I suggest holders do some "historical" research on Plus SMS this weekend, as well as the characters behind it.
A tiger never changes its stripes (sorry if you're reading this PT)...
Printable View
I suggest holders do some "historical" research on Plus SMS this weekend, as well as the characters behind it.
A tiger never changes its stripes (sorry if you're reading this PT)...
"The participation of directors in the private placements is entirely appropriate. It is expressly allowed, and catered for, under the NZAX Listing Rules.
The new insider trading rules in the Financial Markets Conducts Act 2013 do not apply to the issue of new shares by private placement (refer clause 20 of Schedule 1 to the Financial Markets Conduct Regulations 2014).
This was also the case under the previous insider trading rules in the Securities Markets Act 1988."
I cannot help but read this as......
...... We knew what we were doing wouldn't look great when it came to light so we called a lawyer (probably paid with shareholders funds) who told us that what we were doing wasn't illegal.
I guess some shareholders won't be happy this but what can they do? We didn't break the law? What does integrity and honesty have to do with this???? .................
I have several sets of stripes which I do change regularly and also I have them laundered so that they are clean and have that nice fresh furry smell.
Easy to see why the moose became extinct and we are down to the last moa.
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Hey W69, thanks for your support.
Even though it was tempting, and easy to scalp a 100% profit at the time (avg 0.013, sell 0.025), I didn't. Why?
Well as some might agree, despite the best analysis and charts, no-one knows for sure what's going to happen tomorrow, and selling out in front of potentially another bolt upwards would have been a mistake. So some probably made a handsome gain on the day, but I didn't, except on paper. What I did do though was buy some more when the price pulled back to a mere 45% gain, and hopefully has stabilised. Sigh, yes, it appears that I prefer to position as an owner. Traders may laugh at that, that's their prerogative.
So to be clear, I'm not trading this stock. I'm buying it. I have a day job and can't sit around with my finger on the trigger minute by minute. Time will tell whether I'm right to accumulate but this week has been encouraging. I do think I'm right though, I've made that abundantly clear in earlier posts. VML has a tremendous product, in a huge market, with perfect timing for entry, is making money, signing up customers, and will reap the rewards.
This .. and only this .. is what makes VML different, and appealing, from the wanna-be products/companies that have failed, that some now choose to by ergo, deride the directors.
I fully expect the ethics police to rain on my parade, but in time I suspect their envy willoutweigh my rewards for supporting VML, let alone the big holders.
As it has emerged this week, no rules have been broken, no 'ethics' have been compromised, all that has happened is an excellent success story and a board who chose, and are entitled to choose, for whatever reason, to raise $2m from outside the public shareholder pool. For me, I say 'whatever', I'm not going to cry about a spread of 0.0106 to them vs my avg 0.013. In fact, I'm really happy that "high net worth individuals, institutions and certain VMob directors" are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. It in fact re-enforces my confidence, not detracts from it.
If anyone has a problem with that, rather than judging minion shareholders, and having the temerity to suggest they spend their weekend researching failed companies that have no relevant product, market, revenue or opportunity comparisons , they should fully disclose the specific criteria that their compromised ethics are founded on, including naming precisely which directors they charge with whatever misdemeanors, and what those charges are, and submit hard evidence - not supposition - to back their case, here, in the open in the face of scrutiny.
And on that matter, they should then submit a formal complaint to the NZX, the SHA, and the FMA, instead of whining about it here. If they do not, then their whining is but an annoyance and to no good effect in an anonymous setting. It is illuminating that the news reports that NO complaints were laid with the NZX. So much for ethics!
This goes for anyone whose precious 'ethics' have been bruised, in my opinion. Sure, beat up the messenger if you like, but if someone has a real case to put forward, put it forward in a manner that will either vindicate your position, or not.
BAA
Well said Baa_Baa, coincidentally I too did the same as you this past week and bought more... :)
I'll just add that I knew nothing of this stock until Monday when I looked at the share picking competition live results and saw that all these people had whizzed past me.
Needless to say I quickly did a bit of research of the ole VML.
After reading about insider trading - (from an outsider coming in - sure it looked a little dodgey at a glance, but looking into it more I could see it could be legit :)) - I was expecting too see more here about the announcement of Maccas itself but oh well. Anyway, all this combined - I bought a parcel of 500,000 at close on Wednesday. This pushed the price up from 0.017 to 0.018 and even shifted me from 1st to 2nd place in the competition because it put Bobcat. in front of me :P
Anyway, I like and agree with some guys comment I read earlier that went along the lines of you can put in $1000 and it might become $500 or it might become $10,000. Sorry I can't remember who said that.
Baa baa. You could have bought a 1c during the time the private offer was open so there was no premium. The question is where those private investors told of the McD worldwide contract? Timing suggests maybe, not fully subscribed suggests maybe not.
I've been in a while and holding - the company has promise and I just hope that dodgy dealings (perceived or actual) don't hold them back.