Azure Share Discussion Threads

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 19:59

Jaknife, an orderly market would be created through the simple laws of economics - supply and demand. Surely you don't need that explaining.
Demand from retail investors pushed the price up but still the MMs continued selling. The MMs should have been obliged to fulfill these sales by buying stock at the price set by the market - ie. the laws of supply and demand and elasticity.
Still you continue to be the champion of MMs - but then you are totally unbiased :-)

[Abuse team] 03/4/2006 18:44

Post removed by ADVFN

[paulkent] 03/4/2006 17:36

absoutely right vanhalen
Since this first happened (seems ages ago!!!) ive never really understood why the LSE didnt just insist at the time that the MMs resolve the problem of their own making through a solution of their own making, namely leave them to keep buying until theyd bought everything back - which obviously would have cost them fortunes. But, this would have been just - rightly pemalising THEM for their mistake/bad luck or bad judgement of the market, whichever, and rightly rewarding those investors who (either through correct judgement of the market, good luck/gambling) had bought a seriously oversold stock at the right time.
Obviously, the longs might have been gambling on the short position needing to be unwound WITHOUT the shares due to be issued at the EGM - risky for sure, but who's to say which risks are acceptable to reward and which arent.
Since all buying and selling of shares is fundamentally a bit of a gamble, when it goes right it should be rewarded (through profits) jsut as it is penalised (through losses) if it goes wrong. The MMs take risk and often get rewarded very well - when they get it wrong however, they should also lose. And when they get it wrong BIGTIME, they should lose big, but in this case the Exchange deal got them off the hook, and thats the part i dont understand - why did the Exchange feel obliged to come up with a solution that helped the MMs involved, rather than rely on a market solution, which would ahve had the above result.

THe MOTIVATION behind the Exchanges choice has never been explained as far as I know - and the fact that it appears they misled the market by explaining the settlement offer to be fair, without disclosing the bias they had insisted be included, simply reinforces that there was an agenda to protect the MMs position....WHY????????

[vanhalen] 03/4/2006 14:36

to disregard the key effect

A truly incredible statement !!!

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 14:29

And speaking of obligations, what about the obilgations of MMs selling shares they don't possess because the amounts involved exceed the issued shares in the company? And you can't say they knew a further issue of shares was being made because it hadn't been approved at that time.
For someone totally "unbiased" IMHO you have a definite bias to the MMs, but then most "unbiased" people are blind to their own "bias".
As a final thought, only you Jaknife would claim to be in "the perfect position" and "totally unbiased" - I sometimes worry that you are not human :-)

[vanhalen] 03/4/2006 14:28

Our paltry offer was manipulated by the LSE to minimise the losses of the market makers as opposed to the private investor. To unwind their positions would have had an astonomical effect on the shareprice forcing the market to raise the share price substantially to bring back the sellers and hence close books and, in turn, create an orderly market.

Mr Woodley found that the independent valuers had been expressly told by the Exchange to disregard the key effect the short position in the market would have had on the company's valuation.

A truly incredible statement !!!

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 14:00

Jacko, the amount of money involved is of no consequence and I'm certainly not looking for someone to blame. It's about the rights of the retail investor and the integrity of the market.
Speaking of integrity .... enough said.

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 13:37

Still defending the "establishment" Jacko?
Now you've said it is "perfectly reasonable" doesn't seem much point in pursuing this any further.

[vanhalen] 03/4/2006 12:35

Old news within the action group, but now out in the open and mind blowing none the less !!!

When i was shown this letter by Nigel, i had to read a few times to understand the gravity of its content and the serious consequences that this could bestow on the LSE.

Mr Woodley found that the independent valuers had been expressly told by the Exchange to disregard the key effect the short position in the market would have had on the company's valuation.

A truly incredible statement !!!

[dell314] 03/4/2006 09:36

Uknighted - I have to admit that I thought this one might have avoided suspension for a while, having arisen from the dregs of RSV, rather than being a new shell.
Also surprised at GASOL, as I thought that one had raised more cash to get over the £3mln limit but this all goes to prove what a total fiasco the execution of the new rules and communication thereof has turned out to be.

FSA and LSE senior bods should be hung by their nether regions from sharp stakes for the way this has been handled, IMHO....

Rgds
dell

All IMHO, DYOR etc.

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 09:06

The chickens have come home to roost!
AZH suspended Aim Rule 8:
Where an investing company fails to make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitute a reverse takeover it may be suspended under Rule 40.

[dell314] 31/3/2006 09:45

Anomolous - Regarding the RSV actions, was it ever shown that Chiddingfold was acting in cahoots with Evolution?

Also, did you ever discover why the Hannover/Chiddingfold 0.1p share loan conversion, that would have allowed EVO to settle, fell through as it looked like they had it all sewn up until then?


On a different topic, I think the LSE have dropped a major clanger with the rule on cash shells, as no one seems certain what deadlines apply to which shell.
Even last week's Investor's Chronicle piece was poorly reserached rubbish IMHO, with several dates being wrong and only a tiny selection of listed shells getting a mention.
At the very least, the LSE should have insisted that all companies facing suspension/delisting should have notified their shareholders with what deadline would apply to them.

As it is, many small investors are going to have a shock, when some of their stocks are listed one day and suspended the next, with them having little more than hearsay and poorly researched media articles to rely on for their information.

What a fiasco!

All IMHO, DYOR etc.

Rgds
dell

[very quick] 30/3/2006 14:47

Just found out something very interesting. If AZH was to move over to the OFEX market they can continue trading, as a large minority have to de-list before the April 1st dead line unless they can prove that they have a reversal lined up.
IMHO. DYOR.

[rulito] 30/3/2006 13:03

update pro news here!

[Abuse team] 30/3/2006 13:02

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 25/3/2006 18:22

Post removed by ADVFN

[dusseldorf] 25/3/2006 18:19

old news sully, with some financing in place, even suspension does not prevent a reverse aquisition being effected and a reactivation of listing - but will AZH announce a potential suitor prior to suspension? I doubt it - the cat is still in the bag IMO

[86sully] 23/3/2006 16:16

What the Shell happening

[very quick] 23/3/2006 15:17

Hardly anything to worry about, bought £400 worth at 0.257p. LOL?