Member Info for Spikeyj

"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.

sure, you might be right that whoever ends up holding a chunk of dan shares would have no intention whatsoever of selling any at all. me, i have no way of knowing whether so-called 'responsible holder' would act 'responsibly' or not. but since you raised the 'golden question' of how RT might have persuaded someone to pay 50% more than currently quoted price, it seemed reasonable to offer some thoughts on that question. i notice that you didn't reply re what you think RT's average price actually is. you wrote: "I imagine that RT will be willing to buy back anywhere below 3.35p as by doing so, he will lower his average." ... but surely, given RNS of march 31st, his average must be way below 3.35p? (not so much about my opinion, more just the arithmetic.)

wonder if costis is now reconsidering that junk bond issue?

"I imagine that RT will be willing to buy back anywhere below 3.35p as by doing so, he will lower his average." what do you think RT's current average is? ...the RNS of 31st March said: "The Company has today been advised that Mr Rob Terry, directly and via company / family interests, now has an interest in 52,000,000 ordinary shares in Daniel Stewart, representing approximately 7.4% of the Company's issued ordinary shares, having purchased 31,250,000 shares at prices ranging from initially 0.15p to 0.554p today." he has bought more since, at higher price, but surely his average would still be pretty low? "How has RT managed to find an investor who is willing to buy at a price more than 50% above current market valuation?" yes, that would be a really good question. so it's possible that RT has an investor who is prepared to hand over a certain asset that they already own to Dan, in exchange for a certain number of Dan shares. in terms of value, the issues would then be: (a) at what price could that vendor then unload those DAN shares in the market if they chose; in other words what is their actual real cash value? & (b) what value would an independent auditor,& the markets more broadly, place on the asset that DAN had acquired if it took up RT's recommendation? .. i could choose to sell my car for 100 tins of baked beans, where each tin of beans had an agreed price within our contract of £300. that doesn't mean, tho', that those tins of beans could be sold into the wider market for £300 each, nor does it necessarily mean that my car is actually worth £30,000 .... it all depends.

(which is probably not a lot, so i am commenting for info, rather than as a recommendation) i see that shareprophets is putting out more negative comment on tung, associating that with lucian miers claiming that he has increased a short position (no idea whether that is actually truthful). from a quick glance, they don't seem to claiming any particular new revelations against tung, more offering an opinion that nothing exciting will come from agm,& that company will soon need to call for cash. ... like i say, just watching the environment and chatter, not recommending share p.

when last seen, upenn had just under 2/3 million of these from his own postings, so indeed, probably painful for bulls.

meant, harsh climate, not harsh as in disproportionate.

chunk of stops hit, i think

pretty harsh

no need to abandon hope. someone may eventually get round to posting something which is actually about DAN. until then, will be quieter here. hope all going well on m for u.

well, lse admin don't delete factual posts regarding DAN, or constructively phrased, reasoned opiniosn re DAN & related business matters, (whether +ve or -ve re sp). would be nice to see more of the above on the bb?

don't you think it's a bit odd that rylidan was 'unaware'? the lse site has a tab that makes it pretty easy to review the RNS history. and rylidan had quite specifically posted how significant it was that there had *not* been an RNS then. .... that was simply untrue.

it seems odd that rylidan didn't know. it is not exactly buried deep in a long list of hundreds of RNS. it's clearly dated on the lse site, with a clear title. perhaps he's just tired as it's friday.

dangerously factual.

well, i love my laptop, but i've no idea how to build one or program apps.

do you use blueshare yourself brother?

well

i'm sure you are sincere in your belief that this share will come good, and i hope it may work out well for you and the other holders here. you are right, my views on RT do rule this one out for me. i'm happy to accept i may be wrong about that, it's just part of my personal risk management. i am possibly a bit more risk averse than some pis on the aim bbs, which is partly why i spread my risks quite a bit, & don't put a big a % in aim. that does mean that i am never going to multi-bag my p/folio in single year, but i am content with a lower but safer overall return, year on year. perhaps partly about my age and overall situation? - hence i do have capital preservation as a pretty high priority. means i spend a fair bit of time trying to work out which stocks i *don't* want to invest in, li.e. ooking for the potential downsides. most of the bulletin boards across lse are full of people offering reasons why one should invest in their particular favourite company (nothing v specific re dan regarding that) it's rather harder to look out for the reasons to steer clear. with that in mind you see, for me at least, sometimes earning next to nothing in the bank doesn't feel too bad, compared to the risk of losing quite a lot. i'd rather avoid companies i feel unsafe about, and miss out on some very good winners, rather than aim for big wins but risk taking significant hits to total capital. if i were a fair bit younger, i would probably have a different attitude to a bigger chunk of the p/f, since it might feel like i had more time to make good losses, and also i might be under less obligations to other family members to ensure our capital is protected. i am rather critical of the govt changes to allow people to hold aim shares in their sipps, since i think it runs the risk of encouraging many people who are not very sophisticated in understanding markets and risk to put their money in very lightly regulated speculative shares. i'm not too keen on a nanny state, but i worry that many very ordinary people will just burn chunks of their pension.