Powerhouse Energy Share Discussion Threads

[supernumerary] 04/11/2018 12:04

They don't 'need' to have preemption rights removed - it just makes their lives easier. They can issue shares without asking for permission, and without the expense of a rights issue, which would otherwise be required in order to bring all new and old shareholders into an equivalent position.

In theory at least this allows small financings to take place quickly, with minimum running around the market pleading for money - a process that invariably results in leaks and a falling share price. It's this process, not naked shorting by mms (a perfectly legal and legitimate process reported daily to the FCA and LSE) that causes cash raises to be at apparently artificially low prices. Such finance should also be cheaper.

The great problem is the size - I can see the reason for a 5% freedom, but 15% seems to be the current minimum and I have seen if I remember correctly up to 30%, which is a disgrace and completely contrary to the spirit of the shareholder protection legislation.

But shareholders vote for it, so it's arguable that they're ultimately to blame. In my view Warwick's current absurd paranoid fantasy is taking him into the wrong fight - one he will certainly lose. It would be far better to be spending time arguing for shares held in nominee accounts to have free and readily available voting rights. At the moment, many small shareholders, virtually all of whose shares are held in nominee accounts, are in practice disenfranchised because the brokers make voting difficult and expensive.

[vatnabrekk] 04/11/2018 10:40

Actually, what Nelson is saying makes sense to me. I never really understood why the directors need to have shareholders' pre-emption rights removed. I'm sure someone can explain the reason.

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 10:26

Blimey, a ramper complaining because a share price isn't going up, quelle surprise.

The shareholders own the company, so a second simple solution.
Don't authorise the shareholders pre-emotion rights to be removed. That way the directors have to offer any new shares first to the existing shareholders.

So now we have a second party which is helping the shorters as described in the article.

Thus , the directors have to say no to the MM and the shareholders have to say no to removing their pre-emtion rights.

So why has any significant shareholder in the companies allowed and complicit in assisting the shorters?

Let's have PHE lead the way with its shareholders keeping their pre-emtion rights.

Is there a significant shareholder in the company willing to do so??

[vatnabrekk] 04/11/2018 10:19

Lagosboy, apologies for jumping in on other people's conversations, but talking of facts, could you please explain to me (and our loyal readers on here) how it was that a group acting in concert was able to convince .lse that your were actually Peter Jeney. I find this rather odd because is it not the case that when anyone sets up an account with .lse or any other BB, that they have to give their proper name and identity when they register? So I would have thought that it would not be too difficult for .lse to confirm, or otherwise, whether the accusation was correct.

Now actually I don't believe that you, i.e pomander, are/were Peter Jeney, so I assume that there must have been some other reason why you were terminated?

[lagosboy] 04/11/2018 10:10

Apparently it works like this - the MM approach KA to let him know that they have a bunch of investors desperate to buy a chunk of Phe, despite the shares being listed and tradeable on AIM.

Out of the kindness of his heart KA agrees to a Placing so that the MM's investor consortium can be satisfied.

Pull the other one, its got bells on it- under this scenario KA is either negligent or complicit- take your pick.

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 10:07

It's strange that my meeting has angered the two most negative posters ?

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 10:06

It's no made up meeting !!The practice is rife and it's time the little guys stood up and asked for answers And yes I have asked the company to comment !

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 09:54

The article doesn't mention that only a company's directors can issue shares within the authorised limit.

So for this to occur are you saying the directors are complicit with the short sellers?
Otherwise, why would a company director just issue shares because a MM asks them to issue new shares?

Perhaps you can ask for the directors to be included as part of your investigation.
Only they can issue shares and as the old drug deterrent advert used to state, " just say no".
So if there is a problem then it is the directors who are at fault for being party to helping the shorters.

I may contact all the participants you are meeting stating this simple solution to what you state is a significant problem.
Just say no..it is up to the company directors.

[vatnabrekk] 04/11/2018 09:51

I think the simple answer to that, WTP, is that they just don't care, or perhaps they really just don't fully understand it, or don't want to believe it.

More tea and biscuits, anyone?

[lagosboy] 04/11/2018 09:48

I am shaking in my boots - I was l kicked off because a group acting in concert convinced the LSE that I was Peter Jeney.

Would that be the whole of the London Stock Exchange that will be in attendance.

Your meeting, just like your views as always are simply a construct of fiction.

Phe is a micro cap, almost worthless company due to a track record of hopeless indisputable abject failure to create any shareholder value and a failure to attract any AIM funds managers, sector specialists or green funds.

Facts are facts, so start dealing in them.

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 09:47

Fortunately as a private investor with no connections with any financial organisation I don't have anything to worry about.

In addition, at least there is a digital footprint with all the confirmations which ADVFN require to be made stating that I am a private investor and no connections with a financial institution.

Wouldn't want any significant shareholders spreading usual lies and false allegations as part of a share ramping exercise.

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 09:34

From an article about Nostra TerraNaked shorting, which is rumoured to be rife on AIM, sees a market maker sell stock that does not exist in a target firm to retail investors at a higher price until they have built up a large short position. The market maker's goal is then to close the short by participating in a discounted placing of the target firm and then using the placing stock it receives to settle its open trades, pocketing the difference in the two prices. Such shorts can typically be anywhere between £300,000 and £500,000 in size, although there have been notable occasions when the naked shorts have run into millions.By targeting firms that are likely to raise money, such trades can be incredibly profitable for the market maker, while the retail investor invariably ends up on the losing side.Ring any bells with anyone in here !!Why are the regulators doing nothing about it ?

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 09:15

Then you have nothing to worry about do you !!

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 09:08

No investigation, rampers didn't like fact based questions about a company's financial reporting. So the rampers' ganged up and just made multiple complaints. Just snowflakes who cannot accept that people can have s different opinion to them.

How accurate are the audited accounts, interim accounts and filed share allotment forms??

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 09:03

Also you could include Aim companies issuing audited accounts and interim accounts with errors in them and not correcting them.

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 08:43

My concerns include market makers also hiding behind secret avatars ??

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 08:37

I have nothing to hide as I am passionate about a great small business that is trying to solve a major issue effecting is all. Despite all the scare mongering and tactics of certain individuals. Not sure what your motive is though Dolphin/Nelson I will tell them that you and pomander/Lagosboy were finally kicked off the LSE board after investigation?

[whatsthepoint] 04/11/2018 08:33

Yes I am happy to say that

[nelson5100] 04/11/2018 08:26

Will there be discussion about ramping by significant shareholdings hiding behind anonymous avatars?

[steverabet] 01/11/2018 14:15

top tips, by purposefully convoluting my meaning, you show yourself up plainly to be a ramper. not that you are alone of course.

[mrgreen1] 01/11/2018 12:06

You are clearly an intelligent individual, so it is clear you are aware you try to put individuals off by "only" posting negative comments. You won't answer my question about what gain you have from doing so? What is in it for yourself from only posting negatives? You have already stated you don't care about people investing yet you must do as you continue to post negative questions/comments.As I have stated many times, I hope that this is a success so that it helps with the plastic issue we face. Do you even care about that issue we have? Please explain why you dont want that issue to be resolved

[nelson5100] 01/11/2018 11:55

Yet you self profess to not being invested yet constantly attack anyone who raised any questions about the company.

Now why are do you attack do vehemently unless you are invested or are being paid to ramp?

Please indicate where my posting has put anybody off from investing in the company.

[top tips] 01/11/2018 11:53

I like your analagy between the significance of PHE's DMG system and the invention of nuclear power in its day. Its made me think PHE could be worth even more now.

[steverabet] 01/11/2018 11:23

toptips, let me spell it out to you slowly...my original reference was to nuclear fusion, which is expensive and so far an unperfected technology, much like PHE. neither are hypothetical, both are feasible, and both have a long way to go before they are useful to mankind (in practical terms,if ever)
nuclear fission is the bad stuff that gave us atomic bombs and chernobyl
i dont deny the PHE technology is feasible. there is a long road from there to profitable production. if you invest, expect a long wait and further share dilution, with always the prospect of total loss