Member Info for Spikeyj

Late friday afternoon is not usually regarded as an auspicious time for loss-making AIM companies to issue an RNS. wonder if they will? - but i don’t think they can honestly issue a ‘knows of no reason’ one.

Yes indeed, see my 11:31.

… good fun day to be an m/m, they’ll clock off for the weekend in a good mood whatever the c/o/b.

13:17, i thought the share price was irrelevant?

I guess okfornow must be meaning you two, with that 12:47: “… many buying big..”

B1ll the whale!

Toffers, no reason to suspend a share simply because it is falling sharply, provided that the various market participants potentially all have access to the same data on which to base buy / sell decisions — i.e. a falling market, but not a false one?

In a quantum universe, cause and effect are slippery things … ? maybe the EUA share price is falling so heavily precisely because you two have bought in again?

I wonder why anyone would present a winding up petition against EUA to secure payment, when the enthusiasts have previously told us that all the various advisors & consultants are simply working for nothing month to month, waiting patiently for that “success fee basis”.

More than 40% down so far, but on the bright side the share price is irrelevant, according to previous posts from various EUA enthusiasts on this chatboard.

The usual rule of thumb on this chat board is that the share price is irrelevant when it falls, but is positive and encouraging when it rises.

presumably this is one of those irrelevant days.

… that reminds me, probably time to repost the ‘guess the s/price by xmas’ list, and invite any new entries … still a few weeks left to enter. i’ll pop that back up later.

10:57, very amusing suggestion from mac about why a director / PMDR might choose not to exercise call options that appear to be deeply in the money …. mac suggests that the BoD member etc might simply want to give away free money to other shareholders out of the sheer goodness of their heart, and/or guilt!

thanks mac, you’ve made my day with a good belly laugh before lunch, nice one. only post of yours i’ve ever found useful.

… nothing from mizman or leno to explain why a company that earns profits from operating a mine would choose to stop mining because they were trying to agree a sale ( - since surely it would make sense for a mining company that was profitable to keep on earning profits for as long as possible while still in their ownership?)

anytime you like, mizman and leno, please do outline your reasoning.

Tygra, if someone owns deeply in the money options, but is given the choice of further extending the expiry date, it would pay them *not* to exercise the options, but simply to hang onto those extended options for longer, if the interest rate/ return they can continue to earn on the cash not yet paid over to buy the shares is higher than the dividends/other payments that would accrue from owning the actual shares rather than owning the in-the-money options.

10:44, three main reasons why someone would not exercise deeply in-the-money call options:

1. administrative error … forgot they owned them, or misremembered expiry date/time. (back in my days, long long ago dealing OTC FX options, it was amazing how often that did actually happen!… very messy and people got very cross / very embarrassed) —- seems rather unlikely in this particular situation.

2. although the options appear to be in-the-money based on current quoted s/price in the market, the owner of the option doesn’t believe that there will really be sufficient liquidity to sell the shares into the market without the share price collapsing.

3. the owner of the option cannot raise the cash needed to pay for the shares at the exercise price; seldom an issue with deeply in-the-money options as someone could just organise to offset purchase with immediate part-sale, but could be more of an issue for a BoD member under restrictions about trading, if that BoD member was very poor. but of course the BoD member would have had a loads of advance notice to arrange some financing to buy those shares, if they genuinely believed that it would eventually be possible to sell those shares in the longer term for more than the exercise price.

Friendsps, you asked me a question previously, and i gave you a serious, considered, & polite answer. not my problem if you don’t like the answer i gave you.

Leno, if EUA makes money from mining, do you think it would be a good idea for them to stop mining because they are “hopeful’ of selling the business/assets to someone else?

… if the mining that EUA can do is profitable, surely it would make more sense for them to keep on making those profits by continuing mining for as long as they can? … what do you reckon, leno?

[4. … and no meaningful, verifiable evidence i can see that cloudtag itself even exists as a business in any meaningful sense, other than as an unlisted shell company registered in st vincent with no published accounts, a single director, no visible plant, premises, equipment, employees, products or services … but it does have a cheap and clunky website which someone updates with badly written / vague updates from time to time.]

As ever with cloudtag, worth noting imv what has *not* happened.

1. earlier this year, amit was stating that the supposedly confirmed large multinational company who had supposedly already agreed to pay cloudtag loads of money for its ‘DaaP’ tech / IP would make a public “sale announcement” confirming that during october. …that would have provided at least some kind of potentially verifiable independent evidence that cloudtag really had made some kind of genuine deal with a genuine third party. …. but no such announcement was made, and amit is no longer giving any specific date by which such an announcement will be made.

2. amit then stated that “agent and distribution details” would be given this week … but zero details at all about the supposed “agent” have been given.

3. there is still *no independently verifiable evidence* in the public domain that cloudtag has ever actually had any kind of commercially viable and valuable IT / tech / product / service, let alone completing any deals for such with any third party, let alone for the kinds of money amit dangles in those updates.

… as ever with cloudtag, the issue is the utter lack of any kind of independently verifiable public domain evidence to back up any of the promises made by cloudtag….

Nice enough for shell, thank you mr market.