We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trackwise Designs Plc | TWD | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.175 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.175 | 0.175 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE & EQUIPMENT |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 02/8/2023 00:19 by ales dange Hi welive, well I can’t comment on Mr Bukake or the managements exploits at Stevenage, albeit they do not appear to have performed at all well over the past 12 months or they wouldn’t have been put up for sale or lost a lot of money. But if they are making statements outside of an RNS, especially relating to TWD or the group, then they sure had better be prepared for the consequences. Statements about listed companies are strictly for public domain on LSE. As a company with clear association to TWD (mentioned in their own 2021year end filing) they have to abide by regulatory standards. I’m sure they and us investors will find out soon enough. Right it’s late afternoon here and 30 degrees so I’m going to hop into the pool before going out with the family for a meal. Enjoy all & keep us informed. |
Posted at 26/7/2023 00:20 by ales dange Bagpuss you’re 100% correct, the whole group has been mismanaged. TWD & the Stevenage site have been run appallingly. If they are bought out then it’s a con, and us investors have been duped massively. If the management of either company attempts to buy the business then serious questions need to be asked about why it was allowed to happen when us investors have lost a lot of money. Maybe we need to consider legal action against all sites to stop it from happening. I am currently in the US visiting my granddaughter, but interested to hear others opinions. |
Posted at 24/7/2023 22:35 by ales dange Welive, I agree, something about this whole situation stinks. I think there should be an investigation into the dealings of the group. How can a company who claimed to have so many pipelines and a massive order, mysteriously now have nothing. Also the Stevenage situation is just unbelievable, a business established over 50yrs ago, but now losing money and on the brink of closure. There really is a bad smell coming from all of this, Mr Bukake employed and less than a year later it’s on the verge of collapse. Incompetence from TWD at all levels and sadly it’s us investors left to pick up the pieces. There’s many questions that need to be answered about this company and the decisions it’s made with it’s appointments are just the start. |
Posted at 07/7/2023 09:29 by ales dange Welive, by some standards it’s small, many investors have lost more with this deal. One cannot imagine how they’re feeling when all we are getting is the same story with a different spin. No contact of significance reported and the loss making Stevenage site still not sold, how bad is it going to get! Reading previous RNS TWD appointed mr Bukeke and was doing a “good job” well that wasn’t exactly a successful appointment either. I just wish I had of done my research a bit better, rather than buying on impulse!!! |
Posted at 20/6/2023 06:04 by weliveliketrumpatstonehouse Ladies and gentlemen. Let's remember people's jobs are at stake here. Many Staff and investors are clearly very very angry. Those that brought high must be devastated. The dream was sold and it didn't happen. Now it's time for the fall-out. |
Posted at 12/6/2023 22:02 by kinwah 4.5 million shares is less than 1 per cent of the issued shares so not exceptional after an announcement. I would hazard a guess that some investors from the fund raising are bailing out and others are averaging down. |
Posted at 12/6/2023 16:58 by weliveliketrumpatstonehouse Question to you seasoned investors. Why would there be volume of 4.5 million which is way higher than usual for this place when the value is so low. There's no answers here that's for sure. |
Posted at 07/1/2023 01:48 by timbo003 ……&helThe meeting to approve the recent fund raise and to change the articles of association took place on Friday (Jan 7th 2023) at the Company’s HQ at Tewksbury. I was the only retail shareholder attending (which came as no surprise), there were three directors present (Philip Johnston, Paul Cook and Charles Cattaneo) and two other directors joined via video link (Ian Griffiths and Susan McErlain), there was also a representative from Equiniti and an assistant taking minutes. Charles Cattaneo chaired the meeting. The formal part of the meeting to vote on the resolutions took about 10 minutes. All resolutions were passed with approximately 21m votes in favour and 2.4m against for all the resolutions except resolution 3, where the votes were approximately 18.2M in favour and 4m against. The Q&As session that followed lasted for about 40 minutes during which time just about all of my questions (listed below in no particular order) were answered: What circumstances lead to the placing being offered at just 1 pence and please explain how you can reconcile not obtaining a higher price than 1p/share with the recent RNS announcing that there was “exceptional demand” (at 1 pence/share)? The BOD explained that the funding road show commenced in September and it was an extensive process, the initial rounds involved obtaining expressions of interest from potential investors without any detailed discussions of pricing, this initial process indicated a likely short fall in the amount required and it was only later in the process when the size of the likely discount became apparent, it was in effect the last substantial investor to commit which dictated the price and ensured that sufficient funds could be raised, this investor had held the shares previously, but had now sold out (note: readers should be able to work out who they are from that). The warrants were introduced as a result of another (different) investor’s insistence. Was the open offer oversubscribed/under It was undersubscribed with around 34% uptake, so excess application will be met in full. The CFO commented that the OO funds were not considered essential to execute the plan, but they would provide a contingency cushion should it be needed. Can you add a bit of colour to the circumstances that lead to the share suspension? The BOD or Finncap did not request the suspension and it was entirely down to the LSE. The BOD believes the suspension during this fund raise could have deterred many shareholders participating in the open offer as they may have been spooked (suspensions in the UK are unusual and are generally not good news for shareholders). I opined that in some jurisdictions (for example Australia) listed shares are automatically suspended during a fund raiser and investors had become accustomed to this and perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad thing if the same procedure was followed here in the UK, no one appeared to disagree. What impact would there be on Trackwise’s future if the UK EV OEM who has just made the £3.99m cash advance as part payment for the battery connector contract was unable to pay the balance outstanding once the contract has been fulfilled? It would not be good news, although the company have had assurances from the UK EV OEM that it will have sufficient cash (without needing to raise further funds) to pay the balance in the agreed timeline. PJ added that has been checking the share price and SEC announcements of the OEM on a daily basis. (EV OEM share price and SEC filings available here: ) What other methods of funding did you explore instead of the discounted placing, for example selling Stevenage Circuits, attracting a strategic investor/partner etc.? We had some forthright discussions with the UK EV OEM as their problems had been the main reason for our financial stress and we ended up with the revised terms for the contract, we argued for more but the OEM was itself constrained financially, We also look at other funding solutions, including getting a strategic investor on board, but it was difficult to get traction, exacerbated by the volatile political and currency situation at the time. Selling the Stevenage Circuits business would not have produced sufficient funds, so was not considered an option. Has there been any pressure from new investors for PJ to step down as CEO? Pressure is probably not the right word, there have been discussions around succession planning (PJ is approaching 60 years old so will not be around forever) and the two new directors joining the BOD will most likely play a part in that. What sort of investors participated in the placing, were they generally new investors or existing investors, would you describe them as long term or short term? Did any VCTs participate? There should be a number of TR1 announcements with familiar names, no VCTs or EIS funds participated in this round as the company has reached the ceiling for funds available under the EIS/VCT scheme. How close are you to fully commissioning the facility at Stonegate and do you have the capacity to produce all the material you would like to sell through winning the pipeline contracts outlined in the offer document (offer document: ) The Stonegate facility is not yet fully commissioned, but it will have the capacity to fulfil the order from the UK EV OEM to the agreed timings (July 2023). It will achieve this running just a single shift. Capacity could easily be increased 3X with very little extra Capex by increasing to three shifts/day. Furthermore, there is spare space in the facility to install additional plant to double capacity for each shift but needless to say, this would require additional investment. In the offer document you talk about re-incentivising directors and employees with revised share option and share save schemes when are you planning to do this? Yes, this is in hand and it was considered an important requirement by one of the major investors in the placing. Given that IHT technology is proprietary and protected by certain IP, where are the numerous EV OEMs listed in the offer document expecting to source there battery connectors if it is not from Trackwise? The battery connectors that are of interest to the various EV OEMs listed in the offer document are not reliant on the IP described in the IHT patents from 2012, but do employ other IP such as knowhow and trade secrets, so it is unlikely that Trackwise will be sending any cease and desist letters to competitors who supply EV OEM with battery connectors. They have however sent such letters to competitors who they suspect are infringing Trackwise patents when supplying IHT type products to the aerospace industry. There is a big number for intangibles in the accounts which the auditors question from time to time, but in our view it is justified on the basis of the extensive IP and knowhow. Are you still planning to hold a Capital Market day for shareholders and investors sometime this year? Yes, the intention is to run an event later in the year at the new facility at Stonegate. ……&hel |
Posted at 22/12/2022 17:56 by timbo003 I would imagine that the principle reason for the suspension was concern over investors (especially new investors) using shares that haven't been properly assigned (because they don't yet exist) to vote against resolutions at the forthcoming general meeting, thus possibly effecting the ability of the company to raise funds which would be an existential threat to the company and to the financial well-being of existing (legitimate) shareholders.Reckless talk on bulletin boards such as this one, suggesting new investors should/could vote down the resolutions, or remove directors could well have added to such concerns, so suspending the shares seems to me like a very sensible move. I would expect (and hope) that the shares remain suspended until after the General meeting on Friday 6th January which I hope to attend. |
Posted at 20/12/2022 14:45 by 1speedster Investors must be receiving their shares in a timely manner as per T+2Naked short selling by the looks of it. iii EBG's naked short selling of the equivalent of 252% of the issued share capital of Room Service. Section 118(2)(c) of the Act concerns behaviour which would, or would be likely to, distort the market in the investment in question. The Code explains this in the following terms: 7 "A person may not engage in behaviour that interferes with the proper operation of market forces and so with the interplay of proper supply and demand and so has a distorting effect. Distortion undermines confidence in the prescribed markets and damages efficiency to the detriment of market users, including investors" (MAR 1.6.3). the need for market users to conduct their affairs in a manner that does not compromise the fair and efficient operation of the market as a whole or unfairly damage the interests of investors". |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
