Member Info for SteJSteJ

I appreciate it's an assumption of constant mcap, and so your statement is correct based on that assumption, but how do you see the mcap being constant when assets are realised to purchase the shares? Only a sentiment shift about future potential would make that happen

I'm pretty sure my example is correct. You seem to think there is an obvious issue yet are unable to point to it

Still not seeing an elaboration on where my example is incorrect. I'd genuinely like to know what part you feel isn't adding up in there

Lti, so it appears you cannot explain why you think my example is incorrect.

Are you disagreeing with me there LTI? If so, can you explain how I am incorrect.

Ah, so you're ignoring the caveat.
Of course how investors perceive the use of funds will impact what happens in the market,but that could be good or bad, so for discussing the theory of how something works, that needs to be excluded as it's an unknown.

So there is nothing wrong with my theoretical example is what you are actually saying?

I'd like to know how that example doesn't hold true for any size of company.

I have a company with 1 share and an mcap of £1, so my sp is £1. I issue 1 new share for £1, so my mcap is now £2 with 2 shares in issue, so SP of £1.
Later on, I buy back that share for £1 and cancel it. So now I have an mcap of £1, with one share in issue, so SP of £1.

So everything else being equal, share issues and buybacks should have no impact on the SP at that point in time.
Future profit / loss of the company would however be distributed over more / less shares

I doubt whatever you are holding is substantial MrTwisted

Basically, the RNS's from the company. They suggest a deal is being discussed, and that an interested party had completed DD.
If there was no one at the table anymore, that would be RNS'd most likely.

Was it another moanalog?

And back to being abusive I see TreadingCarefully. It appears you are unable to back up your speculation with any substance as per usual.

If there is, it's highly unlikely you know it

Probably because discussions around the deal are ongoing.
So you agree they were extended and not lapsed then?

Apart from the options, which objectively extended, and not lapsed

Time since statement is irrelevent when the event that defines the result of said statement is still pending.

"Shortly" is subjective, I'll give you that it's been longer than most would claim shortly to be.
"Massive dividend", well an asset sale hasn't happened yet so the jury is still out there. Too early to say whether its factually incorrect or not.

But I think you know all this, and are just trying to cause disruption

When something is factually incorrect, that's not an opinion, that's just being wrong

So by definition, they haven't lapsed? You are a strange poster Mr_Wolfe

Happy to. Yet you seem unable to stay your hand for more than a few days, let alone until then