The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
The guy in the crow's nest with the telescope has spotted something in the distance.
Could it be...... surely not........ no, it's not an iceberg nor even an RMS (Royal Mail Ship)...... it's a huge chunk of news - an RNS on the distant horizon? ..........and it's getting closer......
I was thinking more along the lines of getting the products into a marketable state.
Just a thought Jinksy, but when you sh!t on fireworks, you usually get covered in sh!t....
Good luck to you anyway, whatever your target is.
It will be an interesting day when the SP does suddenly jerk into life. Given how many seem to be disgruntled and just want to get their investment back, I do wonder how many will hold on for just a little bit too long before seeing the SP fade again as everyone else jumps the train.
Uncanny - I think you've brought some measure of realism back to the board after a weekend of scare tactics from others.
My own view is that the BOD has achieved incredible things thus far and are continuing to pursue the elusive 401 deal, while continuing to progress the other compounds. Every month brings more value to the company. Dilution is a necessary evil, and where each of us are now with our investment is entirely down to us.
tozerk - presuming you are an investor, you had as much opportunity as anyone to scrutinise company accounts before investing and establish whether the BOD salaries were fair. You chose to invest. If you are bothered by that now, there is little point in complaining to us here. Why don't you ask the BOD to justify their salaries?
Clear to see that the trolls are out in force.<br /><br />Showing so much glee in an apparent anomaly, for which there is probably a simple explanation is a dead giveaway.<br /><br />Crawl back under your stones.<br /><br />Looking forward to hearing whether you get anything back from the Board ValJu
Unfortunately, passing all resolutions unchecked and allowing BOD free rein to do whatever they want is the best recipe for PIs "exacerbating their wrath and feeling cheated". Ho hum
I suspect holidays etc are the simple reason behind lack of news lately. Hopefully September will bring an indian summer for all
I have had no update from Tarquin since last week regarding lack of information around how the Board may spend any funds raised in the aftermath of a 'Yes' vote next week.
Make your own mind up about how you choose to vote. I shall be voting Yes to Motion 1, but No to Motion 2
Just to let you know that I mailed Tarquin yesterday as follows:
"Dear Mr Edwards
There is some concern among investors that as far as the two motions to be voted on at the GM n 24th July, there is not enough information regarding how funds raised following approval of the motions, is to be used.
There is considerable backing to vote NO to both resolutions should there be no further information forthcoming. this is due to the perceptions that 1) previous fund raises may not have been exercised in the best interests of all concerned, including private investors; and that 2) private investors are held in some contempt by the Board, and that their opinions do not count.
I should be grateful if you would pass on these thoughts to the Board and look forward to a response before 18th July so as to be able to make an informed decision when voting on the motions.
Many thanks"
He has replied this morning (at 04:25am!!) as follows:
"Many thanks M***** for your email and I will most certainly pass on your concerns and reflections to the Board.
With best regards
Tarquin"
I shall report back when/if I receive anything more.
That's a great question Holden.
There's nothing to be lost in mailing the board suggesting that based on previous history, they risk a No vote if there is no more information provided. Rather than take that risk, they may prefer to throw us a few sardines before 18th.
If they choose not to answer, then the way to vote seems clearer....
This is a rare opportunity to hold the board to account and get some answers.
They want something from us, and sure, they can have it if they play ball. But this should be a two way street and we shouldn't let them have it all their own way.
As company owners in part, we collectively deserve to be able to make an informed decision rather than blindly hoping for the best.
If you give away your rights too easily, you have no right to complain if you don't get the desired end result.
Whatever VAL's motives behind Friday's RNS, it is the equivalent of any of us going to the bank and asking for a loan.
Any bank worth its salt is gong to want a bit more solid justification rather than 'Sorry, we can't tell you why we need the money or even whether we will actually need it'.
As shareholders, we have significant collective leverage at this point in whether we grant them the facilities they are asking for.
Before agreeing to their request, frankly, we want more information about why they need the motions to be approved, rather than endless speculation about what might be happening.
My biggest concern in all of this is the BOD's lack of skin in the game. If I believed in the product and the commercial prospects, I would certainly be investing if I were able to.
We don't know if they are prevented by rules from buying for some reason, but I do not see why they cannot confirm whether or not that is the case.
My personal view is that if, after some debate at the GM, there are satisfactory answers as to why the money is needed, them Resolution 1 is allowable (it has to be I think, but they still NEED us to approve it, so let's get some answers).
However, I do not think Resolution 2 is justified if I understand it correctly - they should not have carte blanche to cash raise without justification, and our continued approval.
Whatever VAL's motives behind Friday's RNS, it is the equivalent of any of us going to the bank and asking for a loan.
Any bank worth its salt is gong to want a bit more solid justification rather than 'Sorry, we can't tell you why we need the money or even whether we will actually need it'.
As shareholders, we have significant collective leverage at this point in whether we grant them the facilities they are asking for.
Before agreeing to their request, frankly, we want more information about why they need the motions to be approved, rather than endless speculation about what might be happening.
My biggest concern in all of this is the BOD's lack of skin in the game. If I believed in the product and the commercial prospects, I would certainly be investing if I were able to.
We don't know if they are prevented by rules from buying for some reason, but I do not see why they cannot confirm whether or not that is the case.
My personal view is that if, after some debate at the GM, there are satisfactory answers as to why the money is needed, them Resolution 1 is allowable (it has to be I think, but they still NEED us to approve it, so let's get some answers).
However, I do not think Resolution 2 is justified if I understand it correctly - they should not have carte blanche to cash raise without justification, and our continued approval.