Impending admin?, page-147

"I wonder what response I'll receive once I am a shareholder".....................

.................sincere expressions of good luck, sandvich. What else would anyone wish you for your first ever investment?

Maybe SGH will turn out to be the equivalent of horse No 13 in the linked video. There are other similarities - eg the language used is very reminiscent of that used by SGH's directors these past 2 years.


I couldn't help noticing the number of people SGH is presently looking to recruit in the UK (courtesy of SWC's last helpful link of 17.50hrs 30/5). This suggests to me a lot of people must be leaving. A number of the positions advertised are for admin staff inc finance, systems and other admin types - surely SGH is not looking to grow the number of these? Additionally, the fact NIHL claims now (at last) appear to be being processed suggests there have been delays in progressing these claims, rather than them being defunct. Under the terms of the S&P agreement of May 2015, the NPV of all NIHL claims not settled by 30 June 2017 are to be assessed by an independent expert and WTG will be entitled to 50%. If people recall, SGH paid QPP/WTG nothing for 53,000 cases it took on when the S&P agreement was signed.

No doubt the hedge funds know and understand what's going on here and in WTG. They're seldom far from the money. Do they know this is your first investment, sandvich?

I don't think SWC is singing from the right hymn sheet.

But that's just me.

By the way, I'm not a bitter ex-holder, Denbo - I made multiples on the stock I put the proceeds of my SGH into instead (ok - I was lucky). I copped a packet on a UK share called Xcite Energy (UK:XEL) last year, where there were many similarities to the situation we're seeing here and it didn't play out in shareholders' favour (shareholders' kicked up at the prospect of 98.5% dilution, with the hedge funds providing the working capital to see the company through). They got nothing instead because the hedge funds put the company into liquidation - they were amply covered by their security. My sole purpose in posting is to counter the likes of SWC (and I'm sorry to say I don't buy sandwich's story of being a fresh-faced investor choosing SGH as a 'toe in the water' - I might be dipping mine into hot water, but not molten iron). Hedge funds are in business to do what's fair - they care only about the money and always do their utmost to get as much out of any situation as they possibly can. They don't care about anyone else's supposed rights or expectations. It's just the way it is.

It's interesting that so-called "non-holders" are being presented by SWC and some others as "insincere". I know where I see the insincerity and it isn't where it's said to be.

But that's just me.