The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Well, Muggins would have us believe there is only one dishonest individual or "conman" as he puts it connected to DVRG. I'm afraid I don't believe a word he says, and being accidently right when having a major axe to grind is no achievement to speak of.
So Muggins. What's your position now? Did you EVER heed your own warning and sell down the significant shareholding you claimed to hold all through that drop?
There is no defense of GB there, but Muggins, who claims to have been right, does not seem like someone who should cast the first stone.
Either he didn't have the courage of his convictions, bought and held knowing it was a con that would fail. Or he never bought Amy shares but pretended he did in order to troll a BB for whatever reason.
I don't see other likely options there, and Muggins refuses to face it.
Meanwhile Muggins own actions remain wholly unexplained. He refuses to explain why he claimed to be a significant shareholder whilst 'warning' everyone this huge drop was coming and GB was a 'conman'. Makes no more sense after this drop than it did before.
I don't know whether we faced a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether leaks were always accurate. If there was a raise attempt going on which got leaked and TW decided to predict the price would be 3p, then as we see the market will sell down to that price. TW has long standing public grief with GB, I recall they have clashed before. I have no idea what price they were trying to achieve in this equity raise or why, but I cannot help wonder if this has been pushed down further than sentiment alone would have achieved with whatever GB et al were thinking.
Okay Muggins, so why did you buy shares from someone you consider a conman, and why did you repeatedly state you had not sold out over your years of "warnings"?
Eg:
"mugginsthedog
Posted in: DVRG
Posts: 904
Price: 13.75
No Opinion
RE: Tempted to add28 Apr 2022 10:34
Paulcon - I am disappointed to be right each time as I am a significant shareholder. However, I see significant downside risk here"
No Muggins, I am trying to work out if you were a fool, or a deliberate disrupter that got luckier than you ever expected.
Stopped clocks get no congratulations for the twice a day they are right. So genuine question. Did you ever sell out, or are you still holding the many shares you professed to own all along?
Muggins at every stage you have shouted doom and gloom whilst also insisting you remained invested. That destroyed your credibility. You either looked like a fool for ignoring yourself, or a deliberate disrupter.
I accept this is a farce, but what did you do? Did you continue ignoring yourself?
Do I interpret this correctly as an estimate of what a rational market would create as a risked assessment at each of those stages? In essence, peaks and troughs aside of what the market might produce, that is what it should, and what prices might be expected to drift towards?
May be worth seeing a physio for a more holistic view. I have an issue with my spine that manifests as plantar symptoms. Regular treatment on my back helps keep that at bay or at least at a minimum. No direct treatment on my feet ever lasted.
You have tried pushing that line before. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. The RNS states that £275,000 secured both the option to use the rig and rig maintenance. Nowhere does it state that PRD is 'on the hook' for £275,000 of maintenance. It is a deposit. Your transparent FUD attempts are neither logical not literal interpretations of anything. No one believes you hold anything, and if you do it would make you certifiable for consistently seeking to trash talk that holding.
I think what was missing there was the price drifted down and took 6 months to drift back up.
The same happened to me with Greggs some time back, and I was happy with a 5% or so profit after a long slow down and up. Then everyone fell in love with a newly launched Vegan sausage roll and boom!
The market's breath is held on this share.
As I read the two RNS there must have been a conflict, and it must have been the entity H2G that was facing the conflict not PG personally or as director (such things are easily compartmentalised/approved). The sale of shares must have been all held by H2G or the sale would not be to remove potential conflict.
There was nothing significant in the change in PG's total shareholding that would have changed a conflict position if all shares were held by H2G. Given the total held, I can't see that this sell down would remove any perceived conflict by leaving any behind.
Anything other than this and the RNS would be misleading as the reference to conflict reduction would simply be wrong, and nothing I have seen makes that at all likely.