Member Info for TheTrotsky

See message on CRC. Just curious.

Deckchair, Did you have a night out or a night in? Did you receive the 55pps?

Due tomorrow

"Insiders who probably knew what was going on and managed to get out on this mornings spike with minimal losses / possible profit unlike many of us"

Seriously? Check the trades. There was one sell of just over £4k and maybe c4-5 sells between £1.5k and £2k. The rest were generally less than £1k. Hardly a mass exodus of people "in the know". I wouldn't be surprised if some people got wind of an RNS early this morning and took a "dabble" on the off chance (not knowing the content). There were several 1m+ buys early dorrs that might've been just enough to give the share price some early impetus (together with short supply) but it looks as if a lot of this morning speculators were caught out by the suspension before the RNS.

All you can say is that the directors probably ought to have sought to suspend the shares from the open. Not sure why they weren't advised to do so by their brokers.

From a legal perspective, directors can be held personally liable for any liabilities that might arise if a company knowingly continues to trade insolvently i.e. if the members vote against the winding up then the existing BoD will, more than likely, be forced to resign en masse and the company would be unlikely be able to find any new directors willing to serve.

Based on previous RNS its unlikely that the company will have sufficient cash to continue trading beyond the end of June and any R&D tax credit that might have been due for FY22 is now unlikely be received or, at least, significantly delayed; not only would the FY22 accounts normally need to be signed off (which would now appear unlikely due to fundamental doubts about the company's ability to continue as a going concern) but there are currently significant delays in HMRC processing R&D claims (due to a significant increase in the number of fraudulent claims in the last 2-3 years). The signed accounts form part of a company's tax return and, without signed accounts, a company cannot normally submit a tax return (and make an R&D claim).

Bottom line, the company needs a large capital injection if it's to survive. Voting down the proposed resolutions won't solve that problem. Members would be better off trying to get the directors to put forward a resolution to do a fund raise albeit it would seem probable that the larger shareholders aren't in favour of putting in any further money.

It's an insolvent liquidation which would suggest that there will be nothing left for shareholders

I tend to agree but I think Doerfler could have been more forthcoming. Based on what I've read recently, I believe BioTechs may have been dialing back their spend to reduce their cash burn and extend the "runway" because now is not a good time for them to try and go to the markets to raise new cash.

As a result, MXCT may not start to see any improvement before the start of H2, if not later, and Doerfler should have done a lot more to set out the background to the current fall and, potentially, prepare investors for an even worse H1 set of results.

"Given the evolving operating environment, we are pleased with our first quarter results and the progress we have made towards delivering on our long-term financial and strategic initiatives"

Bit of a dopey statement. A c20% fall in recurring Q1 revenues and that's all Doug Doerfler has to say for himself! One is left to assume that, in the current financial environment (difficulties raising new equity investment and the banking problems in the US), businesses are conserving cash, using existing inventories etc. You also have to wonder whether the FDA putting a temporary stop on all new trials due to an unexplained death (I think it was early 2022 or late 2021) had a knock-on effect.

But Doeffler says nothing like that. He really needed to say a lot more about the "evolving operating environment". Leaving investors guessing is never good. Strike one against Doeffler as CEO IMHO. There's no doubt that Doeffler understands the technology and would make a good CTO but a good CTO does not necessarily a good CEO make. A good CEO needs to be a jack of all trades (not necessarily the master of one).

Said it before, ASOS has to re-think its entire business model in the US (and perhaps RoW). It's doing okay in UK and Europe but it's US business, in particular, is a mess. US sales have gone into reverse over the past 18-24 months whilst its fulfillment costs per item can only be rising. In H1, its UK sales were c3.2x its US sales; the UK has c20% of the population and is c2.5% the size! Owning its own fulfillment centres in the US does not make financial sense.

Natural gas and oil properties are being accounted at cost of acquisition and amortised over the expected useful life of the wells, not the estimated value of gas in reserve; if they were, the valuation would rise and fall in line with market value and changes in the estimated realisable reserves. Arguably, if the reserves were being valued, then the rises/falls in valuations would, at least, partially offest the impact of the hedges being marked to market.

Bonds are only tending to be a problem if you are a forced seller and are unable to hold to maturity; otherwise rising yields (on the back of rising interest rates) are making them attractive. Of course there are potential risks to the underlying assets e.g. the risk of bad debts to mortgage backed securities.

Sill not quite clear what's happening in the US mid-sized banking sector. The problems at SVB (bad risk management which resulted in an asset/liability mismatch), and Credit Suisse here in Europe (bankers to tax dodgers and organised crime, say no more), seemd fairly clear cut and subsequent panic/cotagion understandable (even the very best run banks can't survive a run on deposits). However, it's not yet clear what, if any, problem there is exactly at PacWest beyond the fact that it's share price has tanked in the aftermath of SVB's collapse. A crisis of confidence is not, of itself, a problem. The fact that it has been approached by several potential bidders suggests that the bidders see an opportunity to pick up a bargain not a problem to be avoided. Charlie Munger has suggested that there are a lot of bad loans in the US banking sector (and given Berkshire Hathaway's investments in the US banking sector he ought to know) and that they have to clean house (but it's nowhere near as bad as 2008).

A couple of takeaways. Rumours can be as damaging, if not more damaging, for banks than actual problems. The sooner the US re-implements Glass-Steagall the better for all of us. How many banking crises since the repeal of Glass-Steagall does it take the US government and the Fed to realise that you have to ring-fence retail investors from investment banks and to protect investment bankers from themselves (putting a kid in a candy shop and telling them not to eat the candy is never going to work)!

Smarty, I thought everybody's "ISA work" was long past done ;-) CC can only spend his ISA allowance once ;-) I agree that leverage is being squeezed but rather suspect that this was a retail seller rather than someone trading on margin.

What are you talking about? DEC hasn't declared another dividend. The final dividend announced with the March results was simply approved at yesterday's GM. It goes ex-dividend on 25 May.

Allan55, I am telling anybody who will listen to beware of the fairytales the rampers are feeding them and calling out any blatant lies e.g. the suggestion that shareholders could receive 1pps from the MVL when the directors own calculations would suggest 0.2pps (prior to reading that in the RNS, I was being generous and was allowing that shareholders might receive up to 0.5pps based on the net assets disclosed in the RNS and allowing for no more than, say, £30k of additional costs).

So, based on what management have said in the RNS, I am not deramping; I was stating FACT when I said you will not make a profit from buying at 0.6pps (as was) nor will you make a profit from buing at 0.44pps. I have to admit that the costs of the MVL implied by the directors' statement in the RNS (c£181k or c64% of the net assets at the end of April) do appear quite steep but have to assume that their estimate of the likely distributabe funds per share would have been based on quotes received from advisors, solictors, brokers etc.

So, based on the current sp, the only way to make a profit would be an RTO/SPAC and the only grounds for that speculation is PH's 10% holding announcement last week. I would accept that you can't rule out an RTO/SPAC completely but IMHO it's a (long) reach and, if it was something that the directors were actively considering, I believe that they would have a made a disclosure to that effect in the RNS. The other alternative is that PH are not working on an RTO/SPAC with management and are, instead, either acting on their own volition or with a third party. Again, possible, but IMHO highly unlikely given that the only real value left in ITS is it's existing listing. I don't think the current net cash, c£285k, would be a persuasive argument for either PH, or a potential third party, given ITS's current rate of cash burn and that they'd probably need to undertake due diligence before acquisition/promoting.

Some are suggesting that an RTO is, in effect, a "done deal". I am very dubious of such claims based on PH's new holding alone. That said, I do understand the speculation and if some posters refrained from suggesting that an RTO was a "slam dunk" and emphasised the high risk, given an MVL would not currently be expected to fully cover the potential downside if an RTO did not materialise at the current share price, then I would not take issue.

The reality is that this isn't really about LLOY (or NWG) for that matter. The lighter regulation of the US mid-sized banks is really coming back to bite at the moment.

You have to feel for PacWest today; on the one hand it says it hasn't seen large numbers of customers rushing to take their money out whilst at the same time it has had to notify the market that it's considering its options having been approached by potential buyers and investors (opportunists), as its share price has plunged. It's between a rock and hard place and, all the while, confidence is being eroded by the constant Chinese whispers.

It's becoming a farce. The Fed needs to get a grip. Surmountable problems that might have been fixed behind closed doors are now at risk of becoming insurmoutable problems in the full glare of public scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that all banks are too big to fail but their business models are wholly reliant on customer confidence to generally enable them to borrow short and lend long and, as such, do warrant some special treatment by the regulators to ensure that temporary problems don't always get blown out of all perspective.

To date most of the problems in the US mid-sized banks appear to have emanated from short/medium term liquidity issues not necessarily immediate capital issues due to management miscalculations e.g. the problems at SVB appear to initially have stemmed from short term, near cash funds being invested in medium/long term investments to try and earn a higher return (a really stupid management miscalculation) which then morphed into a capital crisis when they were forced to sell those investments at the bottom of the market to meet normal withdrawals, resulting in an almost total meltdown. Still think the Fed might have been able to help avoid the problem, by lending against the face value of the investments, if SVB had approached them and explained their problem (if they did then the Fed made a major boo-boo to further compound SVB's original error). I'm sure if the likes of (say) JP Morgan had approached them with a similar problem, they wouldn't have hesitated to act.

Somebody just sold 800k at 6.05p. C'mon own up! Is that going to draw a line below today's fall or are there more large sells to come?

You don't generally get given shares in a placing; so I would assume that he bought them. That said, apart from the placing, he doesn't appear to have bought or sold any shares since.and that, prior to the placing, he wasn't holding any shares.

ACCORDING TO LSE HE OWNS 2,245,000 FOLLOWING THE PLACING ON 06-JUL-202O.

Really no need to shout old boy ;-) I can read lowercase too ;-)

poorinvestor, According to LSE's data, sells currently outweigh buys and the largest single trade is £1,000. Go figure ;-) The institutions are piling in big time. LOL! Do the maths. If you are looking to double your money today, £1,000 may buy you a shed load of shares but not a lot of bunce, given the risk. I suggest that you add a couple of "0" to your target price if you want to make a big time gain ;-)

404x, I didn't realise that ITS was such a gem ;-) It's the latest in a long line of ugly duckling that the rampers are trying to persuade anybody who'll listen is going to become a swan. As long as everyone buys with their eyes wide open and knows the risks, I haven't got a problem (GLA), but forgive me if I don't trust the rampers's motives.

Yesterday it was MIRI (the RNS was silent on one key facet - income; the collaboration is probably an excellent step forward for MIRI but it won't make profits just by mere association with MSOFT as some rampers are wont to suggest - go ask IQE shareholders about its long standing association with Apple) and last week it was IBPO (the institutions head for the door nursing significant losses and yet we are informed by the rampers that everything is going to be fine and "back to normal" when it delists and PIs are going to be raking in the profits). Forgive me for my scepticism.