for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

The FTSE all share index is re ranking at the close of business this Tuesday the 5th. Tracker funds will be buying and selling based on market cap..Is seo going to get relegated at it's current cap ? And if so will it be in the management's interests to release a RNS prior to this to prevent relegation or has the sp dropped too far to make any difference?

Falco,

It made no difference to the sp when it entered the FTSE smallcaps, so I assume the same effect when it drops out of it!

Q,

Starpol 3000 had not been approved by end of Sep 2006. When the FDA page is next updated we shall see what has been approved up to end of Nov 2006.

I seem to keep banging the drum about Schroders but I will amplify my comments in response to oblo. I am very confident indeed that Schroders is not just as a short term investment. This comes partly from a direct knowledge as to how Schroders operate. My reading of the situation is that Warner (probably plus Wagner) went to Schroders some months back when the scale of SEO's funding problem became apparent. By the time we get to the share launch on 9th Octoner, Schroders will have done a due diligence and will have approved, if not authored, the terms of the offer; the fact that Schroders were behind the offer would bring other institutions in. The success of the offer was quickly followed with the announcement of Schroders holding, directly and via funds under their management. Schroders will have an active investment, directly via the board, thus the courage to sack the two directors directly blamed for the fiasco, possibly also via consultancy as the act is put together. I can't see any other valid explanation: (a) for a sensible formulation of fundraising; (b) for institutional support; (c) for the sacking of the directors. If it wasn't Schroders it would have to be another such organisation but, if so, who? and there are not many parallel firms with the technology background.

Schroders should therefore be in for the medium term, clearly partly to make money from shares, but also to bring the company to profitability and stablility. Their involvement could lead to a sale or a management buyout but could also leave a profitable public company. They are not primarily concerned with the sp but could well have a market cap. in mind which ends up being the same thing. Remember that an sp of 10p is equivalent to an old sp of 30p.

This is why I raised the comment about averaging down. Its partly to correct the mindset: if you have, say, 100K shares which were worth 10K at 10p they are now worth 1200. Triple the holding to 300,000 then they will be worth 10K again at 3.3p. The cap will be the same as it was when you held at 10p (adjusted by subsequent dealing costs). The benefit of doing this is really psychological, but it does mean that you have a much more realistic chance of breaking even and moving into profit.

Let me say it again: new era, no RNS that is not substantive, Schroders in for the medium term, share to be re-rated as credible for institutional investment, but still: - potential for major movement on announcement of contract wins in the new year.

Eric

so - no one knows whether the commercialisation of Starpol 3000 is new news????

- like getting blood out of a stone on here tonight!!!

Baz,

Its old news I'm afraid. Posted on the 29th, May here:-

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/476/476_652online06.html

qtheman,

I think we will have to agree to differ.
No doubt if/when approval for Starpol 3000 is granted we will see, re the sp effect and RNS or not.
Greek.

Greek,

Wrap 100 received approval back in May but we all know how the SP has fared since then.

I agree with Q. It isn't approval that is going to raise the SP but sales. No great sales of Wrap 100 reported - where are the deals with Perseco, MacDonalds, etc?

Starpol 3000 approval could be a similar damp squib if SEO dont get off their backsides and get out there and flog it!

Ob,
I fully agree, as my previous posts state that even if approval for Starpol 3000 is granted, it's the selling that is the be all and end all.
I was just saying that on news of the decision, the sp will move in my opinion sufficient to cause an RNS.
Again we will have to agree to differ or it will go round in circles.
Time will tell as they say.

Thanks OBLO - looking at that article - why are all the other articles posted on the same page dated December 2006. - It was the same article that I was looking at - but did not spot the date at the top of the page - just seems strange to have the whole of the front page dedicated to OLD news - ????

Baz what front page are you referring to?

The oily one

Ignore this post. Silly me!

I think thats just the page you're 'entering' the site at, Baz.

If you go to the home page at http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/

you'll find the current news. Part of each page, including the archived articles, also contain new items. Confusing!

Eric,

Haven't we already been here with Fidelity? Fidelity have been investors
in SEO for some time - perhaps someone will know how long, maybe 2-3 years?

They would also have done their due diligence and quizzed SEO, I've no doubt. They presumably believed what most of us believed - that SEO and Greenseal in particular had great potential. I believe Fidelity have reduced their holding - I'm not sure of that, again perhaps someone can tell us.

Point is, Institutions are no great guide, they frequently get it wrong - look at unit trust performances and you'll see a high percentage show losses. I know that from painful experience!

I don't quite follow your maths on the SP - but my maths tell me that even with averaging down my prospects of making a profit are unlikely.

Averaging down is no more than psychologically cosmetic. The loss on your earlier investment is still the same loss. Investing more at a lower price must be based on an objective assessment of whether you would buy some now regardless of your previous investment. The only real advantage is that you probably know the company better than most by now and should be able to gauge a fundamental turnaround, or maybe a chartist's support level.

Perhaps what I can accept is the concept of "substituting down". You buy a sexy looking share at 200p which promptly falls to 150p over the next few weeks. You remain convinced of its fundamental mid term prospects and feel a floor has been reached, so you buy in (same amount). You are proved right and the SP rises back to 200p over the next few months. At that point you sell your original holding and are left with a larger number of shares for the same original cost showing a nice profit - real and cosmetic reward. Of course, LIFO rules mean that you actually sell the original number of shares bought out of the second lot bought - but the maths still holds true.

On the other hand, why would you not now want to run both your holdings for further gain? Same rules apply on selling as would appply if you had only invested once and were now showing a healthy gain - is there a better oppportunity elsewhere or are dividends for your holding just around the corner.

The truth for SEO is that the decimated (does that mean reduced BY or TO one tenth of ones strength? - anyway you know what I mean here) value of my holding would without doubt have a more reliable chance of climbing back towards its original cost in many other stocks. I've held for the gamble (no more) that a quick lift back to, say, 5p (a tad over half my average cost price) occurs on the back of the new investment, institutional shareholders and new management (or less old management anyway).

How long should I give them? Nothing has happened yet except more confusion about the management and no follow through to the prospective developments on the basis of which presumably they persuaded the majority of the fresh investment. I know these things take time, but time risk is as important as value risk when it is linked to a company with a creditable record of greatly diminishing value.

Or am I "tucking away and forgetting" them for 5 years at the end of which time they may be worth nothing or 10 X - a 58% pa compound return from where I am now, not at all bad (althoough only a 2.7% pa compound return from where I started)? To make 10 X after even 10 years is still a 25.89% pa compound return - pretty much my overall target for my portfolio.

Excuse the digression - haven't been out for much of a ramble lately.

sd

.0075p not to long to go now..

That maybe so D@$khead but I really cannot stomach that sort of puerile nonsense.........SQUELCHED!

I second that - what a pratt.

lots of xmas cheer going round...................
I myrelf am looking forward to nailing an SEO exec by thier curlies from any available fireplace.
:-))))

I fear I'm falling into the same old trap of holding on the slide for far too long. I'd consider averaging down by selling a percentage now and re-buying at a lower price. All depends on whether we get any news pre-Christmas.

With the year-end now being 31st December I don't invisage any update until the New Year, so except for a signed deal cropping up, we're going to slide even further.

Just need another day or so to really convince myself. Plus can't sell today as Tuesday tends to be news day.

Im sorry to say this company constantly lets it's investors down, it has huge potential but until the board is replaced then this is going to .8p... I would consider investing then but would not touch until that point...

share consolidation imminent i reckon..don't buy until then