Member Info for Spikeyj

hi tricky. i'm not particularly trying to defend day trading posters who pepper the boards with the kinds of phrases you mention, it's just i tend to tune most of them out since i'm generally not that interested in day trading myself, so i just let them get on with it. (i do trade a little bit, but on the whole am more of a medium or long term investor.) so i don't actually experience myself as being 'bullied' on gbo or other bbs by the trader types who make such posts, it kinda just passes me by. but probably if i were day-trading more actively, i would watch & care more. i think an important difference to distinguish is between posters who are expressing critical comments on the company that have at least some evidential foundation or analysis (whether ultimately right or wrong, that might actually be worth reviewing & taking into account) vs posters who are simply making price predictions. the latter are probably *mostly* worthless, other than from the small minority of active traders who are skilled & successful in technical analysis on shares which are genuinely amenable to T.A. but most traders posting on lse don't fall into that category & are basically just guessing, & just personally i am pretty sceptical re value of TA for most AIM shares / micro-caps. (may be wrong, just my taste). .... a risky thing, tho', comes on these boards where people holding one particular position (whether it be long or short) get so defensive about their position that they automatically tend to see posters who express a different opinion as somehow hostile, which then closes down their own thinking & makes them ever-more certain of their own logic. -- btw not saying this applies to you, just a general comment! : ) atb, hope you are making money here and elsewhere.

a bit less work for them recently, i think.

hello rylidan, if you don't understand why you are having some of your posts deleted, then i'm sure that lse admin would be happy to help you try to understand the lse t&c. they are generally very helpful & polite. it might possibly help if you provided some evidence or analysis to support your assertions here (or indeed on other boards)? - you say that this share has been ramped, but this doesn't seem to be reflected in the posting history on lse CLIN bb so far as i can see. what evidence are you drawing on? me, always interested to hear reasoned arguments for & against on all bulletin boards, but find price predictions alone less useful.

agree that the rate of interest is not particularly grievous for a short term unsecured loan in the circumstances, compared to e.g. rate & fee for similar s/term bank loan. important question is more why IMTK are in the position of needing such a loan in the first place. bad planning at least.

posting + / - on this bb makes zero difference to sp. liquid share, good mcap. proof of the pudding, one way or the other, coming v. shortly in results. good luck holders.

the emotions suggest so, for some.

yes, possible. need money, yes, need RT, like a hole in the head.

RT? a bald faced lie? surely not?

sure. perhaps most dangerously of all, some folk take these bbs far too seriously, not good as main 'advice'.

hi tricky, the trader types are just playing in a different game from you & other investor / lth types. they are talking apples, you'd prefer them to talk oranges. but if you are fully comfortable with gbo as an lth, then why not simply ignore? as & when sp turbulence passes, the trader chatter will subside. lse bb should be able to host both traders & investors?

lol, yes, zzz, sure is quiet for a shorted aim tech stock that share prophets are trying to bash. (perhaps they are losing some readership?) ... slow burn here for longs & shorts, wait for figures to show proof of biz model, or not. atb.

was a good call, s/t.

.. i think i favour your theory, it's that fabled share prophets magic dust ...

lol, i shall certainly do what i can!!

ok, thanks, that's clear. don't know re the % he'd have to buy back before it reached x, too many missing variables! the key thing from a holder's perspective, i think, would be that his buying would need to start very promptly after any offload, & would need to be at a sufficient pace to make it look v credible that he was indeed buying right back up to his max permitted again, (i.e. rather than a bit slow so a net sale was suspected.) best of luck here, hope it's profitable for you.

hi catch, thanks for the civil reply & the overall exchange re DAN. nice to have some discussion focused on the company. if you are right that the prospective investor simply wishes to pay cash to buy a chunk of additional DAN shares at 3.35p, then i would agree that would seem relatively bullish. i'm not sure i understand what you meant re different liquidity risk for RT vs a new investor. do you mean, that because RT is already substantially in profit on his stake, that if say he needed to buy back one per cent of DAN, he wouldn't mind so much having to chase the price a bit higher on the open market, as compared to a new investor trying to buy one per cent of DAN for an initial stake, who had no existing cushion of 'in profit' shares?

my question answered.

"i already mentioned vested interest in my previous post. He could be selling to his wife who has a vested interest in allowing RT to purchase > 10%... or is that me being too simplistic?" the vested interest question is interesting. i'm not a lawyer, but imagine it might be necessary for RT to exercise some caution that any buyer is actually seen to be acting truly independently of him, rather than just buying as a proxy on his behalf (when it would affect TR1 & 10% level) also interesting in terms of market perception ... if DAN shares are bought up by people who could already be seen to have a vested interest in trying to support the price of DAN shares because of existing holdings they or business associates have, that kind of share support operation would probably be viewed as less bullish that shares being bought into by genuinely new investors who see them simply as good value at the level which they have just paid. "How do you think the share price will react in response to RT revealing the identity of the mysterious buyer and how will it react when his continues to purchase?" ... i don't know. i think it might depend partly on who the buyer of DAN shares was, (e.g. as above) but more particularly would depend on **what the market thought of the value of the asset** that had acquired in exchange for the DAN shares. if market thinks that DAN has acquired a delightful bargain in exchange for a few shares, then share price should go up. if market thinks DAN has overpaid for something, sp will go down. if RT sells a block of his DAN shares to an asset vendor, but then promptly replaces them in full with purchases in the open market of more DAN shares, so that he retains the percentage he has now, then i assume market would see that very positively. but if RT only buys back a proportion of the DAN shares transferred to asset vendor, then market would probably be much more sceptical, seeing that as a net sale by RT. i agree that liquidity constraints need to be taken into account, and yes, that could pose a problem if someone wanted to buy a large block on open market quickly. presumably, that might also be an issue for RT if he had sold on a block of DAN to an asset vendor? - i.e. if one reason the asset vendor hadn't just purchased on open market would be limited liquidity, wouldn't RT then face that identical situation?

"If not DAN shares for cash then how do you expect RT to sell his shares to this unknown party? Would RT accept the same asset in exchange for shares?" obviously i can't speak for RT, but yes, that was how i read it. in other words, RT is saying that he has recommended to DAN that there is an attractive asset (or assets?) out there where the vendor has indicated to RT that they are willing to sell it in exchange for a certain size wodge of DAN shares. (1) so RT is trying to persuade DAN BoD to issue a tranche of new DAN shares which would be handed over to that vendor so that DAN becomes the beneficial owner of that asset. - existing DAN shareholders would be subject to some dilution b/c of the additional shares issued, but if the acquired asset genuinely is a bargain it would nonetheless be worth it for DAN shareholders. (ideally, value of any such acquired asset would be subject to an independent audit, so that shareholders could be assured that it was a genuine bargain, not just RT doing a favour for a mate who happened to own the asset.) (2) but if DAN won't play ball, yes I read RT as saying that he would acquire the asset *himself* in exchange for a block of the DAN shares that he currently owns. ...presumably, he would be happy to do so, if the asset really is as attractive as he is telling the current DAN board... if that went ahead, then the asset vendor might be subject to some kind of lock-in agreement to restrict them from selling DAN shares too quickly (i.e. contractual enforcement re being a 'responsible' holder) while RT himself would be able to buy more DAN on open market while still <10%. -- a bit that remains unclear to me is why RT might prefer DAN to buy into such investment opportunity rather than do himself as first preference. presumably, would make most sense if there was some kind of perceived synergy with an existing aspect of DAN's business (i.e. more so than QPE). but tbh a bit hard to speculate more meaningfully without some more specific information about the actual nature of the proposed investment(s)/asset(s).

i appreciate some of this depend on how one interprets the section of the quob park estate blog which reads: "The key step to justify moving to a 10p fair value target, is for Daniel Stewart to demonstrate that it can once again use its stock at 3.35p or above (depending on where it is then trading). We believe this is possible short term as we have made the company aware of certain investments that would be willing to accept their stock at this level, and which would be responsible holders of the stock." i am assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that this means that there are entities out there which would be prepared to hand over their share in 'certain investments' (i.e. an asset of some kind) to DAN, in exchange for DAN shares. i do agree that it would put a different complexion on things if those entities were simply prepared to hand over 3.35p cash per DAN share, rather than hand over an asset. (but find it hard to see why they wouldn't just buy in open market, if they simply wanted to swap cash for shares, hence i assume it is not shares for cash) .. as to what it would mean to be a 'responsible holder', that would presumably depend on what was actually stipulated in the final contract, & what the compliance arrangements were.