Member Info for tbow112

"only actually transacting at a price reveals the true liquidity available there. The microtrade is essentially a live probe of real market depth that no amount of looking at a screen can replicate."

So how does a small transaction reveal liquidity ? Surely buying 3 shares does not entitle you to a certificate saying "37337 still to go"

And what kind of info would that be ?

"The algo testers are also back, dozens of tiny trades at 41.55p in rapid succession — 30 shares, 45 shares, 2 shares, 70 shares, 80 shares — before the large blocks hit. Institutional algorithms mapping the order book......."

What is the information that comes with placing a microtrade that is not available elsewhere ?

People seem to be forgetting that it is Pensana who have failed to provide the information which would normally expected of a public company.

"Tungsten West swiftly raised money at a less substantial discount than would have been possible otherwise."

Pawgee, I suggest that you have the facts completely wrong. TUN raised money at a very substantial discount in order to spin off some profits to their dominant investors. They could easily have raised funds at a much lower discount if not at a premium.

HTTps://www.edisongroup.com/edison-tv/baker-steel-resources-trust-webinar-baker-steel-resources-trust-portfolio-update-and-new-capital-allocation-policy/BM-3425/

"Look at the algo testers, tiny orders of 1, 3, 4 and 7 shares hitting 40.20p, 40.45p and 40.50p in quick succession. That's not retail. Institutional algorithms send probe orders at progressively higher prices to map the order book before committing larger size. "

Rusty, are you able to amplify this statement ? What is the information that comes with placing a microtrade that is not available elsewhere ?

Come on then, Sundrum. Explain to us why Pensana would make a substantial donation to the Qataris.

The Qataris have lots of money so you sell them a substantial stake in the company at a significant discount. Makes no sense at all.

"Tbow 65% of uk trades are already done by algobots, been like it for years."

So ? One of the reasons that algos might be surprisingly effective is that they have had 50 years to develop.

Some thoughts I posted elsewhere which might be relevant to Pensana.

"I am beginning to wonder whether algos have become so effective that they dominate the market in some shares and share prices no longer reflect a consensus on the value of a share but are simply the result of the interaction of various algos.

In a computerised world, if a professional institution decides that they want to buy a share, they may well start an algo which attempts to push the share price down whilst buying the share in small regular quantities. And the opposite effect will presumably happen in the case of a sell decision. Thus the effect of a buy/sell decision is very different from that which we have been taught.

The overall effect in such a market could well be distinct from that to which we have previously become accustomed."

"The anti-dilutive protections we enjoy as part of holding a regulated plc evaporate. So does the principle of one share one vote. They can create different share classes. Imagine what happens to minority shareholders then. "

You guys really are beginning to invent rubbish. Have you ever seen any sign that those protections function.

And Terrorwit clearly has a different posting style to Nigwit - some relationship perhaps, but the same person seems unlikely.

Https://www.mining.com/the-us-passes-dominance-act-for-critical-minerals-security/

"Agreed! We are worth more by winding up!"

I am not sure that this is correct. The odds on Nanoco successfully developing something are probably about 5 to1 against but the reward for that success could well be a 20x plus increase in share value.

There does appear to be a conflict between those who are hoping that the share price will double if the company becomes AIM quoted and those who are hoping that the price will multiply by 20 as a consequence of real development and where a current quotation is not particularly relevant. The desperation of some to avoid a delisting does seem a bit peculiar when neither choice is particularly attractive.

" the board is stripping retail investors of vital regulatory protections..."

" How is the FCA standing by and allowing this to happen?"

Do you not see a problem with the logic of your post ?

"It's the truth. You're naive if you think otherwise. I've been in this game for over 20 years. And those bunch won't resign if they lose the vote because they love their cushy jobs."

Once again nonsense - and I was buying shares before Guidfarr got short pants.

"Zeus definitely feels and looks more like a capital markets growth business. Corporate finance, II’s, research, and generally helping companies move through the next stage of their development. The main page shows latest IPO’s and funding details. I note they generated £30m of the £43m for TUN recently. Any TUN holders might have more thoughts on them with more knowledge than I do on the topic. "

Being associated with TUN"s capital raising is definitely not a recommendation as far as other shareholders are concerned.

"Many directors don't care about shareholders - that's the sad truth about public companies - they consider the company to be theirs and only care about shareholders when they need to raise money - their only care is about have cosy jobs and generous salaries for as long as possible."

Surely this paragraph is nonsense - some of the directors have so much money that their salaries from Nanoco are trivial. And there is nothing particularly wrong with an experienced director treating the job as an interesting hobby.

I suspect that even Manlord might like to learn as much as possible about share price "manipulation" and how it may, or may not affect EEE"s future prospects.,

" normal fundraising next round."

What do you understand by a normal fundraising ?