We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advance Visual | ACV | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.16 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.16 | 0.16 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 09/10/2006 07:56 by dell314 Takdeer/Sadika/SmileGlad to see that you have started looking at PSM. Hopefully your minimal research will help you to understand that the majority of Barclay and Shaw's current efforts will be spent trying to finalise the deal for PSM. Did you research RMR/EAM like I suggested? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on their RTO. Here's my previous post again just to remind you: Smiler - I see you're back to your old tricks of misleading folks again. FWIW, I'd say there is zero chance of an RTO in days, as you suggest, as ACV's directors have been desperately trying to prevent the delisting of another of their shells, PSM(cancelled today, FWIW). Secondly, I'd say that this is very likely to be suspended in December before any RTO takes place, as these guys don't seem to come up with deals very quickly. Have you actually bothered to check out the history of ACV's directors? Their most recent activity has been with PSM, which finally came up with some sort of potential RTO announcement on the final day before delisting(after six months of suspension!). It's hard to evaluate the deal, as there is no detail. However, if it's anything like their RMR RTO, which became EAM, it will be garbage, IMHO. RMR had something like 1.5p cash per share on the balance sheet, after originally charging investors 4p per share. The RTO involved a deal and placing at 1.5p, with zero premium for the listing. The company that was taken over had no trading history and was little more than an idea. Guess who'd got themselves on the board of the company to be taken over with sizeable holdings(probably purchased for negligable amounts)? Yes, it was Barclay and Shaw. Doesn't that seem like something of a conflict of interest, as RMR paid several million quid for a non-trading company where Barclay and Shaw were investors and on the board? So, shareholders that paid Barclay and Shaw 4p per share to find them a good RTO ended up with a company that AFAIK, isn't even fullly trading now and has a current bid offer of 0.75p/1.25p. 4.0p to 0.75p. Great work chaps! Would you like to know more, or is that enough for you? If you do phone Barclay, please ask him if the deals for his other shells are likley to be as poor for shareholders as Ricmore was? Ask him if there is any chance of a credible trading company reversing into any of them. Ask him if he and Shaw will be investing in other potential vendor companies prior to any RTO, causing a conflict of interest with their duty to get the best deal for shareholders of their shell companies. All IMHO, DYOR etc. Rgds dell |
Posted at 06/10/2006 06:59 by dell314 Takdeer/Sadika/SmileI'd be interested to know your thoughts on their RMR/EAM RTO. Here's my post again just to remind you: Smiler - I see you're back to your old tricks of misleading folks again. FWIW, I'd say there is zero chance of an RTO in days, as you suggest, as ACV's directors have been desperately trying to prevent the delisting of another of their shells, PSM(cancelled today, FWIW). Secondly, I'd say that this is very likely to be suspended in December before any RTO takes place, as these guys don't seem to come up with deals very quickly. Have you actually bothered to check out the history of ACV's directors? Their most recent activity has been with PSM, which finally came up with some sort of potential RTO announcement on the final day before delisting(after six months of suspension!). It's hard to evaluate the deal, as there is no detail. However, if it's anything like their RMR RTO, which became EAM, it will be garbage, IMHO. RMR had something like 1.5p cash per share on the balance sheet, after originally charging investors 4p per share. The RTO involved a deal and placing at 1.5p, with zero premium for the listing. The company that was taken over had no trading history and was little more than an idea. Guess who'd got themselves on the board of the company to be taken over with sizeable holdings(probably purchased for negligable amounts)? Yes, it was Barclay and Shaw. Doesn't that seem like something of a conflict of interest, as RMR paid several million quid for a non-trading company where Barclay and Shaw were investors and on the board? So, shareholders that paid Barclay and Shaw 4p per share to find them a good RTO ended up with a company that AFAIK, isn't even fullly trading now and has a current bid offer of 0.75p/1.25p. 4.0p to 0.75p. Great work chaps! Would you like to know more, or is that enough for you? All IMHO, DYOR etc. Rgds dell |
Posted at 04/10/2006 07:07 by dell314 Sadika/SmilerXX - Did you research ACV's directors like I suggested?I'd be interested to know your thoughts on their RMR/EAM RTO. Here's my post again just to remind you: Smiler - I see you're back to your old tricks of misleading folks again. FWIW, I'd say there is zero chance of an RTO in days, as you suggest, as ACV's directors have been desperately trying to prevent the delisting of another of their shells, PSM(cancelled today, FWIW). Secondly, I'd say that this is very likely to be suspended in December before any RTO takes place, as these guys don't seem to come up with deals very quickly. Have you actually bothered to check out the history of ACV's directors? Their most recent activity has been with PSM, which finally came up with some sort of potential RTO announcement on the final day before delisting(after six months of suspension!). It's hard to evaluate the deal, as there is no detail. However, if it's anything like their RMR RTO, which became EAM, it will be garbage, IMHO. RMR had something like 1.5p cash per share on the balance sheet, after originally charging investors 4p per share. The RTO involved a deal and placing at 1.5p, with zero premium for the listing. The company that was taken over had no trading history and was little more than an idea. Guess who'd got themselves on the board of the company to be taken over with sizeable holdings(probably purchased for negligable amounts)? Yes, it was Barclay and Shaw. Doesn't that seem like something of a conflict of interest, as RMR paid several million quid for a non-trading company where Barclay and Shaw were investors and on the board? So, shareholders that paid Barclay and Shaw 4p per share to find them a good RTO ended up with a company that AFAIK, isn't even fullly trading now and has a current bid offer of 0.75p/1.25p. 4.0p to 0.75p. Great work chaps! Would you like to know more, or is that enough for you? All IMHO, DYOR etc. Rgds dell |
Posted at 03/10/2006 07:59 by dell314 Smiler - I see you're back to your old tricks of misleading folks again.FWIW, I'd say there is zero chance of an RTO in days, as you suggest, as ACV's directors have been desperately trying to prevent the delisting of another of their shells, PSM(cancelled today, FWIW). Secondly, I'd say that this is very likely to be suspended in December before any RTO takes place, as these guys don't seem to come up with deals very quickly. Have you actually bothered to check out the history of ACV's directors? Their most recent activity has been with PSM, which finally came up with some sort of potential RTO announcement on the final day before delisting(after six months of suspension!). It's hard to evaluate the deal, as there is no detail. However, if it's anything like their RMR RTO, which became EAM, it will be garbage, IMHO. RMR had something like 1.5p cash per share on the balance sheet, after originally charging investors 4p per share. The RTO involved a deal and placing at 1.5p, with zero premium for the listing. The company that was taken over had no trading history and was little more than an idea. Guess who'd got themselves on the board of the company to be taken over with sizeable holdings(probably purchased for negligable amounts)? Yes, it was Barclay and Shaw. Doesn't that seem like something of a conflict of interest, as RMR paid several million quid for a non-trading company where Barclay and Shaw were investors and on the board? So, shareholders that paid Barclay and Shaw 4p per share to find them a good RTO ended up with a company that AFAIK, isn't even fullly trading now and has a current bid offer of 0.75p/1.25p. 4.0p to 0.75p. Great work chaps! Would you like to know more, or is that enough for you? All IMHO, DYOR etc. Rgds dell |
Posted at 18/5/2006 09:02 by smiler28 This was an interesting post that was reposted on stockhouse...Hello, As many of you are aware, I am a paid 'basher'. As childish as bashing might seem on the surface, a lot of money actually exchanges hands based on the work we do. I work(ed) for an investment firm based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I worked in cooperation with several others and under several aliases in several online investment forums. Including PresidentBush, Tooth18, OneVultrue, 7Midniqht and Herbacious on Stockhouse. To make a long story short. I have had an epihphany in the past few days. I watched the movie Fight Club, and as brutal as the movie is on the surface, it actually caused me to question a lot of things I do or have done in my life. The next day I was involved in a single vehicle car accident, which caused my vehicle to roll-over. I walked away from it all, but it got me to thinking. I only live once, is this what I want from my life? Is this what I've always wanted to do - I am not even proud of my career or myself. I say that I am a stock broker, but that is a lie. We are basically paid con-men. I quit today, no questions asked. Just walked out. I am 23 years old, and this is not what I want out of life. The scheme works like this. Be aware of it so you can guard yourself. Our company monitors undervalued companies with strong assets and strong potential. When this company, XXX.V, for example, reaches an overbought situation, our company begins selling shares that we do not own in hopes of purchasing these shares at a lower price later on. As the share price dips, our company purchases these shares for a cheaper price at the lowered ask price. That is where we come in - we bash the stock online to try and further the negative sentiment so that the stock gaps down further and increases our profit margin. This type of activity is called naked short selling and it should be illegal. Our firm is a well established one that deals out shares that we do not own, then send out an army of online rats to undermine the company's successes to drive the price down. As an employee, I never really realized the effect it had on investors or companies. I just really cared about opening the gap as much as possible, so that I could make a larger commission. It was all just a big game. |
Posted at 18/5/2006 08:58 by smiler28 LEARN ABOUT HOW BASHERS WORK: For instance: did you know that some Bashers are paid? Golden Rule: IGNORE THEM ...learn how professional Bashers are paid: When you REPLY to Bashers you give them an opportunity to earn appox. 5-7 dollars. The service agreement they enter into with their employer states their messages will be monitored for content, profanity, lies, etc. but Overseers and the like don't have the time to check all their Bashers messages. Only occasional spot checks are done. Those who manage the Basher will generally read the headlines to see if a Basher is replying to other posters by name. That tells them the Basher isn't just "posting blindly" or repeating the same message over and over since they won't pay for those.(True to form a Basher will put the bite on anyone, even their unscrupulous employer). A Basher will attempt to milk three to five replies per post at one to two dollars each. This way the Basher spreads negative influence to as many stockholders as possible. A Basher will create this discussion thread because it takes less time reading more messages than is necessary. This ultimately allows the Basher more time to post and make money. In general, NEVER ENGAGE A BASHER. Make them read all the posts and think up ways to enter the discussion. NEVER ENGAGE A BASHER; if you do so then YOU BECOME THE BASHER,S AID! If you feel compelled to challenge a Basher do so without mentioning his/her true alias in your response. This will make it hard for the Basher to use your post as a revenue stream. Read the news, do your own homework and make your own decisions. Get real time quotes and follow the stock for a couple of weeks. Due Diligence is key here. Know that there will be a time when the stock runs up which will be followed followed by the Bashers and those that missed the boat. The Bashers will trash the stock by saying such things as "it's a Pump and Dump" and "the company is lying" and deceiving. There goal is to scare off newbies and potential new investors by "shaking" you out of your shares. Take the time to confirm your DD ,trust your own judgement and believe in yourself, pick your point of return or loss and live with it. Don't listen to hype or Bashers trust your own judgement. Live by the rules you have created. |
Posted at 27/3/2006 13:49 by luckofthedevil Does this apply to ACVSmall Talk: Cash shell minnows to be squeezed out of AIM By Michael Jivkov Published: 06 March 2006 Up to fifty companies listed on London's junior market face having their shares suspended at the end of the month. By the 1 April deadline, all remaining AIM-listed cash shells with less than £3m in the bank must complete an acquisition. Otherwise trading of their shares will be halted and, at a later date, de-listed. The London Stock Exchange, which runs AIM, decided last March that it wanted to stem the steady stream of tiny shell company floats on the junior market by giving them only a small window in which to make an acquisition. Of the fifty remaining shells - most of which have less than £1m on their balance sheet - a good number are likely to be working on deals ahead of the cut-off point. If they can demonstrate to the Exchange that they are in the middle of a deal they will avoid suspension. But those companies that have left it too late to comply with the rules face an uphill struggle. As the deadline approaches the value of their shares is likely to decline. Further, any target company they are in talks to buy will be aware of the looming deadline and will certainly push for a better deal for its own shareholders. The biggest risk of all for cash shell investors is that their boards rush into an acquisition that they subsequently regret, wiping out shareholder value in the process. |
Posted at 09/2/2006 19:27 by manis If you look at the director's CV, lots of companies was managed by them went to the bin. History will repeat itself. One unlucky investor has to dump 9m shares at 0.06p. LOL ( it maybe the director himself!) |
Posted at 22/12/2005 01:04 by lostcause The price seems to be dropping without any trades going through.I expect tommorow or in the near future well see a sharp spike in the share price not because there are any trades going through but because the money men are trying to create a market in the shares.A surge of 10% without any bids going through would place acv in the top gainers list which might snag the intrest of a few private investors.All speculation of course but a drop of 17% without any trades being recorded has to be a false market. |
Posted at 24/2/2005 15:35 by propane Before you think about investing in this company you might like to check out your new non executive directors 'credentials'.......Stephen Barclay was a director of Revelation Piccadilly Holdings plc and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries, namely: The Leading Edge Holdings Limited; The Leading Edge (Retail) Limited; Haydons Limited; Travel Accessories Limited; Housemasters (West London) Limited; and RPH Services Limited (together the ' Revelation Group') which went into administrative receivership in March 1999. The directors of Revelation Piccadilly Holdings plc estimated the deficiency as regards secured creditors of the Revelation Group to be approximately £2.9 million and unsecured creditors of the Revelation Group to total approximately £5.5 million. In addition, Bank of Scotland will be entitled to submit a significant unsecured claim against each company in the Revelation Group. The administrative receiver's report indicates that there are no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors. In addition, Stephen Barclay was a director of Cobworth Limited which went into creditors' voluntary liquidation in 1978 with a deficit to creditors of some £78,000. He was a director of Clarcon Limited which went into creditors' voluntary liquidation in August 2003 with a deficit to creditors of £975,000. He was a director of FD Realisations plc (formerly Fish plc) in January 2002 which went into administrative receivership in July 2002. The directors of Fish plc estimated the deficiency as regards secured creditors to be approximately £10.5 million and as regards unsecured creditors of approximately £3.5 million. In addition, Barclays Bank will be entitled to submit a significant unsecured claim against each company in the Fish Group. The administrative receiver's report indicates that there are no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors. John Richard Shaw Present directorships Past directorships (last 5 years) Abinger Investments Limited City and Investor Relations Limited Chatsford Corporate Finance Limited Iverna Court Freehold Limited Dover Street VCT plc Seymour Pierce Private Equity Limited Seymour Pierce Limited Seymour Pierce Nominees Limited share price Nominees Limited share price (PEP) Nominees Limited The Seymour Pierce Venture Capital Trust PLC Belasis Business Centre Limited Captain OM Watts Limited Fundamental-e Investments plc IEQ PLC (in liquidation) Clink Wharf Associates Limited CFA Capital Group Plc City Financial Associates Limited Talisman House Limited Galleon Nominees Limited CFA Financial Assets (Guernsey) Limited John Shaw resigned as a director of Scitech Medical Limited in October 1985 which was liquidated in 1986; and he was a director of Belasis Business Centre Limited which went into administrative receivership on 31 March 1995 and was dissolved on 13 February 2001. No further information is required to be disclosed under the AIM Rules. This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange |
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
