Member Info for Spikeyj

not sure about ash 17:00.... some would argue, that the capacity to short an over-priced sleazy bar (or conversely, to short an over-priced and insufficiently sleazy bar, since commerce must cater for diverse tastes, eh?) could bring about lower prices amongst surviving bars, faster closures of dud bars, and keep staff and owners on their toes to provide better customer service & value. -- being able to act on a negative view about the worth or a service or asset is part of market discipline, if we accept at least some capitalist principles? [ps does capitalism have principles?] (pps i am presuming that most on these boards are at least *trying* to be capitalists, tho' understanding of advanced capitalism might be more scarce).

[tempted] [deja typ-o]

re acquisitions, issue might be whether gbo spends money buying drinks for the right people at the bar? getting it right means contacts, friends, who knows, perhaps even a new member of the family one day, followed by the pitter-patter of tiny feet & sleepless nights. buying drinks (or come to that, accepting them) from the wrong person at the bar might lead to shame & regrets, a hangover, a missing wallet, an unfortunate incurable viral disease, etc. etc. [just speaking hypothetically, i hasten to add]

(jolly, re 15:46, some people start from that position anyway)

(unless mr bb is anticipating a period of hyperinflation, in which case we would need a wheelbarrow of money each to afford a small sweet sherry). ... not currently looking that likely, providing someone does actually remember to turn off the qe tap before the world economy overflows.

good post

little director buy

"RT is not talking about selling DAN." "If DAN is not interested, he will use DAN's paper to buy into the proposition through QPE. " .... sorry K3, i meant to clarify in my previous post, me, i see the idea of RT "using Dan's paper to buy into ..." as being effectively the same as RT talking about selling DAN shares, i.e. by exchanging some of the QPE shares in DAN in exchange for holdings in something else -- effectively, a sale. "He bought into DAN for the long term and has a stated intention of buying more DAN." ... & i very much appreciate that we differ re perception of RT, which is fine, [thank you for the civil adult tolerance of that difference] and i hope that you are right and i am wrong about him (since then you would make money, yay! and i would at least not lose any, ok) but i think it is reasonable to note that there are at least a few punters in the market place who, rightly or wrongly, may not want to rely on RT's word about that future commitment, given the historic events re his shareholding in QPP, first equity etc. atb.

hi k3. "If DAN rejects, then QPE will either use DAN paper to buy a stake or stakes elsewhere, or it won't. If QPE follows through, then more DAN will be bought." it's that last bit that i would be slightly watchful about if i were a dan holder. -- if rob offloads some of his dan shares to someone else to take up a stake in venture X that dan had declined to take up, despite rob urging them, then sure it's *possible* that rob might then buy more dan shares to replace them --- ( .. particularly if rob being seen to offload some dan shares had indeed led to a fall, either through indirect effect on market confidence, or more directly because of the vendor trying to dump their dan shares; -- tho' presumably rob would attempt to bind them with a lock in?). ---- but it's by no means guaranteed that RT would try to build up the dan stake again. firstly, since he started building his stake, the picture has (arguably) changed a little re how likely he is to get permission from regulators to go above 10% with Dan [ ... IMTK might then become preferred quote vehicle? - don't know, i don't follow that one closely] secondly, if rob was not been able to persuade dan BoD about the first 'plum' deal, it might reasonably reduce his confidence about other attempted co-operation with the Dan BoD. [perhaps the current QPE statement is intended to put pressure on DAN BoD to agree to an investment deal? ... say yes, or i sell DAN stock and do it through QPE instead?] anyway, hope it comes good you you here. the t & m shares were looking perky today, considering.

it's a very good company.

hi k3, i don't know, that's why i am neutral on the sp rather than negative. in terms of how to value it, that would presumably also depend on the nature of the asset/investment? ... e.g. buying a stake in a small tech start-up would call for different metrics compared to e.g. a non-operating stake in a producing diamond pipe ( ... i'm not seriously suggesting the latter! - just that it seems premature to debate the best mode of valuation ahead of any substantive info re investment rob is trying to persuade dan about). going forward, the main issue surely is what the actual quality of the investments/deals are that rob has in mind (-- if one sets aside for a moment the non-trivial risk/question re sfo actions -- ). & there is no real data available currently to form a view. (that's why i don't share views of someone like yoho etc. that dan definitely going down; i think he's guessing in the dark just as much as brother does re upside). .... what i do note, dan share price has been buoyed up by rob's stake-building, but he seems to issuing a fairly clear suggestion that he will dispose of chunks of dan stock if he can't persuade dan's management to go along with his proposals. if that happened, QPE might or might not make money from the investment, 'pends on quality, but i find it hard to see how that would help dan sp if rob did do that. obviously, if rob did sell dan stock to buy an investment for QPE because he had failed to persuade Dan to pursue it, then he could in theory then buy more DAN stock back up to 9.99% ... but i suggest it might be unwise to bank on him doing so, if then in a context where Dan management had already declined to go along with his ideas. hi sell. the key issue will be, what will the market think the asset is actually *worth*, and if DAN shares are issued to pay for it, not so much the notional price at which those are issued in the agreement, but rather what those shares could then be sold for in the market .. i.e. what is the real value of the consideration rather than the 'paper' value. (it might well be that market will happily agree those amounts correspond, but that is where some of the risk would lie.) sure, i wouldn't give you £100,000 in cash in return for shares valued at under £50,000, for example, but if someone offered to give me £100,000 *equivalent* in shares in company X, in exchange for £50,000 shares in company Y, before i accepted i would want to check carefully how easily it would actually be for me to sell that amount of shares in company X onto the open market to realise cash, rather than necessarily be left holding the company X paper on my books. i might then decide to go ahead with the deal anyway, but my calculation would be weighted differently if i was being offered a large chunk of liquid blue chip, versus a *seemingly* large chunk of stock in a relatively illi

it's fascinating. well worth continuing to watch, almost as much fun as the oil price shenanigans. so the open letters which were to come out end august may not come out for up to another four months. ok. fortunately, that's not long to wait, in AIM investor minds, eh? while in the meantime, rob wants imtk to issue a bunch more shares, but imtk is currently saying no thanks. no details yet know (to me at least) re what sticking points are. ... in the meantime, rob wants dan to issue a bunch of shares in order to buy into some exciting investment opportunities that rob has identified ... if dan does go along with that, of course the key issue will be what the market thinks the genuine underlying value is of the asset or investment acquired (- imv, we are not yet in a position to judge currently, as no info has been provided yet about nature of such investment(s).) .... underpriced gems vs. pigs in pokes? if the asset is *worth* say, £3350, and Dan issues 100,000 new shares at 3.35 pence each to buy it, fair enough! while if an asset is worth say, £6700, and Dan buys it for 100,000 new shares at 3.35, whoopee, bargain! ... the snag would come if Dan buys something for 100,000 new shares at 3.35p, & rob says it's a marvellous victory for Dan, because look, Dan shares are issued again at 3.35p, but market says, hang on a minute, we don't actually think the underlying investment acquired is actually worth £3350 ..... since that would then imply that the paper was being overvalued. (would then be a bit like WRN situation, where WRN acquired an astonishingly cheap legal claim at knockdown price, if one believes WRN, but so far WRN have not yet produced auditor who will agree.) .... but if dan doesn't go along with the idea of issuing a bunch of additional shares to buy into rob's opportunity for them, then rob seems to be saying that he will sell some of his dan shares in order for quob to buy into the asset(s) directly themselves, i.e. selling those shares to whoever currently owns such asset(s). so yup, if rob sells X shares, then indeed he would then be in a position to buy X shares without busting the 9.99%. - duh! "We see Daniel Stewart using its stock at this level as the most important factor in encouraging us to move our valuation towards our 10p fair value target. We are extremely confident that the opportunities exist as we have highlighted them, and if we do not see Daniel Stewart take up at least one of these opportunities within the next few weeks, we intend to use some of our own Daniel Stewart stock at 3.35p to make this investment. QPE using some of its own Daniel Stewart stock at 3.35p would have the consequential effect of increasing the capacity for QPE to purchase further Daniel Stewart shares without exceeding the current applicable limit of 9.99%." intriguing.

http://finance.zacks.com/happen-short-stocks-bankruptcy-8444.html http://www.davemanuel.com/2007/08/19/what-happens-if-a-stock-that-i-am-short-goes-bankrupt/ http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/082803.asp

outright nonsense. if you short a company and it goes bust, then you are in clover, bust = maximum return.

ah, hargreaves l says: Final results 22 September 2015

is specific date known yet pls?

K3, one would hope so! atb.

sorry, meant jptop.

brother, jtop asked me a civil question (16:38) so i gave him a civil answer. .... hardly 'over and over', eh. i'm not sure why you go on about saving poor old dan investors, that's not my concern. i assume you are all adults here, so it's entirely up to you what risks you take, it's your own money.

perhaps RT may be hoping that he can publish the open letter setting out his proposals to the IMTK board alongside a response from the IMTK board which makes receptive, friendly noises?