Member Info for Spikeyj

midlands, this kind of exchange is why, on the whole, i don't actually believe that goodluckall is really a holder of DAN at all. seems to be some kind of spoof, lord knows what motivation is.

"I've been polite" hardly.

take a wild guess?

(or do you think the company was not telling the truth about its asset position in that RNS?)

per 30/12/15 RNS re unaudited figures at sept 15: Total assets £3,807,049 Net assets £2,583,982 ... do you think they have lost £2.58 million assets since september?

goodluckall 12:22: "Dan have no assets." you don't seem to have any idea what you are actually talking about. that's pretty unwise if you are genuinely investing money into shares with that level of understanding. -- important to have at least a rudimentary grasp on the different elements of a balance sheet. look back at the unaudited interim results RNS that the company put out on 30/12/15 e.g. at the section headed: "Unaudited Consolidated Statement of Financial Position As at 30 September 2015" -- that tells you various asset figures for DAN, albeit unaudited. (unless of course, you are arguing that since that RNS, the value of every single asset has entirely shrivelled to zero? for sure, less now than it was!)

goodluck, i'm honestly not sure if you're actually being serious in your posts this morning or just joking. but working on the basis that you not just on the wind-up, the key difference to understand is between **secured versus unsecured lending**. if epsilon's loan to DAN was unsecured and company goes bust, epsilon lose their money. but if the loan is secured on e.g. property owned by DAN, and DAN go bust, the lender would get their money back because they get the property asset. that's what it means to have a charge over an asset or assets as security. obviously, lenders tend to charge a lot more on unsecured loans because they are much riskier for the lender in case of default. as regards whether a company is worthless --- note that the overall value of a company is the total sum of both its assets and liabilities & debts. so a company might indeed be worthless overall, but nonetheless contain within it various assets that are actually quite valuable in their own right. so if DAN goes down the tubes because crushed by debt with not enough new cash coming in, there could still be some nice assets left on the corpse that epsilon or others would like to pick off after DAN's demise. the above comments offered seriously, just in case you are not simply on wind-up.

i think epsilon do also hold a big chunk of equity here.

lol, so if epsilon did have any control over the spending, it would be in their interest to overspend in order to tip dan into default.

... which has been nice ..

you like that it rises on low volumes and then falls on high volumes??

i wonder if that was connected to Nomad resignation? dispute about the advisability, including share holder interests, about accepting such money under those terms? (or possibly, about timing for disclosure of it?) -- still, we will probably never really know. what's good for epsilon not necessarily for anyone else with money in here.

lol

"goodluckall seems to be ClockworkOrange" seems fairly unlikely, the style very different. but who knows. (potater, on the other hand, reminiscent of captainmorgan.) anyway, on anonymous bulletin boards, best not to take any of it too seriously, eh, & certainly not new accounts that come & go.

about the share puppets website, especially the tone of some (most?) of their articles. but for those who are interested, i see they have posted another comment on DAN today on their site (it's not a very complimentary one) particularly, they are highlighting that a document lodged with companies house recently seems to show that the company has given epsilon a charge over most/all DAN assets, in exchange for unspecified amounts of loans, suggesting DAN is running very low indeed on cash. at sharepuppets --> /views/18989/breaking-daniel-stewart-oh-dear-mr-terry-it-looks-like-the-cesspit-is-now-drowning-in-debt meanwhile, DAN watchers may also be mildly interested in the suspension of slater & gordon shares, as per: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/quindell-gives-slater-gordon-a-case-of-indigestion-a6894886.html (... perhaps this seems a bit tangential to DAN itself, but may be relevant insofar as DAN was involved in a number of QPP activities, so it remains possible that those looking into QPP's history are also eyeballing some aspects where DAN involved.)

if i was shorting this share, which i am not, would you not expect me to be posting critical comments or negative information about imtk, which on the whole i do not do. which is because i have no directional view here.

although you do seem to like bringing my name up on this and another bb. inconsistent.

most of the time on these bulletin boards, holders who like a company are only too happy to discuss what they like about a share, (with those playing games on the other side trying to share lots of negative facts/views etc.) here, i am not offering negative info about imtk, other than noting that volume remains low. while you are an enthusiast, but either don't know anything much about the company, or don't want to comment on the positives on a bb. most odd. so i guess perhaps you bought into imtk on the RT spike, simply because you saw the price movement, & actually have very little knowledge of the company.

i'm inviting you to say something positive about the lovely aspects of the company that make you think the sp will go higher. would it really be so risky for you to comment on the underlying positives? (if you know any)

graceful post, that 13:14. real world stuff.