Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[1347] 17/4/2024 16:43

Wonder if old three fingers managed to offload his shares? Maybe it was Paddy that put the squeeze on him?

[shareprofessor] 17/4/2024 12:55

The clearly piqued oddity Jtisbadly forever hoping that the company or a board member will suffer some discomfort. The recent rise in price has discombobulated the troll.

[jtidsbadly] 17/4/2024 12:32

He’s not very smart, is he? He could have bought them at 0.30p a few days ago. If something has happened in the interim, or if he knows of an imminent improvement in Angus’s fortunes, his purchase would be in contravention of the regulations.

[iceagefarmer] 17/4/2024 12:03

lovely jubbly..i wondered who was buying those 5,000,000 shares...there were several so no doubt other directors too

[stockriser] 17/4/2024 12:01

And there you go .... ;-)

The Company has been informed that Richard Herbert, Chief Executive Officer, on 16 April 2024 bought 5,000,000 Ordinary Shares of 0.002p each ("Ordinary Shares") at an average price of 0.5 pence per Ordinary Share.

Richard Herbert's total shareholding in the Company is therefore 8,300,000 Ordinary Shares representing 0.02 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital.

END

[stockriser] 17/4/2024 08:18

IAF - "news must be very close"

So close I can smell it ;-)

GL SR

[iceagefarmer] 16/4/2024 19:01

blimey this is getting like the vast bb..all the deramping scum merchants are here today...news must be very close

[1347] 16/4/2024 15:11

JT I think you've answered your own point as to why the FCA take the Nelsonian approach. Like most of the AIM companies the fundamentals in the UK are all wrong, like fish, it's rotting from the head.

[jtidsbadly] 16/4/2024 14:45

1347: well, if non-observance of the rules is on this scale, I suppose it’s possible loads of deals don’t get published at all. There’s so many of these AIM companies and a relatively small number of market makers, brokers etc., that if I ran the FCA I’d bring my limited resources to bear in making an example of one of them. I wonder if the market would still operate if the rules were fully observed.

[1347] 16/4/2024 14:17

JT Some points. No they are buying initially in order to prime the pump, then they sell to mug punters, if they sell too many due to demand they go short and cover when the next batch of confetti shares get issued (which will always be at a lower price).

You are also making the classic mistake of assuming that what LSE indicates are buys and sells are actually what they indicate. MMs tend to move the Bid and Ask about to manipulate the spread and hence mid price, this means that buys that go through just below the mid price can look like sells and vice versa.

Then you add in their ability to report trades late, which can be several days depending on the trade size and it means that you can't really figure out what's happening until days afterwards, by which time the insiders have sold and mug punters are left underwater, unless they got out as quickly they got in.

Only by looking at the full trading records can you establish who is really trading what and at what price with whom, otherwise for the rest it's musical shares trading on a SETSqx platform owned by barrow boys that only care about shifting stock and making their cut. The issue is that a fair market no longer exists as AIM often gets driven more by manipulation than by market fundamentals, that is the problem.

[jtidsbadly] 16/4/2024 12:59

1347: but running a short position means they’re, in effect, adding to the selling. The purchase figures in Kansas are a fraction of the sales figures and the sum of the value of mug punter buying can be only a minuscule proportion of the sum to be raised in a big placing. So how are placees managing to sell enough at higher prices in advance of a big placing to cover their probable losses once it’s announced? You must be correct, somehow, or the system wouldn't work. I just can’t see what I’m missing. Are the dealing data understating the quantity of buying by mugs? If so, they really are stupid, innit?

[jtidsbadly] 16/4/2024 11:56

1347: I don’t believe the trading data in Kansas. This has gone up on lots of tiny deals at increasing prices, which have met with much larger sells as the price has risen further. I’m at a loss on this information to understand what is driving the price up. And if sales are exceeding purchases, who is paying for the inflated prices being achieved by sellers?

Of course, a big placing may have been agreed and the placees may be selling their existing shares to make room for the new ones which will come at a lower price. But if so, who’s takng the shares they’re selling?

Incidentally, I see that Superdry appears to have lost about 95% of its value over the past year (and 99.75% over 5 years, if the Kansas chart is to be believed) and is in talks with its landlords and lenders re better terms. They’re also considering de-listing from AIM! GSA, who are short in Vast, are short there too.

[bionicdog] 16/4/2024 10:14

That doesn't even make any sense hopeless25. What has warning you about investing in scams got to do with schizophrenia?

[hopeful25] 16/4/2024 09:51

The Dog Drama Queen is back on every board, sums up his sad life! Have you thought about treatment for Schizophrenia perhaps? 😂

[bionicdog] 16/4/2024 09:10

You are very astute following iceagefarmer's tips hopeless25. You must be loaded!

[bionicdog] 16/4/2024 08:49

12M
Thank goodness that you are OK. I was worried about you as you'd been missing for 6 months. We've all missed the information from your reliable sources.

[1347] 16/4/2024 08:07

I see the usual cowardly morons are back for the ramp...

[iceagefarmer] 15/4/2024 20:37

1347...getting fed up deramping vast resources?