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.
@xenor. It's market dynamics. Lower free floats
less stockcis greater volatility to make the market. It's more than a suggestion..
By its nature this stock will be very volatile as in large swings until it's achieved stability. However that is what also provides the opportunity.
Can have high capital growth targets and no risk or volatility.
@Fukurokuju79 I think it's important to strike the right balance. This year we have gone quickly up to 62p, down to 17p, up to 45p and back down to 32p. It is highly volatile. This stock currently has a very high free float due to the lack of II investors and high amount owned by PIs. Many PIs tend to be traders rather than holders, hence the large swings up and down. So I'm not sure how having even more free float would reduce volatility as you seem to suggest.
Xenor 'We need IIs buying on the open market to reduce the free float. Means less volatility for us holders.'
Xenor actually a lower free float (as in less available stock) would increase the volatility. As there is less liquidity. MMs have to move price more to encourage buyers and sellers to meet.
All things being equal a liquid, high free float stock would be less volatile than an illiquid, low free float stock.
Sorry not being posting police. Just picked up on that term free float. You may be using the term in a slightly different context.
Atb
Xenor - spot on - I worry for those investors that cannot get their heads around it!
I really hope there is a great reason for doing what they have done, but I will be the first to suggest a class action if I believe they should be brought to account
I have had several conversations in person and by phone or zoom with BoD and those that I have interacted with are very very nice people and I would say honourable and whom I like very much.
Lets see what rationale is provided for the additional tranche of unyet issued dilution shares in the GM thats due to be this month.
Have a good weekend all and pls DYOR
Let them buy on the open market, share price shoots up to 60p. They could then do a small placing at 60p if they feel the need to pay off 5m of the debt. That would have been less dilution than the 35p entry for IIs. There is absolutely nothing good about that news.
We need IIs buying on the open market to reduce the free float. Means less volatility for us holders.
Still happy with my position as it's still a bargain buy at this price but like most others I'm annoyed.
John bull
Thanks for the clarification. An easy mistake on my part given you said 'the deal did not have to be sweetened by issue of more warrants'. The deal did give more warrants but the overall amount of warrants issued was c630k less.
Cheers
Bluesquare - you have misinterpreted my comment which was that fewer warrants issued overall when compared to the original arrangement - so no indication of this not being a chosen course of action by the BOD.
Nice post John Bull and I agree, except they have given warrants - over 4 years at 35p.
Even if you trust the BOD we are entitled to question their choices, after all they are managing our business.
The premium paid was a pittance compared to buying that volume of shares on the open market, why should the Canadian Investor get a sweet deal, what are they bringing to the party.
I'd trust the BOD more if they'd be upfront with the companys owners.......
As shareholders we are never going to be party in a timely manner to the majority of decisions taken - that's why there is a BOD, hopefully comprising people of sufficient skill, knowledge and integrity to run the company on our behalf. With regard to recent RNS and change to debt/equity mix, IMO if you have faith in the BOD then this should be viewed as a good thing, reason being they did not have to action this change as the debt was already agreed and ready for drawing. The conclusion must be that the change is a positive one for the company, especially given the equity was priced at a premium and the deal did not have to be sweetened by issue of more warrants or supplementary gold - exactly the opposite, actually - which might have been expected if RMM had been "forced" in to this revised arrangement. IMO investors should ignore much of the "monkey business" spouted on this forum by posters with a clear agenda, even when applied in a subtle manner.