Member Info for WelshFalcon

These are the magic smarties that need to be taken within a 2 to 5 day post infection window? Real word effectiveness please?

Our P3 data has to be solid o gain the credibility it deserves. Let that play out properly so that there is less chance of it being seen in any negative way.

Over in the US, on the other hand, the data foe ACTIV is available to the authorities to be reviewed early - if there is to be any early EUA, then the US is where it will happen.

I'm tyred of the retreads.

Bonkers!

It's our BOD. They work for the shareholders. If we (the shareholders) don't like what they are doing we can force a change in the BOD, that's why there are AGMs and EGMs. If you don't like what they are doing and you can't force a change through normal channels, then you need to consider investing elsewhere, a company that you like!

Completely nuts!

BOD obviously - sticky keyboard.

Let me get this straight, so you want some poor sod to get elected to the DOB to look after your interests?

The poor sod who will have to take on all the responsibilities and liabilities of a director? Good god - run a mile......and keep running.

Yeah... right dude!

Fool.

He is ceo of the company. The company looks in a good position for the future to me.

It's not just about the 'share', unless of course you are simply a gambler.

It is simply an example of how another AIM company approached a similar raise.

It could be modified with a shorter timescale for the open offer part, say 10 days. With the institutional part expedited rapidly. With the reporting of a successful II raise, there would be little drag on the SP for the open part - especially as this would only be open to qualifying shareholders.

An example only and food for though for planning a future raises.

You could point them to how SNG (also on AIM) managed their raise https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SNG/placing-and-open-offer-hwyvj20u13tq1ig.html
Wed, 14th Oct 2020 17:32

RNS Number : 1242C
Synairgen plc
14 October 2020

They raised a largely closed Institutional offering to raise £80m. But, in tandem, made available an up to £7m to 'qualifying shareholders'. Both were oversubscribed.

A similar arrangement could have been used for GGP - the II and directors raise being done in an expedited way that was used, with a separate offer for qualifying shareholders done in tandem, but with a longer timescale.

This may help with their feedback remark.

He did, I have put up a 'thank you'.

I did buy in 14.62, but that's not the point.

If a full rights issue was done, more cash could have been raised from those that could not meet the timing and imediate availability of cash constraints. Rights issues can, and often do, allow for applying above the allocation so all SD's targets could have been met. Also the PI take up would have been more geared to ISA / SIPP investments and consequently would have gone direct into 'sticky' hands rather than via traders with available cash.

This would have sent a stronger message to the market.

Besides, if the price has gone up - I would not have been able to come in at/near the issue price.

It is what it is!

I understand the thinking, reasoning and planning behind the raise. All good stuff.

But I still question the speed along with the use of Primary Bid. This method and timing cut out a large proportion of PIs and the cash they wanted to invest. I would like to see a recognition of that flaw from SD and an undertaking that any future raises will allow a full rights issue for existing shareholders.

Lots of environmental regulation these days, many hoops to jump through to build a mine.

One of which is the mine closure plan. Not sure what it actually contains, but it would create obligations once the mine closes.

Think on the obligations and cost to NCM if they close down Telfer..... This will help us understand why NCM are moving so quickly to get HAV working and using the Telfer plant/facilities. The remediation costs, for them, can be pushed out for another 20 / 30 / 40 years (depending on how big HAV (plus any other area discoveries) ends up.

Agreed @SAS and TT, There are many and varied way in which he could have used his shareholding without selling.

Popping up again with the same 74.5m (if it is to be believed) may indicate that his shares were only temporarily moved - possibly to provide security for something else?

We simply don't know, but if I was in his position I would have done the same.....

Interesting article on the coming winter surge in the US: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/582511-trump-administration-surgeon-general-predicts-winter-surge-in-covid-19

One part that I found interesting is his take on the new pills, not as useful as hoped and leaves big gaps for SNG to fill. Testing, as ever, is key for these early interventions. The text of that relevant bit below:

“I'm really excited about the oral antivirals, but here's the caveats: Number one, the antivirals are worthless if you don't have testing,” Adams said, adding that “if you can't get tested, then you can't get treated.”

“Number two, we would much rather prevent disease. This is public health. This is medicine 101. I'd rather prevent you from getting cancer than treat your cancer. I'd rather prevent you from getting diabetes than to treat your diabetes with insulin,” Adams said.

He continued, “And we would much rather prevent you from getting COVID in the first place than to let you get COVID in the hope that you're going to be in that percentage of people who gets tested in time, gets the pill in time. And for whom the pill works. That's a lot of ifs that have to happen for that to be successful.”

OMG!

Drop everything, tommyboy has a question.

I am perfectly happy with the raise, but do reserve judgement over how it was achieved!

Many of us, who have supported GGP for quite some time, hold their shares in an ISA and/or SIPP. I for one would have loved to participate, but the method chosen gave no notice (and was outside of trading hours) to allow us to manage our accounts to free up some cash.

The use of PB precluded all those who would have used their ISA and/or SIPP and cut out many shareholders and their available cash. I do believe that, with a Rights Issue and a little more time, there could well have been around £20m available.

I was very reluctant to sign up to PB, In fact I regard them as too risky! To hand over all your personally identifiable information (as part of their sign up, some saying they had to provide copy documents) with a clear link to your broker (HL et al) share account is in my opinion completely nuts.

To have a third party hold all this information in a database somewhere would have to be a juicy target for hackers, surely? Having recently retired with a reasonable pension - I am not about to put that in danger. I can just visualise, if it all suddenly disappears, HL's defence will be to say that I gave away my account details, so it's my fault and not their responsibility.

Not for me, a properly structure Rights Issue is the only way I can safely participate, no more PB malarkey please.

Agreed @Tig.

The PIs that could apply were only those who had some cash available at short notice. The majority of LTHs with their holdings in ISA or SIPP accounts were precluded from applying, were unable (markets closed) to create cash (by selling other stocks) and faced additional costs to eventually transfer any new holdings to their ISA / SIPP accounts.

So, my view is that the numbers relating to PIs in this raise is irrelevant as it is only a small subset of the true available market.

You may be confusing the trials. ACTIV has the ability to look at the data early.

SPRINTER, I believe, is a fully double blind trial. We don't get to see the data.