Member Info for Tobythedog

Hotfinance 14

Why do you discount Maersk? Please explain

"Is it conceivable"? Well yes, but it's not likely is my view. Indeed it has been argued that the recent fund raise was designed to cover off that very issue. I do have concerns that something specific is holding up the signing but as to what that is I have no idea. Certainly Jason and the BoD's continued suggestion that it is expected any day and is "imminent/with the lawyers " becomes less and less tenable by the day. They need to come clean and tell shareholders what are the issues as they have zero credibility in this aspect.

Stock Cheque

I think we are all thoroughly fed up and enjoying a bit of distraction. What else is there to talk about, certainly not any tangible action like getting "imminent" contracts signed off. JM and the BoDs constant missed self-imposed target dates are unacceptable and have sapped good will.

SJS2019

As a good Scot I hope you are right on both counts, but if only one, then I have a preference for the latter!

GLA

Fyoz

As I type you have 5 likes for the last post. So there is a good cohort of you to have a grate chat amongste yourselvs!

Culd someonne pleas explane to me why their are so many speling mistaks in theese posts?

This is getting silly. You can never be 100% certain but if the actual trade is above the mid point of the spread then it is assumed to be a buy; If below then it's assumed to be a sell. The point is Fyoz said "you don't know what the bid and ask were" but you do. The quoted Bid and Sell is shown.

SemaphorRed

It's always indicative.

Fyoz

"The point here is that, at the exact time of the trade, you don't know what the bid and ask were"

Sorry, but that's just not the case. If you look on the Share Trades linked page you see the Bid and Ask at the exact time of every trade.

MadDogMc

Fine but we're not currently "in business" with MSC. That's the point. No money has changed hands!

However you spin it and for all the potential we have not managed to get a single commercial contract over the line. Meanwhile all we get is missed target dates, jam tomorrow statements from Jason and yet more fund raising. The prime purpose of any company is supposed to be to make money for shareholders. Don't tell me the promised land is just round the corner. I've heard it before!

Jason if you can't achieve it sell the company onto someone who can!

AKHM

It is "dirt cheap" for a reason - the market has long since lost patience with the jam tomorrow story with elastic target dates that somehow are never reached.

Ncikf

It's more than just communication with shareholders.

I and many others would agree with your summary points and yet QED have repeatedly failed to deliver a commercial contract over many years, hence the frustration and market concern - reflected in the SP that they ever will.

Vince 72

What?

Vince 72

I agree but other than bemoan the continuing delay and call out Jason for yet again failing to meet his own target dates what can we do or say that has not been said before?

Dusty/Fyo

"Whereas when the 100% cap is hit, IMO, brokers should consider more factors, such as how large a holder's original shareholding is, fully fill modest applications first, etc."

It is impractical to expect brokers to take several different factors such as the holder's original shareholding into consideration. In addition you are in effect asking them to overturn the decision to apply a 44.77% haircut. Whatever alternative decision the broker makes there will be some winners and losers. The losers will complain that the broker had no mandate to apply their own alternative formula. It is obvious that a straight percentage cut applied to all shareholders is the simplest solution.

Fyoz says "is it fair that we're scaled back the same percentage, so I get 144% yet he gets 276% (100% entitlement plus 4x44% excess)". Since when did the concept of fairness come into the equation? Is it fair that I was not born absurdly rich? It is the accepted, frequently used and reasonable way to apply a reduction with both parties in your example each receiving 44.77% of the excess for which that they applied.

G Butts

I have a sipp with AJ Bell, so also does my wife. We received AJB's secure message dated 19/3/24 but nothing since then. As the OO has been extended for a week there is plenty time to action. Chill

Vince

Re yours of 18:31 of 12/3/24

You say "On that I can believe JM, why would Cargill/MSC invest in a product that hasn't put in the miles and been proven and got the all precious LONO, so I dont believe that they will take a stake in QED".

PharaohRocher in his earlier post at 16:29 of 12/3/24 just gave a very good reason why they should both do so and this has been Recommended by 21 people so far. In addition you've said you "I can believe JM" but later pretty much contradict this by saying "There is no way in hell these contracts could or would have been signed in December".

I support PR's view and further believe it is a quite likely scenario and an elegant solution that benefits all parties including shareholders

Whiskyman01

Wow!

You're fairly clutching at straws there. It was clearly on the slide and presented at the AGM to shareholders. Even if I accept that it was for "guidance/aim points", which I don't, the timing was clearly incorrect - again!

Great work and thanks to all those that took the time to visit the facility and prepare the report.

Vince

I agree with ColdFishPie Shell are not that kind of company. They are a systems and procedurally bound mature company with many committees and bureaucratic layers; not a buccaneering aggressive outfit. They would rather wait till a product is proven in the marketplace to de-risk any aquisition. Plus as CFP says ED has a market cap of £35M .

Shell's is £160B. If they wanted to buy they could easily do so. In fact of course it would hardly cost them anything since QED has an £80M accumulated tax loss which I believe they could offset against profits.