Tern Share Discussion Threads

[still waiting] 13/4/2024 09:30

If TM is that disruptive and exit multiples x50-x100 it has to be the company maker over the next 12 months.

Not even our directors can dilute that fast..

Onwards and upwards now, perhaps very soon if DA or FVR join in.

[steveberyl] 13/4/2024 09:29

There can be NO doubt whatsoever that Placings are, DISCRIMINATION, talking particularly about Tern, Tern holders suffer Dilution but Board of Directors 10% of EXIT FEE REMAINS UNCHANGED.

That MUST be altered. As soon as possible the BOD need to be aware that DISCRIMINATION is UNLAWFUL! Holders must demand that TERN get the Necessary funds via Primary Bid or via Bank loans and that whenever Holders suffer ANY DILUTION, Board of Directors ALSO SUFFER, by losing an agreed % of their 10% Exit fee.

For Tern Holders to be the "ONLY LOSERS IN EVERY CASE IS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, DISCRIMINATION" Such a ruling would also be, "RETROSPECTIVE" Meaning Tern BOD would lose much of their current 10% exit fee.

Why the FCA have never DEMANDED such EQUALITY is baffling, in ALL Markets, particularly AIM, where Placings are a regular feature with no apparent oversight by FCA, why no demand to prevent this blatant DISCRIMINATION is astonishing. Tern holders got change previously and must do it again.

[emigna2020] 13/4/2024 09:07

So what? That is what they do, and they do it so regularly, one would think that even the dimmest LTH moron would give up and sell.

[wardy333] 13/4/2024 09:04

Who told you that Dave and what day was the placing, we will all find out soon enough how many Wyld shares we have, these loan sharks do not do placings without forward selling, shorting and other means to make money, not happy with 30% they maximise profits any way they can.

[steveberyl] 13/4/2024 08:59

There can be NO doubt whatsoever that Placings are, DISCRIMINATION, talking particularly about Tern, Tern holders suffer Dilution but Board of Directors 10% of EXIT FEE REMAINS UNCHANGED.

That MUST be altered. As soon as possible the BOD need to be aware that DISCRIMINATION is UNLAWFUL! Holders must demand that TERN get the Necessary funds via Primary Bid or via Bank loans and that whenever Holders suffer ANY DILUTION, Board of Directors ALSO SUFFER, by losing an agreed % of their 10% Exit fee.

For Tern Holders to be the "ONLY LOSERS IN EVERY CASE IS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, DISCRIMINATION" Such a ruling would also be, "RETROSPECTIVE" Meaning Tern BOD would lose much of their current 10% exit fee.

Why the FCA have never DEMANDED such EQUALITY is baffling, in ALL Markets, particularly AIM, where Placings are a regular feature with no apparent oversight by FCA, why no demand to prevent this blatant DISCRIMINATION is astonishing. Tern holders got change previously and must do it again.

[steveberyl] 13/4/2024 06:53

There can be doubt whatsoever that Placings are, DISCRIMINATION, talking particularly about Tern, Tern holders suffer Dilution but Board of Directors 10% of EXIT FEE REMAINS UNCHANGED.

That MUST be altered. As soon as possible the BOD need to be aware that DISCRIMINATION is UNLAWFUL! Holders must demand that TERN get the Necessary funds via Primary Bid or via Bank loans and that whenever Holders suffer ANY DILUTION, Board of Directors ALSO SUFFER, by losing an agreed % of their 10% Exit fee.

For Tern Holders to be the "ONLY LOSERS IN EVERY CASE IS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, DISCRIMINATION" Such a ruling would also be, "RETROSPECTIVE" Meaning Tern BOD would lose much of their current 10% exit fee.

Why the FCA have never DEMANDED such EQUALITY in ALL Markets, particularly AIM is baffling, why no demand to prevent this blatant DISCRIMINATION is astonishing. Tern holders got change previously and must do it again.