Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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.
Tailor028,
In describing me as bipolar, I think you must be confusing me with someone else (how bipolar!) - I have been entirely consistent in my position on INFA and have no agenda, other than to get my money back.
BlairPeach In relation to your 21.37 post having double checked, as far as I am able, both your posts and JWs statements a practice I would recommend. I think the true position lies somewhere between your negative spin and JWs positive spin.
BlairPeach are you invested or sold out its hard to keep track of your bipolar personality, what it comes down to is do you trust JW or some person on a forum trying to persuade people for there own agenda ?
Lots of to-ing and fro-ing here, much of it less than polite; credit to those posters who have remained civil (the minority).
Ultimately, it comes down to this: do you trust a word that comes out of the mouth of JW, after almost 3 years at the helm?
JW has greatly increased the business scope/Footprint without improving credibility so anything of value will have to be self insured until we gain a track record/Credibility.
Performance bonds are insurance, If you are 17 and just passed your driving test and try to get insurance for a Bugatti I think you know the answer from the insurer.
JW states performance bonds are normal, And he is correct but only for risky contractors and any contract of significant value will require a performance bond, they can be underwritten for less risky companies but companies like INFA with there current balance sheet they have to foot the bill themselves.
TBH, Jabido, if they weren't prepared to mention it in the initial contract RNS then I wouldn't hold your breath.
IMO, if they had, then it may have had the effect of a bitter pill but with a lump of sugar. And maybe at a better price.
Why wait two over weeks?
GL with finding an answer, though.
Cheers razor, hoping the circular might provide some detail... should be on the website from today
Hi Jabido, off the top of my head not sure - re-read the few most recent RNS, it's all laid out in there.
Thanks for your reply razor...
"Maybe if there is some significantly prestigious contracts we need further money to prepare us to bid for - but it's all in support of the company's growth"
And it is this which I want clarification on. We are supposedly after multiple prestigious contracts, so what will be the premium amounts needed for these and how will they be funded?
Perhaps I won't receive the answer from the company. I don't want to invite more replies of, well why don't you just sell up then and stop moaning! Lol. It is a genuine concern from a lth and I feel the company at least should give me the courtesy of an answer so I can see if yet more of my money invested will become diluted.
Thanks and all the best
Once we are not only cash break-even, but eventually profitable, I presume the company will want to fund its own further expansion. Maybe if there is some significantly prestigious contracts we need further money to prepare us to bid for - but it's all in support of the company's growth. At least this company does not offer the placing solely to IIs who will sell out over months suppressing the SP constantly, which is currently happening with another company I'm invested in.
P.p.s...can we assume or discount the fact that a premium (and therefore potential placing) will be needed for every single "major" contract?
Interesting debates going on today by all. Some new and informative posters joining in too. Amongst all the debate I don't seem to see much being addressed in terms of any future placings. Can anybody in the know advise whether or not further placings will be needed in order to win higher value contracts? If that's the case, is the premium a proportionate amount of the contract won? E.g. if, a big if, we get the 350 mill vessel contract, what size of placing for the premium will we need for that?? I have asked the company but as yet have not received a reply. In my view, this is the crux of the matter right now for all shareholder's. Depending on the answer we either sit, wait and be happy....or, we get diluted into oblivion forever and a day. So, does anybody know the answer? Speedy, if you are still reading, my continued involvement depends on this issue alone. P.S. I will be completely miffed if JW and Arun don't put any of the bonus money into share purchases asap!