Member Info for Spikeyj

ah, indeed, i do have a stake there. ... not good if china goes completely kabung & reverts to cannibalism, but i am hoping for only a moderate implosion, lol. part of my logic, prudential seems potentially over- capitalised on med/ longer view - i think there will be returns of excess cash.

slowly, climbing back up the hill (or, for pessimists, creeping closer again to the cliff edge)

sure, quite possible. rt does stir things up.

well, they are not dead ... still in business, with some activity .. rob terry seems to using them a broker for some of his quob activities. so while there is life there is hope, eh? they are not in administration or entirely moribund. at this point, there is very little information available about how much new business they are getting in, and what their cash flow and accounts are like, so it would be a pure guess what happens next. hope it comes good for you.

never looked at it.

if they get relisted, the sp will depend on what the market thinks is actually happening with the underlying business and its prospects. but yes, in principle, if relisted, people could just start buying and selling again in ordinary way. i believe that there is a share discussion forum called 'blueshare' where some holders of dan shares can post and discuss. it is for holders only. someone posted on here before that there is more discussion there about the company, so you may want to google that site and perhaps ask if you can become a member? gl.

sequence last time round in this game was that (a) quob park estate had bought up to 15% by november '15, but (b) then in december '15 sold them all on to quob park tech, & then (c) in jan quob park tech sold those shares out. presumably RT may genuinely be wanting to take over the company. but is there are particular reason to be sure that same pattern won't just be repeated? eat, sleep, build up holding, sell, repeat, eat, sleep, build up holding, sell, repeat... as before, i've no view on imtk underlying value etc, but RT is fascinating to watch. twists & turns galore.

.. kinda heart-warming to know it's not completely forgotten.

always, depends a little too on time-scales. 3 year graph puts it into a little perspective.

perhaps you've put your finger on it already? i.e. with limited newsflow recently about additions to the portfolio of pharmas etc, might make some in the market sceptical that clinigen isn't currently doing enough to earn its multiple? dunno. atb.

it's not the kind of price change, either in size or speed, that would usually force an aim company to make some comment. & diary-wise, we are approx mid-way between trading announcement dates. agree, it's not been a thrilling ride for a while.

commenting again on DAN today.

but seriously, who ever believes broker targets on aim shares?

i cannot seem to find any public source for the info. that you posted. do you have a link or source for it? you wrote: "Late Tuesday, Barclays undertook an accelerated book build to place stock which may have been from Flemings" and previously you wrote: "A holder of 5% isc sold by placing with a broker at 215p - all taken up and it was over-subscribed."

ah, very interesting, thanks. i have previously seen on plenty of other stocks, holders also having to issue RNS when their notifiable interests go *down* below certain threshold reporting percentages too, not just for holders who increase. -- but i'm not in any way an expert re the various rules & regs, so no doubt various things i misunderstand etc! for sure, volumes different recently.. thanks for the comments, atb.

interesting, but i am still waiting to see if there is any declaration of a previous big holder reducing their position by several % as you suggested. (RNS seem to be re buy side.) i appreciate these things can take a while to surface, lol.

thanks for your thoughts on this, appreciated. but if there is one big holder who has sold out a 5% chunk (no matter whether they sold on to one buyer or as you suggest to multiple other buyers) doesn't that mean that they are likely to have made a notifiable change in their own holding by that very significant reduction? i can see why if bought by many smaller buyers, they would not need to declare their long holdings, but was thinking more about an RNS from whoever it is that dumped the 5%? the volume high today, but no-where near enough to unwind a parcel of 5% company.

kicked a couple out. the world is round.

it's actually a very quiet bulletin board compared to many, i've no idea why the share price rose, but can't really be anything to do with pump and dump, as there's not much sign of pumping.

maybe hawky closed his short?