Member Info for WongaFC

The actual bid/offer prices today appear to be 1.81/1.84 or thereabouts, so why list the bid as 1.70p?????

Indigo,
If that were the case would they not be manipulating the offer price?

Surely it's not in their interest to "lower" the bid price if they're trying to sell for max gains???

Not one sell trade below 1.80p today, (or yesterday) yet the bid price listed as 1.70p. More scaremongering to spook holders into panic-selling.

I've just bought another £11k's worth

I wasn't aware the Moroccan Govt was involved in the trials, my understanding was it is a private industrial client and large consumer of oil

Elir 71, my reading of the progress of various projects lead me to believe Morocco is well ahead of Utah?

QFI have not even lab-tested the Utah oil samples yet, let alone ship and set up equipment for trials. In Morocco, they are carrying out "industrial" trials with "commercial" trials due soon after. While I don't fully understand what constitutes the difference in industrial and commercial trials they seem to be progressing at pace. Additionally there appears to be a customer already in place for the product should trials be satisfactory. Much closer to commercialisation of the product than Utah, no?

46G, from what we have been told, I believe it's original MSAR they're involved with, although I may be wrong. Can any of the "technical" posters confirm if the equipment required to run a ship on green MSAR is significantly different from MSAR, or could they operate with MSAR and easily switch to the greener option if/when it is available or commercially advantageous to do so.

Lionel, an FCA qualified Financial Adviser does not necessarily have a stockbroking qualification. FAs usually qualify to give advice via the Chartered Insurance Institute, (CII) or Personal Finance Society (PFS), They can be Diploma qualified, or Chartered under either examination body and their recommended investment solutions will depend on their qualifications, company licences and product ranges, but typically collectives, (unit trusts, oeics, investment bonds etc.).

To be able to advise on individual securities, (e.g. single company shares and corporate bonds), an individual needs to have a stockbroking qualification from a body like the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment, (CISI). Their company would also need to have a stockbroking licence for the firm's employees to carry out advice in this area.

A US/Canadian company called Edward Jones opened offices in the UK some time ago and their advisers were qualified via the CII/PFS AND the CISI, which enabled them to offer advice on both collectives and individual securities. I believe they pulled out of the UK after the financial crisis.

In the UK now, typically a Discretionary Fund Manager, (DFM) will have both qualifications and the licences to be able to construct portfolios using a combination of collectives and individual holdings.

Very few FCA registered Financial Advisers will have the CISI or equivalent qualification and of the few that do, many will not be operating under a stockbroking licence at their firm, hence they should not be advising in this area, regardless of how blatant a holding might seem to them.

Apologies for the long-winded reply, (my last on the subject). The FCA handbook is a huge document, perhaps you could point me to the relevant section, stating FCA registered Financial Advisers can advise on individual securities?????

More tree-shaking today as bid price listed at 1.75p when there has not been one Sell trade below 1.82 and many well over this amount....

Hugh, I'm not sure "Hargreaves" own any of this share??? Are they not merely listed as the "proxy" holder of all their ISA and Pension clients holding QFI?

And Lionel, unusual for a Financial Adviser to be able to give advice on whether to hold, buy or sell shares, unless of course he is a qualified Stockbroker as well and his firm have a Stockbroking Licence....

So the wealthy men, (some very wealthy) on our BOD have not seen fit to take a wage deferral, which coupled with their paltry combined share ownership of 0.54% of the company, tells you all you need to know about the commercial prospects of Quadrise. This despite the head of the remuneration committee stating they should have "skin in the game".

Making excuses of key staff retention to my mind also reinforces this belief, as who would leave a company like Quadrise with the (they would have you believe) huge potential to come?

MK also made a point of having bought his shares at a higher price as being "significantly invested", but if he truly believed in the QFI potential, now would be the perfect time to build his position and reduce his average price.

But no, they smack of greedy men, willing to collect their huge salaries, in the knowledge the money will run out soon. Happy for people of much more modest means to gamble on the success of their venture, while they coin it in. The fact they are greedy and not investing at such a "bargain" price would suggest they know the gravy train is about to hit the buffers???

"What was the point in that RNS? I understand that Eddison are paid to produce reports so this one's hardly likely to contain anything negative. We need details of a commercial deal not paid for PR."

Reeks of desperation to me! Another £50k+? sp**ked away on a "jam tomorrow" report, regurgitating information readily available elsewhere. They're good at spending other people's money...

Re. Mike Kirk's demeanour at his latest "jam tomorrow" plea, for freedom to secure his salary for another year AT ANY COST!
I thought it significant he never looks at the camera, preferring to look down, or close his eyes, a body-language trait of someone being disingenuous.

Given the long-term commercial failure of QFI, no one at the company should be earning a six-figure salary. Their performance simply doesn't justify it. They need to immediately make significant salary deferment arrangements until such time as the company is in an income surplus position. Should they ever achieve this they can be paid "deferred" entitlement gradually from profits earned, (as salary, or preferably in shares), along with shareholder dividends. Unless, of course, they would prefer to invest any profits back into the business to further enhance the company's profitability.

It really is time they put their money on the line, instead of sponging off LTI. Wake up and smell the coffee Kirk!

Tobythedog
"Okay let's assume it's a 33% dilution at an offer price of say 1.2p per share. How many of us on here will take up their allocation? Let's have a straw pole.
I know I won't be subscribing another penny."
FWIW, I would take another million shares at 1.2p

Cheers Mytton, that explains it. Hopefully create a greater awareness of the QFI potential and with it a demand for the shares?

Some strange goings-on with the share price this morning, with the bid price higher than ask at one point!!!
My HL account showed price at 2.19p briefly, before reverting to 1.85p. Shenanigans

Agree entirely Barking Crazy.

The fact that MK and his board own a combined total of 5,681,512 shares (0.54%) of the company, is an indication of how much they believe his "jam tomorrow" rhetoric. Considering the vast sums they earn, it is not unreasonable to expect them to have put THEIR money where their mouth is. Seems like they prefer to leech the shareholders capital via their bloated salaries, than actually increase the value of the company via commercial contracts.

I get what you're saying lightjaw, but most of us on here are disillusioned with the BOD, rather than the concept/product/potential. I remain hopeful some large oil consumer will eventually twig to the benefits and make Quadrise a success, despite the BOD failings

I must say I find it very disappointing to read the latest Tomco RNS which looks like progress has been at a snail's pace.

Here is a paragraph from the QFI RNS on 17th June this year;

"The Company is pleased to confirm that its evaluations with Valkor in this regard are progressing well and that both parties continue to believe that the use of MSAR® technology can add significant value to the development of sweet heavy oil deposits in Utah. The Company welcomes additional discussions in this regard which, if concluded successfully, could lead to the granting of a conditional licence on commercial terms to Valkor."

It is now 5 months on from that RNS, and it would appear between the associated parties, they have been unable to get a sample of the oil sands extraction to the UK for testing. For goodness sake! five months! Surely it is not beyond their capabilities to produce a sample for testing, even if it has been produced via a more basic extraction process initially?

The countdown to further funding requirement continues apace but there seems to be no urgency from the QFI BOD in proving a viable MSAR can be produced from the Utah sands residues. Happy to take their fat cat salaries every month while they twiddle their thumbs waiting on Greenfield to provide a sample.

I don't know about samples from Greenfield, but the BOD are certainly taking the "samples", (for want of a better word) out the shareholders.

Can't get my head round why there are so many piddling transactions (buys and sells) of a value under £5. Surely the dealing costs would render such trades worthless, no????