Member Info for stokey12

Just read this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51040155 it does not actually mention which report it is referring to but I think I know which one it is. If there is no ban on plastic packaging then there is likely to be a need for more solutions like DMG to reduce costs on businesses.

Kenny100 - It was an uncrossed trade so probably book balancing going on.

Kenny100 In relation to yor 15.48 post I do not disagree with anything stated in the link. The point is that for these purposes the shareholder is the nominee not the person who they are buying on the behalf of. So HL can say that they have 19% of the shares in PHE but within that 19% someone could have 3% or more and you would not know.

Piltick - See this link https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DTR/5/1.html

Piltick - In relation to your 12.06 post. The distinction is between the legal owner (the broker) and the beneficial owner (the client). I will double check but my understanding is that where the legal owner holds the shares as a nominee the rule does not apply.

BimbleB - In relation to your 11.52 post it illustrates an interesting point about the Disclosure and Transparency Rules. As I understand it the beneficial owner of shares in a nominee account is not disclosed and if they go over the limit which would trigger a TR1 being filed one does not have to be filed. This means that somebody can build up a stake without anyone knowing.

According to the list of signficant holdings 58% of shares are held by nominee accounts. So in effect it is impossile to know who actually owns the majority of the shares in PHE.

gassyoil - In relation to your 09.33 post the list of signifcant shareholders is only updated in line withthe AIM rules every six months so I knew that UBS would not be on the list. Until I can get verification from a reliable source I am not willing to say it is definitely true.

Manabouttown - When asked you were not able to provide a link so that it could be verified that is why I said arguably. My other reason for questioning it is that most funds do not invest in AIM stock so for UBS to invest such a significant amount in an AIM stock is unusual.

The recent posts by Jimiam about an announcement and arguably the one earlier this week by Manabouttown on investment by UBS underlines the importance of doing your own research and not relying on tips from friends.

Piltick - Yes especially as the 12 month high is 0.615 which might be breached tomorrow.

He took his time.

Manabouttown - In relation to your 09.04 post can you explain what is stopping PHE simply terminating the agreement to bring the rights back in house. I appreciate that would mean that they would only have the licenese and engineering services fees but that was the original plan.

Manabouttown - Can you clarify something if I or anyone says anything in opposition to the acquisition then we are told that we should wait for the shareholder circular for more details of the reasoning. However you have been relentlessly pushing it on the same information. If you can push it on the information in the public domain why can people not question it on the same information?

Piltick - Thanks for your 08.09 post I could not recall whether it was 14 or 21 days hence the wording of my post.

Manabouttown - In reference to your 07.54 post you seem to have ruled out the possibility that the shareholder circular an notice of the EGM can be given at the same time. Logic says that this is what should be done as the shareholder circular is giving the reason for the EGM. You are putting great store by yesterday's RNS which relates to only one component of the DMG system granted a crucial element. The asset must be surely the DMG system as a whole not individual items.

If the Emergency General Meeting to approve the acquisition of W2T is going to be this month then if it needs three weeks notice we should be given notice by Friday. I wonder if the Chairman is considering the emails from shareholders concerned by the price.

Augustus_ - In relation to your 12.40 post while in some cases what you say may be true in the case of PHE as it is registered for EIS I am ot sure that would be the case here. If, as I suspect you know, an investor invests in an EIS scheme there are tax advantages. Assuming that in three years time PHE is rading in the 5-10p range then they would make a saving on CGT if they were to hold the shares and then sell in three years time at a greater profit. For that reason I would not be overly concerned with a placing as it is liely to be by somebody who will hold for the tax advantages.

Augustus_ In relation to your post of 11.44 can you explain what would be the need for a placing to fund a all share offer? In any case the minimum price a placing can go for is 0.5p so any placing would be at a premium which in fact favours PHE as it would increase the value of the Share Premium Account.

manabouttown - Does that include your holdings in W2T?