Member Info for Spikeyj

presumably, one reason 'friends & family' might have bought shares from RT would be if he sold at a low off-market price, i.e. leaving them some perceived margin of safety for them in turn to try to flip them on market for a profit. but setting aside issues about RT selling, perhaps it would be sensible to use the bb more to focus on what the underlying business case is (or not) in fundamental terms for buying (or selling) these shares. .. the discussion on here often seems very narrowly focused on whether RT selling or not, or will buy more in future or not ... which perhaps misses the point about what the actual prospects are for company now? just a thought. not invested here myself.

little recovery

lol, true, even i am managing to make a little money tradingon this one, and i am probably the slowest wittted & most cowardly trader in town.

that does seem to have given it a nice little push this morning.

the share price here had risen on RT taking a stake because some people thought he might attempt to take it over. but now that he has got rid of his stake, the market no longer prices in a take-over premium.

goodluckall, RT sold out. the holdings RNS of 21st jan tells you that. RT had 12.86 millions shares, but then he reduced to <3%. i.e. RT got rid of somewhere between 12.86 million to 10 million shares.

what you can see from the share price, as RT has sold out, the sp has sagged, back towards the levels it used to be at before the RT inspired ramp & spike came.

he just said, " a large portion". nowhere does he explain what that actually means. for all i know, it means 10 shares.

"He can get around that easily." hence some of the queries people have re RT.

if RT still had control over those shares, then that should be taken into account in the TR1. it's v. problematic in legal terms if someone claims they have sold when they still exercise effective control.

at least you have a sense of humour. you think that he has sold those shares in order to drop the price so that he can buy them back again? enough lunacy for one evening, g'night!

yes, it doesn't make much sense, does it his wheeler-dealer shenanigans with dan shares and imtk shares? who knows what RT is really up to. if you even shake hands with him, count your fingers after. one thing he does seem to have done with both is to book paper profits from both holdings into qpe accounts. which presumably may help him represent to others just what marvellous returns qpe makes.

if you are still talking about RT (quob) and IMTK shares, then all the information i have to go on is the RNS issued by the company about his holding, presumably linked to a TR! form he did. plus quob tweets, though frankly i would place much less trust in quob tweets. the company RNS re RT holding clearly says that he has sold down his stake.

good luck, !exactly. the TR1 form makes it clear that RT sold his IMTK shares. so either you think he has issued a false declaration about the sale, or else RT has got rid of them; now why would he do that if they were such a 'dead cert'? it's not a bad question, wondering why someone would buy shares off RT that RT clearly thinks aren't going to do well. now why would parties connected to RT want to help him out in that way? (what possible kind of incentive might they want?) one of the difficulties with RT, is there is so much smoke and mirrors, that it's very, very hard to work out what he is really doing.

you claimed that DAN no longer needed a placing because it had raised money off market. as evidence, you then cited an RNS from 17/11 which stated they had raised money through CLNs. -- but you either didn't notice, or choose not to notice, that the RNS of 17/11 also made it clear that they *still* needed a placing. it's not that complicated.

(wot, RT issue a misleading RNS? shurely not? lol.)

are you saying that you think his RNS was false? the RNS said that he sold.

? one could also question, if those shares are such a dead cert, why did RT get rid of them?

? but will they want to buy yours?

well, that's what he/qpe said. (of course, there are some would suggest that RT does not always tell the truth.) (? but how could one check the truth of what qpe says anyway?)