Woodbois Share Discussion Threads

[juliemara] 14/10/2024 14:17

🤷🏻‍♂️

[odillon] 14/10/2024 13:55

I don't agree with you on the altruism point. I do not think anyone would devote precious time to the long term posting of thoughts on a company if they did not have a financial interest in doing so.

[odillon] 14/10/2024 13:39

I agree with that fenners. It works both ways.

But in fairness to myself with regard to the accusation of ramping do note that I have also been critical of the company, for example, when they failed to provide an update on the date they said they would. Note too that I called out posters on this site recently who I believed to be over enthusiastic about the share's immediate prospects and I also blocked them all. If I was an unscrupulous ramper I would have been cheering them on. I have stated that I hold the share. I have done since Obtala days, so my position is clear.

Whilst I have blocked rampers, I have not blocked you or JK or JM. I have only seen (or only remembered) your recent posts and so I don't know your history of posts but as for JK and JM I always like to see their posts because I believe their active interest is a signal of better times ahead.

[fenners66] 14/10/2024 13:13

Odillon - your post can be turned around

a poster who contributes nothing but positive sentiment , especially where the company loses money year after year and has no shareholder returns - is seeking to influence people to buy the share to create a demand - so they can sell to someone at a higher price. Perhaps making a profit or reducing losses so to leave someone else "holding the baby". Motivated entirely by self interest.


Given the awful track record of this company - adding the published negatives to the discussion whilst not investing seems entirely altruistic.

[jack jebb] 14/10/2024 13:08

Its a discussion board, Odillon.

If all AIM threads had bulls only posting, a lot more people would lose a lot more money.

You have to accept the fact that you've got this one very wrong, as I did in the past here.

[juliemara] 14/10/2024 12:59

You're overlooking the fact that, whatever my reasons, altruistic or not, I have been RIGHT in my 'knocking'! 🤷🏻‍♂️

PS and conversely you have been constantly wrong!!

The only thing of interest now is whether your luck's going to change and you get something right!

[odillon] 14/10/2024 12:56

A non-holder becomes a holder by buying shares.

But a poster who over a lengthy period of time solely contributes negative sentiment and maintains a position that they have no interest in buying is in my view someone seeking to contribute to reducing the share price so that they can buy at a lower price.

Unless you're a Buddhist, you would generally think that you only have one life and why would you waste that precious gift contributing on board for a share that you have no interest in.

Are you seeking to convince me that the routine knockers of various shares are doing so out of altruism?

[juliemara] 14/10/2024 12:14

O doesn't that make you think? 🤔 NOT everyone here only writes what's in their self interest!

[kaos3] 14/10/2024 12:05

exactly

or ex holder or trader following it to reenter

[fenners66] 14/10/2024 12:01

So just how should a "non-holder" become a holder ?

Often posted on these board DYOR

It actually means do some research read analyse discuss....

And when someone does it and continues to do it ....?

[odillon] 14/10/2024 11:55

For a non-holder JM you maintain an extraordinary interest in this share.

[odillon] 14/10/2024 11:51

Sorry JK you were referring to the NOMAD resignation not the director's.

What you suggest is a possible scenario. But I remain open-minded.

If there was a serious breach of AIM rules by WBI why have Canacoord not said what it is or at least that there has been such a breach and why were WBI looking for a new NOMAD before they resigned?

[juliemara] 14/10/2024 11:49

I'll confess that you've now got me flummoxed Odillon! I had you filtered as either a paid ramper or a rose tinted specs holder (either way pointless in listening to) but I can't see what's in it for you posting what you have over the last few days 🤔. As you say it's suspended so nothing written here can make a difference to the outcome. So I'm going to keep reading for now and hope for those holding, I'm obviously not one, that you may actually know something. 🤞🏻

[odillon] 14/10/2024 11:42

JK

Your sequence of events relating to the departing director is not in accordance with the RNS.

If he resigned of his own accord he could not be sacked. The RNS is clear. He was forced to resign by operation of the article of incorporation that allows the company to secure the resignation of a director by the written request of all the other directors.

So I believe you need to think again, along the lines of why might they call for his resignation.

[odillon] 14/10/2024 10:10

The shares are suspended and so nothing posted on forums can affect the price. We are waiting to see what happens next.

We do not know what has happened. No reason has been given for Canacoord resigning.

Some have assumed that there has been fault on the part of WBI. I have merely conjectured that there may be other reasons for the NOMAD resignation other than WBI being at fault, such as a conflict of interest having arisen or a planned change of NOMAD.

There is no desperation in my posts. I am simply remaining open-minded. As the shares are suspended there is nothing to be gained from any attempt to "distract attention".

But there is venom and unpleasantness in the responses from Fenners66. Is this a 54 years of hurt phenomenon?

The first thing I checked today was to see if the other two brokers had resigned. As far as I can see they have not.

[kaos3] 13/10/2024 06:50

exactly. what i wonder is how did the big players involved in wbi throgh time in this long saga settle their accounts. who lost, who of them gained, who paid the bill besides small punters....

a very interesting question to me

[fenners66] 12/10/2024 23:37

JakNife as I said in post 1347 , Odillion seemed to be desperate to distract attention from WBI suggesting that the Nomad would resign with immediate effect just because they thought they would be replaced in the future.

Why would anyone who may have shares in WBI want to suggest that ?

Shares suspended , director removed with immediate effect , loses money , had its bank effectively resign previously why would anyone even dream of gambling their hard earned here , let alone try to defend the company and blame the nomad ?

[jaknife] 12/10/2024 14:49

I've searched through my notes to find some sort of RNS to back this up. The first example that I could find is Mobile Streams plc from Sept 2019:



Notice how the nomad gives 30 days' notice. This is the standard for AIM, when a nomad resigns they normally give 30 day's notice.

[odillon] 12/10/2024 13:36

The above suggestion was based on a scenario in which a company is telling a NOMAD that they are in the process of appointing another NOMAD. In such circumstances it would not seem unreasonable for the original NOMAD to resign as they would effectively be being told that their services were no longer required. That would not make the NOMAD untrustworthy. Indeed it may be a requirement to resign if you have been told another NOMAD is being appointed.

It is you and you alone who has introduced the notion that the NOMAD may be untrustworthy.

[fenners66] 12/10/2024 13:10

Odillon

You raised this -

"Odillon
11 Oct '24 - 16:32 - 1343 of 1348
Another possibility may be that following the recent global reorganisation of WBI's business, it was more administratively convenient to appoint a different advisor and Canaccord jumped before they were ousted?"

The key part (and you know well) is they "jumped befoe being ousted"

So you know full well you are suggesting the reason could be they would just as nomad leave WBI in the lurch.

You now may want to back track when I spell out the implications of what you are suggesting there as it would damage their reputation and that is why its unthinkable for a nomad.

Perhaps you now do see your suggestion was BS.

[odillon] 12/10/2024 11:01

I think it is you that is suggesting that the NOMAD is not to be trusted. I have not said that, you have raised this.

If the resignation stems from a conflict of interest they cannot represent WBI. So they would be doing the right thing by resigning. Why are you interpreting that to mean that the NOMAD cannot be trusted?

If they believe that WBI have fallen foul of AIM's regulations and they are unable to assist WBI to address this, then again they have done the right thing by resigning. But that does not appear to be consistent with WBI being in the process of appointing a new NOMAD. That is what makes me think that it may be something other than a breach of AIM rules.

The RNS makes it clear that WBI knew that Canacoord were going to resign. WBI were therefore on notice of the resignation. So the advisors say they are going to resign and then they do. How is that being untrustworthy? WBI know they are going to resign (and presumably know why) and are in the process of appointing a new NOMAD. As they were on notice they had a head start on the usual time period for appointing an alternative adviser.

Looking through other examples of where a NOMAD has resigned there is generally a clear reason given in the RNS, which generally appears to be that a company has filed to go into administration. There is no indication of this with WBI.

Also, in other examples, when the NOMAD resigns so do all company brokers. Canaccord have resigned both as advisors and brokers, but, as matters stand, the other two brokers have not resigned.

We do not know what has happened to cause Canaccord to resign. At this stage I am not attributing blame to either the company or the NOMAD. Can you say the same?

[fenners66] 12/10/2024 00:15

I can call out an idea that a Nomad - even if they were going to be replaced ; you know like auditors can be replaced at any time - would not throw its toys out of the pram and resign leaving a company's shares suspended and the investors no avenue to trade and all the associated consequences for the welbeing and reputation of the company that employed them as BS.
Because it is.

If your business is ensuring a company can trade its shares - you don't leave them in the lurch , because they may replace you in the future - no one would touch you with a bargepole.

Auditors do not resign half way through an audit just because the client is inviting tenders for the job.

Nomads have their reputation to worry about as well.

I guess you are desperate to paint this in a better light for some reason - but painting the Nomad as effectively not to be trusted is the wrong focus.

[odillon] 11/10/2024 23:35

Also we know from the RNS that this was not a case of Canaccord resigning without warning;

On announcing the resignation WBI also said;

"The Company had already begun the process of engaging with a new nominated adviser and will make a further announcement in due course."

Note the important word "had" - so they knew Canaccord were going to resign.

Another possibility that could cause a conflict of interest to arise would be if a NOMAD were intending to be advising a company on a financial deal that could benefit the NOMAD.

Maybe, just maybe, there is some positive news coming - perhaps following on from the equity raise.