London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
That £500k spent on 'directors expenses' is worth far more to them than their minuscule holdings !
As far as I'm concerned if they want us to agree then tell us specifically what the shares are for. This could after all be RY's milk it dry swan song!
I am not sure this is a binary `yes or no`. Surely this is an `explain to us why you need the shares' (and I don`t mean the generic waffle in the RNS). We have just raised £500K, and per GB33`s post a few days ago, Paul McKay said in December that most of the expenditure for the TEO had been made and that cash requirement this year would be greatly reduced. What therefore, specifically do they need the shares for? If there is no clear answer, then surely the shareholders can say come back when you have a specific deal that you need more shares for, and we will vote them through then. In the meantime we should perhaps encourage the directors to be frugal with the funds they have. Remember they have an interest in this company being a success as well as us.
can't figure why this so called "humongous asset" is worth a pittance" I'm voting no, if we go to the wall, so be it
Hi Henners - generally agree with your view on this latest RNS, fwiw...
Seeking an EGM to authorise a doubling of the shares in issue is a profound development - the reason behind it, we're told, is to 'acquire an income producing asset or instrument' to strengthen the company if the opportunity arises and, at this stage, it's time limited to November's AGM; round about the time the TEO is due to be completed (for which we're sufficiently funded) which is intriguing, to say the least...
What might that purchase comprise? We don't know, of course but it's interesting that Gipronickel (Norilsk's assaying sub) has confirmed that AMC has a copper concentrate opportunity as well as for their nickel and might Tom Bowens be discussing such a possibility with the Russian Copper Co (who bought his IG Copper company) about such an arrangement? If so, that should materially change the metrics applicable to AMC's worth to advantage.
With Tom Bowens and Martin Habib now driving the company forward that can only be a good thing for us and we can only hope that these 'developments', if real, turn into something tangible for a change.
There does seem to be a lot going on right now and the shs issuance request might involve agreeing to a J/V of some sort or an 'off take' deal which Martin favoured in a recent interview - either way, with us being in the 'last chance saloon' for so long, anything to change the dynamics here must be welcomed by all the, long suffering, 'under water' LTH's, surely...
Ergo, I'll be voting for the motion, hoping that something concrete emerges from it, otherwise AMC will probably have to shut up shop with their humongous asset passing into other hands and that would be really unjust after all this time - sasa.
In your response to your first point, I already have. I do not expect a response from them. I emailed them previously and didn't hear anything back.
Lucando, two points in response to yours:-
1) If you have concerns regarding the use of the 500m extra shares, you should send a question directly to the company's PR agent ahead of the Meeting as they have suggested. You could do this today. Please let us know how you get on. Here is what AMC have suggested
"As such, we invite shareholders to submit any questions in advance of the Extraordinary General Meeting. Any specific questions on the business of the Extraordinary General Meeting and Resolutions can be submitted ahead of the General Meeting by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org (marked for the attention of the 'Amur Minerals EGM'). We will publish these General Meeting related questions (other than any questions which cannot be addressed for legal or regulatory reasons) and answers on our website in the lead up to, and after, the meeting."
2) How much of your investable wealth do you have invested in AMC? And how much of your investable wealth do you wish you had invested here?
I tend to agree - no choice but I hate that it’s like that.
Taking into account options and warrants there’s already a commitment to over 1.1bn shares so we’re not in a good position to handle that, should it come about.
They’ve had plenty of time to do this, it’s been obviously necessary for some time and has been mentioned before by many. Yet they’re now in a rush to get it through before the end of year results.
Why so I wonder?
I don’t think showing your hand is another option especially in Russia.
Another option is to say No until further information and detail as to how the shares are to be used is provided
It seems that we either stick with the bod or we are pretty much going nowhere.The only option is to back them in this move or flush the shares down the loo.So I will vote in favour
That is supposition. All we have to go on is the way they have treated shareholders previously and on that basis, I would say the scenario is that they wish for the increased shares to enter into death spiral finance agreements again.
Give us more details and tell us otherwise that there are plans and what these are and I would vote for the resolutions but dont ask us to trust you as past performance has been horrific
Another possible scenario, I can think of, is that they already have agreed to a deal with a party, subject to keeping it under wraps, until all is signed off. (hence the silence for months)
Whether that is positive or negative is the question.
Reading the circular again, they are asking for authority to issue 500 million by the AGM, no questions asked.
They typically ask for 200 Mill a year but because the SP has tanked this would be worthless and wouldnt cover their wages wo they need to up it to 500 Mill.
I cant see this being for anything else except salaries.
They could issue 500 million bu December and then ask to be able to issue a further 500 million at the Agm then increase shares to 3 Billion by next year.
Definitely not voting for these resolutions.
Have just downloaded and read that PDF, and noticed that it jumps from page 11 to page 19, pages 12 to 18 are not there. Should that be the form to complete?
Agree wholeheartedly CrazyTowner. Between now and November we should expect to see plenty of positive action (finally).
This is the link to the AMC website referred to in the RNS. I had to read it a couple of times, but the ability to allot shares only extends up to the Annual General Meeting in November 2020. This end date and the accompanying narrative, in my opinion, helpfully signposts the reader to what might happen. Clearly the Company is currently in active negotiations. Personally, I have witnessed something similar with another share whereby cash was raised and the action took place within days afterwards. Yes, nickel price could fall, the CoVid19 effect might not dissipate, but the end is nigh and hopefully at a much higher level than 1p per share.
I would be interested in Sasa's view on this given that he has also been a shareholder for over 10 years here. Investing's all about the long term!!!!
Have you read the same announcement as me?
"Such potential transactions include acquiring interests in revenue generating assets or financial instruments within the mining sector to provide the Company with a reliable source of income going forward, or where the Company will be able to add short to medium-term value."
The board of directors are clearly saying what the shares are intended for and the need to be able to move and act quickly.
There is no mention of progressing the TEO, BFS, DFS, working capital etc. etc.
I am a bit fed up of the posts of people saying that they don't trust the board, if that is genuinely true, then sell up.
It couldn't be any clearer to me that this is the start of the end game, the big pay day that I originally invested in AMC for and I will be voting YES to all the resolutions.
on the basis of the information shared so far.... I am not in favor of releasing 1 -2 billion more shares for who knows what.
- if a major mining player would like to come out of the shadows and make an offer for 1 - 2 billion new shares at a price somewhere over current sp... then great - I'm sure we can then agree to release them
- if the bod just wish to cover ongoing funding by selling shares under marker value and thus allowing the buyer to dump them on the open market then... then I say No!
I don't buy into the " we need this authority in place as opportunities need to be seized quickly... "
"If" there is an opportunity then that is what should brought to the EGM. !
Fair point Rosewall, but how about the merge with big company and shares for % in amc?
My view is that, if any body wanted to take over AMC then there would be little use in having the extra shares. If AMC wanted to take over another body then they would need the extra shares tp purchase the body as they have no cash to speak of.
Perhaps you could explain Mike how DB reads this in the Rns.. "The Directors remain cognisant at all times of potential mergers, acquisitions or investments which would benefit the Company's business. Such potential transactions include acquiring interests in revenue generating assets or financial instruments within the mining sector to provide the Company with a reliable source of income going forward, or where the Company will be able to add short to medium-term value. The ability to complete any such potential transactions and investments expeditiously is key to the growth and success of Company and the Kun-Manie nickel copper sulphide project which is the Company's priority. As such, the Company wishes to have the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities as they arise and without undue delay."
And arrives at this conclusion...
.."Obviously there is no outside interest of any type"
Bs not by.
I'm invested in the company and use the info provided by them to make up my mind. What the doom sayers say is not even correlated to that info. Its just made up by thats why.
Why don't you take the positive speculation to task too. No-one has any proof for that either.
"Obviously there is no outside interest of any type"
Is that a professional opinion or do you have insider knowledge?