire. An unusually high near-20% of the AGM votes cast were against several of the bog standard resolutions in protest. That's over 20m protest votes. How proud are the Lemmings now? Answer: they don't care because their mission was to protect Ashman at any cost.

Eldric stirs it up only to make himself appear more relevant…and he sends his evangelists over here on missions to abuse people, not to engage in any discussion on substantive issues of the day. Ashman has doubtless asked him to do whatever he can to suppress the governance complaints using any tired old playground tactics they can muster. That's not going to work on shareholders with half a brain. The only way to stop the governance complaints is for Ashman & Co to stop causing them.

Meanwhile, the only two people who seem to care a fig about the trumped-up warfare between Eldric and TW are Eldric and TW – and TW only gets involved for laughs. Eldric just stirs things up to make himself seem more relevant. And like most of Eldric's streams of consciousness, he is over-reliant on invention and innuendo because he can't support his sniping with facts. He is also currently on full volume because he realises what a fool he made of himself in championing the deletion of the AGM re-election resolutions – thus making it clear where his allegiance lies. He fights for coin, not for shareholders.

Clearly, Eldric doesn't mind making a fool of himself as long as it gets airtime and propels him into the conversation. His petty, childish, jealous attempted character-assassination games likely drum up more new business for TW than for the Lemming site – and would be easily diagnosed as paranoia by his in-house amateur shrink if they were real. But they aren't real: Eldric makes stuff up just to get airtime.

His place, TW's place and this place would all be more useful without Eldric's games; but in a world of free speech, you get what you pay for…unless you are actually paying for it.

AquaeSulis01, I did welcome it (see my 00:45), albeit not unconditionally given the history of Ashman's misuse of Elric's platform to spread disinformation – and Elric's own betrayal of shareholders in the lead-up to the AGM (which he should apologise for imho). And I'm ready to be even more enthusiastic about it once I have seen it in action. How structured will it be? I have never noticed Elric asking this BB to put forward questions in the past year or so. If done properly, it should help but it won't be "the solution" since that requires a shiny new Corporate Governance Statement in the public domain for starters.

Can Elric do it properly? Time will tell. I don't think he has pressed Ashman hard enough in the past, presumably because he doesn't want to risk upsetting him. Some legitimate questions seem to be too tough to ask (or answer). I note that he accuses me of having a destructive motive (for asking legitimate questions) and he will need to get over that kind of nonsense if he wants to be trusted to ask those questions. The only thing I want to destroy is the virus in the SBTX boardroom.

DireCons, I may be full of righteousness and some indignation but I certainly don't consider myself to be important. I obviously do consider the topic of governance important though.

AquaeSulis01, that's a moot point. By asking questions and broadcasting honest answers to all shareholders, Elrico contributes to making Ashman accountable – or at least hopes to, presumably. Multiple others, including, hopefully, the new NED, are also on the case. Can the damage caused by Ashman, Hunt and the rest of the Board over many months – aided and abetted by Elrico on the AGM fiasco – be fixed by vague New Year assurances via back channels? Obviously not.

And if Elrico isn't sufficiently up to speed on corporate governance and the QCA Code, I will happily volunteer my services to be his co-inquisitor on a special governance edition of his Ashman Q&As …as long as the dialogue is live.

AquaeSulis01, I think "curmudgeon" is several ranks higher than "r etard" so I'll take it. And my 00:45 post did welcome Elrico's announcement. But it is only truly good news if Ashman stops using Elrico's channel to mislead shareholders. I didn't understand why Elrico needed Ashman's "kindly" encouragement to provide open access – especially since you and others have apparently been asking for it. Just do it – with or without encouragement from Ashman – if it helps the cause.

But if Ashman is now trying to re-engage with shareholders at large then he would presumably look for other ways to achieve that if Elrico kept the paywall up. It is, after all, Ashman's duty, not Elrico's, and he is hopefully now under pressure from within to do his job properly.

And yes, some of us will need a lot more than lip service to believe that SBTX are ready to right the wrongs of 2025, including the AGM shambles which shareholders' champion, Elrico helped to cause. Until we see proof of the pudding that Ashman and Hunt have suddenly decided to be accountable to shareholders (two weeks after shafting us), nothing much changes, including me.

You and others are free to filter me if I am boring you – but I do post on other matters and I have the same short, medium and long term aspirations for my investment as everyone else. However, my route to riches starts with good corporate governance. There are plenty of rogue outfits on AIM for those who want nothing more than to make a quick buck without caring whether the company is legal, decent, honest and truthful. SBTX should not be in that category and the boardroom culture has to change if it is going to hang on to ethically minded customers like Croda and attract investment from responsible institutions. Just filter me if my posts interrupt the party for the rampers, pumpers, happy clappers and evangelists.

Elrico, "kindly" encouragement sounds like Ashman is paying you to put these pages in the public domain. But if it's a sign that he is starting to make amends for his stupid corporate governance mis-steps, then it's obviously to be welcomed. Hopefully the same access will be granted to any negative SBTX commentary (if you ever write any).

However, it won't be such good news if Ashman merely continues to propagate misleading information to a wider audience. He has led you and your subscribers up the garden path on a number of occasions and we probably all hope that you can find a way to ensure that his future "insights" are honest and credible.

But I confess to being confounded by your apparent new zeal for governance reform at SBTX when you proudly proclaimed only a few weeks ago that you had advised Ashman to remove the director re-election resolutions from the AGM agenda – which was the worst of his many governance mis-steps.

I respectfully suggest that your job is to make him accountable – not to protect him.

While I obviously hope that Ms Levett can fix the company's broken governance, she may have an impossible task on her hands given the persistent and very recent doubling down by Ashman & Co on some of the worst corporate governance decisions I have ever seen – plus the distinct possibility that neither Arrogant Ashman nor Job-For-Life Hunt listens to their independent directors. On paper at least, Ms Devett's predecessor as chairman of the Audit Committee, Dr Cathy Prescott, was at least as well qualified to do the job properly and presumably was considered to have done it properly having been an SBTX NED since 2017.

Nor does it seem likely, given their disgraceful decisions only this past month, that either Ashman or Hunt has had an epiphany and actually wants someone new to make them toe the line.

It's possible that DB may have asked for the new appointment but I'm pretty sure that MD isn't involved. It's also possible that the nomad may have recommended it, or that one of the regulators required it.

But nothing changes until it is seen to change – starting with a new Corporate Governance Statement which does what it says on the tin. And that needs to be seen quickly, ie before the agitators requisition an EGM.

The fundraise was also for general working capital to ensure that the accounts got a clean sign-off from the auditor. "Categorically not!", said Ashman at the time…but the FY accounts reveal the truth, which is why Ashman can't be trusted. I will be surprised if more than £1m is spent on SD support - including any new plant at BTS.

"You don’t want to end up like HS2"

=====

Not much risk of that with total FY25 capex on plant and machinery only £6k.

Ox123, for me the only real problem with the acquisitions is the BS Ashman fed us about them being instantly accretive. When I first looked at them, I concluded that they wouldn't be profitable in their first year so my expectations were more realistic. I also assumed that the head honcho of each acquisition would ride off into the sunset as soon as they had complied with the terms of the deal. Given that neither company was in trouble, that was the obvious reason for selling. I also assumed that one or both of them would be replaced by expert new MDs since I didn't think Ashman should be running both on a 24/7 basis (not least because his arrogance and stubbornness may mean he lacks man management skills judging by the turnover in personnel we have seen over the past year). But he wouldn't have any regulatory obligation to announce such appointments so maybe he has quietly hired one or two senior managers.

Strategically, I felt that both companies offered potentially great synergies to SBTX while also providing some substance in case anything went wrong with Croda. And the prospect of making our own cosmetics – possibly in an expansion of the Dermatonics range – was attractive and logical. Hopefully this will happen in 2026.

I agree that we should not be adding any new acquisitions, at least until the old ones are running profitably. But Ashman may be forced into buying a profit-making business if Croda revenues don't ramp up to £2m until 2028 or later (as per Singer's projection).

I am quite optimistic about the AxisBiotix products. Axis-ps definitely works and presumably Axis-ps does too. But they both need an investment in marketing to ensure that their target audience knows about them. Based on what I have seen so far, the packaging is cheap, nasty and doesn't deliver a strong enough message. And the brand names chosen for the SD range are generic, dull and unmemorable. Ashman needs to get some expert help in product management/marketing/creativity.

PGlancy, I agreed with TW about SBTX except for his decision to sell (as I told him at the time) but I certainly didn't enlist him. If anything, he enlisted me into becoming an investor here. Our BoD is supposed to be accountable to shareholders but has failed to engage, for which there is a price to pay – including complaints to the regulators on serious issues. It's really simple: stand up, don't hide, be accountable, don't take us for fools and no-one gets hurt.

"If you continue to bash the BOD then you are sabotaging my investment. You’ve had your chance to vote them out, it has failed. You need to lick your wounds quietly off the forum and move on."

=====

belugawhale, you seem to be living in a dystopian world where everyone agrees and gets along without ever complaining about the council. Or where everyone who votes Labour gets sent to Siberia for ruining the wealth of people who own houses. Life's not like that. But you can take some comfort in that nothing I say here affects the SBTX share price. And you can always filter me.

Meanwhile, I will continue to lobby the company to get its governance act in order because the SP can really fly if all shareholders could trust, respect and engage with the Board. And let's not fool ourselves that the recent SP rise is due to good management because Ashman & Co have announced nothing material since June. The FY results were disappointing in that they fell well short of the guidance which kept us optimistic until August. And other than the Superdrug deal, there has been no positive news about any part of the group.

So, welcome as the recent SP rise has been, it has nothing to do with our BoD's performance and should not lull you into a false sense of security. Hopefully, the next trading update and/or the HY results will reflect better on the capabilities of Ashman & Co. Hopefully too, they will right the wrongs which have caused so many complaints because I, for one, will keep complaining if they don't.

Belugawhale, AFAIK, Toyin has never advised anyone to sell but has suggested many reasons to buy. I think that applies to all of the posters you are talking nonsense about…although I may be alone among the devil's advocates in approving of the acquisitions.

I assume HERC wouldn't want both joint brokers issuing research notes with different conclusions…

Pied_piper, MD's latest milestone was passed on 31 Dec when the SP was around 15.5p. While there may be more to come, he has been averaging down since buying in at 25p in April and I doubt he will continue buying while the SP stays above 17p which is his break-even point. He is definitely not trying to acquire the company.

Madaboutmedtech, nothing posted here has ever affected the SP but if you have evidence to the contrary, please share it. OTOH, I can list plenty of management mis-steps which have hurt the SP, about which you appear to be in denial.

"Why would any legitimate investor look to undermine the board of directors?" is a question that could only be asked if you are in denial about the directors' shortcomings – including their failure to engage with retail investors. See my recent posting history if you want details.

This is the latest list of major shareholders:

Mark Dixon | 39,000,000 | 15.07%

David Brierwood | 16,416,813 | 6.34%

Tyndall Investment Management | 16,235,259 | 6.27%

OptiBiotix Health Plc | 14,600,000 | 5.64%

Seneca Partners Limited | 13,586,408 | 5.25%

Unicorn Asset Management | 7,894,737 | 3.05%

The only changes are that Mark Dixon has continued to increase his holding while Optibiotix continues to be a forced seller. Premier Miton were mentioned in the 16/6/25 placing RNS but they haven't issued a TR-1 so can't own more than 3%.

Given that the principal shareholder is uncertificated, there is imho potential for the equivalent of a sudden short squeeze should he decide at any point to certificate his holding – if his broker/MM hasn't physically sourced all the 39m shares he has bought (as might be the case if the broker/MM were relying on a steady future supply of shares from a persistent seller such as OPTI). While this could explain why MD's sizeable buys (and OPTI's sizeable sells) have often had no visible effect on the SBTX SP, it would create a vacuum if the buys exceeded the sells, which the broker/MM would have to fill in a hurry if MDs shares were certificated.

Yes. When did Cavendish go for 70p?

House broker's target price on 15/10/25 was 60p. Time for another note. Where will they go next?