Member Info for slowlyslowly

How long would a GM like this usually take?

Hang on. Nowhere does it say that they will issue the new shares to themselves. Nowhere does it say they'll do so at 0.01p. It just says they need authorisation to issue them - nothing more, nothing less.

And nowhere does it say they've burnt through the cash from the previous raise.

Does the share have to be suspended on AIM the moment an RTO is announced? If so, they have to issue these before that. Don't they? What have I missed?

Thinking further, I think it may be that we need resolutions 1 and 4 approved. There is nothing saying what price the directors would issue those extra shares it, but they do need authority to issue new shares if they're to line up an equity swap for the RTO. Yes, they could ask for that authorisation after announcing the RTO target, but if that triggered a necessary suspension they might then not be able to. I'm not completely convinced that 1 and 4 are bad; the BoD may be correct that they need that in order to organise an RTO.

Dave, remember it's almost entirely a different "they" than the previous situation you describe. Only one director is the same. Back then, everyone blamed James for sinking the ship / hiding things from the RNS system - but if it was him then, then he's not around now. Now, we're dealing with Peterhouse, who were not on PSL's scene back then. Etc.

Or, do you mean that these patterns are to do with AIM in general, rather than with PSL as such. If so, then fair enough.

(Google it if you've not met it before).

Let's think about this. The BoD say that voting down the resolutions jeopardises the RTO. They could be right. They could be wrong. We have to decide whether to vote them down or not.

If the BoD is correct, and we vote the resolutions down - investors lose everything.
If the BoD is correct, and we approve the resolutions - we get the small profits from a successful RTO heavily diluted.

If the BoD is wrong, and we vote the resolutions down - we get the massive profits from a successful RTO in which we have a significant stake.
If the BoD is wrong, and we approve the resolutions - we get the small profits from a successful RTO heavily diluted.

So, if we approve the resolutions, either way, we get a modest return.
If we vote them down, we risk getting nothing, or may get a huge return. Which depends on whether the Board was correct, or not, in saying the RTO is in jeopardy.

So, if you're sure that the BoD is correct, clearly vote for the resolutions.
If you're sure that they're wrong, clearly vote against them.
If you're unsure, decide what you're in this for - the hope of massive returns, or a high probability modest return - and vote accordingly.

I've been thinking some more. I'm too ignorant to say with absolute confidence that the best chances of an RTO come from passing or blocking resolutions 1 to 4. I can see both sides.

However, Antos has experience and can probably see the right outcome very clearly. There's a good chance that enough PIs have voted against 1 and 4 to sink them if Antos also votes against them, but not to sink them without his help. If we've between us given him a casting vote, then that's a very good thing as it means we're likely to get the outcome that's best. ... At least, that's the theory.

... in the latest RNS

One of them has been a director for 7 years tomorrow, so predates Peterhouse and RTO ambitions by a looooong way.

Sent a secure message to Charles Stanley Direct to ask for yes to 2 and 3, but no to 1 and 4. My position is tiny compared to many on here, but it could be tight and it all adds up.

If they've (forward) sold 1.6 billion shares, who's bought them all from them?

Even though he's not currently on the board. Can one shareholder with 14% do that?

Apart from being agent, advisor, broker and effectively nomad. If they relinquished those roles, how would Antos proceed with his RTO?

(Not saying y'all are wrong; you all have far more experience than me. I'm just playing devil's advocate trying to understand.)

Right - but if Peterhouse throw their toys out of the pram, doesn't that mean that there is a danger the RTO is jeopardised?

https://www2.trustnet.com/Investments/Article.aspx?id=201903130700026618S

I can't find it. Where in the RNS of 13th March does it say that the extra 5.5BN shares they're asking shareholdesr to authorise will then be placed at 0.01p each. I can't see a price anywhere in that RNS. Am I missing something? What's all the panic about?

Followed you on Twitter, but when try to DM says "Sorry! You cannot message this account."

Remember, this is tangled enough to confuse a staff writer from Alliance News. Even when they issued their clarification, to say that Antos is not winding down the position he opened just 6 days before, they still said that his reduced holding was "following a transaction".

I think it's not being followed. The trail is there for those who have looked into it. But to a casual observer, this is still listed as a trader in LEDs and IoT, and there are RNS saying that they're liquidating their trading arm and becoming a cash shell. I'd never be invested here had I not already had a position back from when it was J McK trying to sort out contracts - I just stuck around with little to lose. It's only because of that that I've followed closely enough to see the picture.

So I think the low SP is simply an example of market inefficiency.

If so, they're confident. Wasn't the placing conditional on the GM outcome?

Woah. At the close, 50m went through at 0.014, then 100m at 0.0142, then 300m at 0.01452.
That's nearly 10% of the shares in issue traded in the last 5 minutes before the bell.