Member Info for slowlyslowly

So they've now bought 767,902 shares since the first tranche of placing, to fully replace the dilution. (Before the placing they were at 19.24%, but they're now at 19.29%). They obviously regard the currently depressed price as a chance to top-up, and it seems wish to hold a position just under 20%.
We still don't know if they are doing this as their own investment or on behalf of another, or what specifically they see that means this is an investment they want. But it's clear that they see the current price as good value.

Good point, Dan. But as I say, I don't think it can be Stefan for the reasons outlined earlier.

But I won't deny that lots of small rises have been cut short by a single chunky sale - yes, I've noticed that too. I just don't think it could be Stefan.

It is the same story: You keep on narrating it. And I keep on saying that directors and persons with significant control have to notify the company (who has to notify the market via RNS) within 3 days even if they sell 1 share. Major shareholders (over 3%) only have to notify if they cross a whole percent threshold; directors and PSCs have to notify every time. If Stefan has been selling for months (which, I grant, would potentially not be unwelcome), he'd not have been able to wait this long without telling us all. Even if he wanted to stretch the rules to a couple of weeks, which must happen at times, we'd know of something by now.

That's obvious, surely. And cheap is relative. Cheap, relative to what? To the same company a year ago? To other companies in the same industry? By comparing market caps or share prices?

But the post you reply to, by InvestingGenius, gave several reasons why they thought the company's prospects deserved a price much higher than 5p. Nobody is suggesting investing _only_ because it's "cheap".

This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view

x3

Presumably he meant the misformed syllogism:

Someone's just topped up because ADME looked cheap.
The share price of TCG looked cheap.
TCG went into administration.
Therefore ADME will go into administration.

Errmm....

All dogs have 4 legs.
My cat has 4 legs
Therefore my cat is a dog???

Cracking post, Gromit.

You're quite right. Only two things potentially change the prospects here: the passage of time and actual notifiable news. Any opinions from others, in the absence of actual news, is just that - opinion. And the clock, if it does make any difference to anyone's investment case, doesn't need a BB to watch it.

I think, Jarv55, he meant Allan works for Antos not the other way around, in that Antos is a significant shareholder and the board's job is to serve the needs of shareholders. I think Milli meant that, as it's a portrait others have painted here over the months, and not that the two have a prior business relationship.

If AIM became unavailable for two months (I'm talking about 5th Oct to 5th Dec, not next year), NEX would likely take all the trades that would have gone through AIM, so in BOU's case alone the liquidity that's currently split between NEX and AIM would move over to NEX, and most people would find it as easy to buy or sell BOU as it was before.

So, if I read correctly, it seems that AIM rules mean we'd be suspended from AIM after 6 months, but NEX rules mean we'd not be suspended from trading on NEX until 8 months have elapsed. So we'd have 2 further months after AIM suspended BOU during which we'd still be able to buy and sell on NEX.

Or so it seems.

Just a thought. Now that NMS1966 has found his missing trade, it reminds me that we trade on NEX as well as AIM.

I think we have until 5th December to complete an RTO without suspension.

https://www.nexexchange.com/assets/pdfs/Growth Market Rules (v3.6) - September 2019.pdf

"NEX Exchange will suspend trading in an issuer’s securities in accordance with rule 74 if that issuer remains a cash shell at the date that is eight months following the completion of a disposal of its trading business and/or assets announced in accordance with rule 51. Alternatively, a cash shell may apply to NEX Exchange to be readmitted as an investment vehicle, subject to the admission requirements set out at Part 1 of these rules."

Have a look here: https://www.nexexchange.com/assets/pdfs/Growth Market Rules (v3.6) - September 2019.pdf

On the LSE, that's 4 trades today, 7.4m. On Nex, that's 2 trades, one buy and one sell, each of 12m.
A very slow, quiet day, yes.

Big Ginge: On 16th August, you said this: "My sells was reported as buys yesterday. Waiting for a re-entry now."
Now you're absolutely convinced Antos was only ever in this for a few hundred pounds of profit.
You've obviously totally changed your opinion. What changed your mind? Or are you still waiting for re-entry?

Are you still on Twitter, CC? I won't post my handle on here, but if you can remember it do drop me a DM. Or any of the others you know I'm in contact with.

I suspect your post was removed because it was a reply to a post that broke the rules (and so would make no sense as an orphaned reply) rather than because of anything you said.

Meanwhile, we're just waiting here aren't we, and volumes are reassuringly low. People have either taken their positions and are waiting, or have already derisked all they wish to. There's no rush for the entrance or the exits. Just a calm wait. Excellent. Now let's hope we aren't waiting too long.

I did a few days ago as well, just a little (and missed bottom by buying then rather than now). I don't know how long it will take to turn this thing around, and nothing is guaranteed, but I can't quite believe it's _this_ low. Anything below 7p is below fair value, given Zark and another institutional investor are willing to put new money in at 7p.

When criticising someone for doing something, you always have to ask what alternative actions were available to them. The question is now: "Why did they do X?" but "Why did they do X rather than Y?"
Then, my parallel rule of thumb: When criticising someone for not doing something, you always ask what actions were actually possible for them. You cannot say: "You are at fault for not doing X" if they were unable to do X without breaking the law, or forced to do Y which ruled out X.

That's in play here. If the CEO actually could not buy any shares, we cannot conclude anything negative about his confidence in the company from the fact he hasn't bought any.

Someone who knows the detailed rules on insider trading may be able to confirm or correct this, but if the CEO is in the process of closing a deal wouldn't that mean he can't buy until everything he knows is known by the market?

The one unexpected thing we could learn immediately after the meeting, as I said yesterday, is who the other 10% new investor will be (if it is a single investor).