Member Info for slowlyslowly

Their TR1 has just come through.

How do you see that preventing suspension? The rules say that any details of a proposed RTO must lead to suspension until the admission document is published. I'd have thought that, as soon as they mention potential targets, suspension would follow automatically. ... How do you see this working?

Market makers responded by raising the asking price from 0.020 to 0.027, before dropping it back to 0.024. Strange goings on.

Well, someone's opened the batting with a 3m buy at nearly full ask. Let's hope that sets the tone for the rest of the day.

"if some plans", not "it"

Or...

At a date before that it some plans for a potential RTO enter the public domain (either by a leak, or a formal announcement), and the proposed admission document for the new entity is not published at the same time. In this case, the market would have insufficient information for informed trading, so the rules require suspension until the admission document is ready.

Close of play Friday 4th October (or maybe just before the open on Monday 7th, same thing) if the company hasn't completed a successful RTO by that point.

Exactly, mcadder. I wonder what oo has planned after Monday 30th. And I wonder what Peel Hunt are up to. All in good time, this is a slow long-term share.

.... .... catchey monkey

Then, for me, I've nothing further to say.

There are all kinds of misbehaviour I'm prepared to believe goes on - shady and unethical practice. Sure.

But once you believe that the people involved here are so criminal that they ignore even the most rudimentary rules of the London Stock Exchange, you end up in a position where the company is a black hole. No light can escape. You have no access to information. For all you know, the sheikh still holds, and his departure was also a lie. Maybe he never bought in the first place. And so on. Once you believe that's how the system works, you will not believe any information released by the company, its brokers, its nomad, or the exchange itself.

Without data on which to base your research, or on which to base this conversation, there isn't even a debate to be had. You're left with nihilism.

I'm truly sorry that this is the point you're in. Truly. But rational debate about the merits or demerits of any company becomes impossible if there are no axioms, rules or input data to discuss.

{/thread}

That's what he would have done if he'd been in to con us from the outset, yes.

So you believe he did that. Even though the law required him to tell the company if he sold more than 442k shares, and he didn't. Even though the notification when he sold said he still held all his shares to the last. Your view is that he broke the law by failing to declare his sales, and lied in his later public TR1 document.

You still haven't explained how him doing what you believe him to have done removed the £534k from the company's books.

I'd still like you to explain your "removed via dilution". The sheikh selling his shares wouldn't remove his equity from the company unless the company bought his shares back. That would be a share buyback and would have to be announced.

I'm sorry, thought but this is incorrect. On the day his withdrawal was announced, we were told that "the Company has today been informed that His Highness has, or shortly will have, disposed of all of his shareholding in the Company, comprising 13,350,000 ordinary shares, through the market." That suggests he still held the full 13,350,000 he originally purchased.

Furthermore, those 13.35m shares represented 26.89% of the company. If he'd dropped below 26% at any point he'd have had to issue a TR1 to say so. That's 12,908,144 shares. This means that, if he sold more than 441,856 shares, he'd have had to tell the company who'd have had to tell the market. So we know for two reasons that he held the whole lot until the end.

He did make a profit. He bought at 4p and sold at 10p. But no money left the company as he did so.

If his motives had been to make a quick profit and move on (if it had been a scam from the outset, in other words), then he'd have sold some when it was 30p+ or at least 20p+. The fact he ended up selling when it had already dropped to 12p says that this was not his aim. Something went wrong between him and the board. We'll never know what.

OK - I now see the 4.5p at 8am on Friday 23rd. Thanks for the link.
What do you mean by "removed via dilution". How would Peel Hunt buying the Sheikh's shares at 10p actually remove funds from the company's balance sheet. The only way to do that, surely, would be by paying dividends or a share buyback. I understand the concept of dilution when new shares are placed at a discount. But there was no placing on 23rd August. So what kind of "dilution" is this that actually transfers the £534k that the sheikh invested from the company to another entity?

On the day we learnt of the sheikh's sale, it fell to about 6.5p, not 4p. Peel Hunt announced they were holding a chunk a few days later, acquired that day, so we conclude they were on the other end of the sheikh's sale - they bought the lot off him for 10p, and were still left holding about half by the end of the day, which was a Thursday. Most people, myself included, assumed that they'd only managed to sell on part of his disposal, and that they'd have dumped the rest by the end of Friday. They'd have made a loss on those, but the loss would be more than covered by the profits they sold for on a Thursday. Instead, when the subsequent TR1 came out, far from selling the rest they'd bought more. They then topped up again, by a much smaller amount, a week later.

So I can't tell you why 4p is significant, because it doesn't appear to be. It was the price the sheikh bought at, but it's not come into play since.

Run out of cash by the end of October? Not likely, having just raised £1.3m

As for ADVFN - Spikey's left us here and gone to depress everyone over there. Say no more.

Let's start a new thread, with a more constructive title.
But carrying on the previous discussion.

@gilo - I'm not talking about his adjustment to the share price, but the actual cash he inserted into the running of the business. That's still there (some of it spent, but without it we'd not be solvent).
@Inconceivable - I'm not intentionally knocking anyone. I did acknowledge a few posts back that lots of us are feeling bruised. I'm just painting the picture I see, which is another way to look at things.

Now...

This TR1 has also just been posted: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/TRP/tower-resources-plc-holdings-in-company-fkzdxes4iv3bu2p.html
Now, that's interesting. I've posted on here before that TRP provide another example of Peel Hunt buying shares in an oil and gas company, to hold as a long-term investment rather than merely to churn as a market maker. I've researched carefully the full narrative of their investment there - save that for another day. For now, suffice to say it may be significant that it's another oil company on AIM with a similar market cap and a focus on African oilfields.

On the same day they topped up here, they disposed some of their holding in TRP. They topped up here 204,643 shares. At 6p that's £12,278. Going off the rounded percentages in the TRP TR1, they sold about 7,250,000 shares in TRP, which at 0.04p is £29,000. Ours is not a big top-up, and theirs is not a big sale, relative to the position they hold. They remain TRP's largest shareholder, and they remain ADME's largest shareholder. But are they just adjusting their position as small price movements give them an opportunity to average down or take small profits? Or are they transferring some of the capital they have tied up in TRP into ADME?

[removes plum]
I'm still actually invested, yes. Average was 24p.
Yes, I'm fed up that the sheikh stormed off and the price crashed.
However, I'm actually of the view that things are not so bad around here. Cut out, for the moment, the chunk of time when the sheikh invested and the price had a little season well above its current level. If that never happened, how do things now compare to how they were before the sheikh put his chunk in? Well, the price is similar, but we have the money that the sheikh invested still in the business. We have a new CEO, who tells us he's working on some deals to expand ADME's operation. We're still here, and with one more lifting will have paid off our investment in Aje. Meanwhile, we have two new investors (PH and ZC), one of whom is willing to put new money in at a premium to what they could get on the open market. So we're not doing as well as we might have if the sentiment attached to the sheikh had worked out, but we're a lot better off than we were before that sorry episode. And, I dare to say, Zark and Peel may prove to be better sources of funding than the sheikh, depending on what strings might have been attached to the sheikh's financial help (we'll never know).
[reinserts plum]

They seem to have based their latest TR1 off the number of shares in issue before today. We may get another TR1 from them in a couple of days time because their percentage will drop now that Zark's placed shares are in the market, even if the number of shares they hold doesn't change.

Yes, just noticed that.
Someone told us last week that they were always there in the background to buy the dips if the bid dropped below 6p. So I was hoping we'd get a TR1 (sic.) pop up from Peel Hunt again. It's good to have them back on our radar.
The question is: What are they doing, and how does their investment in the company relate to that by Zark Capital? Two interested parties in one company? There has to be a link somewhere.

May I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. (13.58 today)
And to the question I asked earlier (14.35 today).
[This is going round in circles now. Lots of us are very bruised here, I grant that, but there's certainly nought to be gained with a circular conversation, so I'll step out of this convo until it takes a new turn.]

Peel Hunt, I believe, are a registered market maker, yes. However, after taking the Sheikh's shares off him, they proceeded to release two more updates indicating they'd increased their holding. They appear to have deliberately accumulated rather than got stuck with what they've currently got. I may be wrong here, but if they were holding their position as market makers for the short-term, I believe they'd normally return a TR-2 form to declare them, which is then not made public. The fact they issued a TR-1 (if I'm right on this detail) also suggests that it's an investment they're holding for the time-being.

I've no idea about Zark. As far as I know, they're not registered market makers; none of their staff have this listed in their FCA registered activities. What's more, they weren't left holding any shares because they've bought them off someone who wanted to sell and then got stuck holding the shares. They've just taken part in a placing at 7p that means that, as of this morning, they hold 7.18% of the company. As a placing, that was entirely voluntary on their part.

@gilo - presumably you think Peel Hunt and Zark have been conned, too, then?