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. 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.
I have no idea what is going on, apart from the lack of comms by the company. But this is the reply to me from a reliable source. Make of it what you wish. I am as confused as everybody else.
I don’t think Golden Summit are to blame
Yes, they sold stock below 3% but they also moved stock from one account to another so it was not so much selling
I don’t believe they voted against resolutions at the AGM but the voting is anonymous so we don’t actually know
I think the fact is that vanadium prices have failed to pick up much and investor interest has waned particularly against massive interest in gold stocks which have done better due to the rise in gold prices
While Vanadium prices rose in China, Chinese tariffs on vanadium limit the benefit, though it is still better than in Europe and the US
Hope this helps
One interesting comment in the email exchange was:
My experience tells me that there are lots of anxious and trigger happy investors who have rushed to sell ahead of everyone else
I suspect they will return when they see better news ahead
Thanx DBB, so well before the agm.
It’s also quite possible they ended up transferring far more than 10 million to another account, which would explain why zero notifications when they fell through the 5 and 4% benchmarks. Could be it’s only after they reached a level below 4% ... that they have been disposing of the rest on the open market and so legally requiring a TR1 for going below 3%.
There’s a historical discussion about GS here. There are a few companies called Golden Summit and I’m not sure that back then we were all talking about the same one.
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=BMN&share=Bushveld-Minerals&thread=FE9359DE-8B15-428C-A3DB-CA9F6E516786
TR1 mentions 11th September as date on which 3% threshold was crossed.
@Lindon, email was sent to @gambitxjs on the 30th July from Chika.
What was the date on that email ... before or after the agm? GS disposed of 10 million prior the AGM. It’s possible they were transferred, as stated in the email, but the rest have/are being sold on the open market, requiring the notification due to dropping through the 3% benchmark.
Ok, so GS transferred half of its shares to another holding with the same beneficiary. A TR1 was issued and now both holdings have a share below 3%. But were these shares traded through the market? If so, they might be done by now, but it makes you wonder why they did so. If not, the mystery of the big seller remains.
Alfa, what do you think Fortune's preferred course of action will be in the run up to the loan note anniversary?
I don't know what to think about this so need to try and research whether any transfer could take place off market between two related entities. If anyone can point me to something conclusive on the subject that would be great, else I will look myself once I get chance.
It doesn't seem right at all that a transfer could be used to totally destroy the share price. Also, no need to submit a TR1 was said but then they submit a TR1? I added more yesterday because the share price is so disgustingly low but this doesn't add up. And we deserve transparency.
In this case a statement was apparently made that is then contradicted by a TR1 and accompanied by a share price mashing. They are friendly to us yet are allowing the share price to be trashed so they can transfer to another entity right as Duferco is due? What?
...which of course begs the question as to why a TR1 was delivered ?
Well it stands to reason that TR1 is still necessary, and as usual, this only happens at the end of the process, or else you'd have a massively changed shareholding appearing on the share register without a TR1. I think that first clause may have simply been a misunderstanding.
It is the second clause that is the really relevant one of course.
Although if they aren't required to issue a TR1 as Chika says why did they issue one last week?
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BMN/holdings-in-company-0cr9opbfjikj7pe.html
@Uksteveg, here's a copy and paste of gambitxjs post.
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
Golden Summit is not required to submit a TR1 as the shares have been transferred to a different account; hence there is no change in the ultimate beneficiary.
Kind regards,
Chika
daitom - as yourself who is in charge of doing these transfers and you may have your answer.
Orange trust that should have read
No Uksteve gambit expressly asked about Golden Summit. Oak trust/Yellow dragon was months ago anyway.
'll have them, another 40K odd for mr F100.
Soon be millionaires wont we....
I think the question that requires answering is why do it in this manner inflicting maximum damage to the share price and therefore their investment?
Surely a simple one-off large transfer would have sufficed!!
Alfa , was it not OT who are supposed to be transferring and not GS?
Unless the big sells stop from now.
In the end, yes, we should. If it would be transferring shares between GS and another holding, there will be a TR1 at the end of September. And why do this through the regular market? I am not buying it.
it is also less than the 32M that you would need to currently get onto the BMN shareholders information page - http://www.bushveldminerals.com/capital-structure-shareholder-information/
It might just be a coincidence, then again it might not.
Thanks Alfa - so 2 accounts with less than 3% in each!!
daitom - no because the reduction in GS shareholding is from 65M to 34.4 so 30.6M which is less than 3%
should we have a holdings notification then?
Then that is rank manipulation and why is it not commented upon / made public if you have a "source "as the material interests of the companies shareholders are affected. TR1 suggests otherwise,
if true again it stinks = sentiment and trust affected.