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.
BSG, I agree with you when it comes to big cap companies but when it comes to low cap companies then I disagree. Personally for most AIM companies it should be banned. It is too disruptive and easy for manipulation.
It's like going in to a gun-slingers bar and having a problem with the swearing.
Shorting is good, it exposes cr@p companies the majority of the time.
Sure, the one share doesn't multiply - but the process of it being lent from one to another to another can be repeated.
A lends to B. B sells to C. C lends to D etc. A & C are both short. This is what happens in those cases when the short interest is over 100%. Or, to put it another way, if I were a corporate: I can sell to someone, they lend it back to me and I sell it to them again.
If anyone sells something that they don't have, then there's a settlement failure, a "failure to deliver", and that's where I'd like to see some proper penalties (rather than more law) applied.
Snooz, if you lend something to someone then they lend it to someone else it's still one share with which they may interact with the market from, it don't multiply because it's being passed from one person to another - You can only sell that specific share once and will own an immediately demandable debt upon it (point is you cannot sell the same share twice or manipulate the figures to look as though more shares are available than there really are - everything MUST be accounted for & in real time.) As for retail shorts many do go bankrupt whilst the corporate one's are bailed out by other corporates (unless they are out of favour.)
"only shares held and available may be loaned to shorts." - still wouldn't work:
Scenario: You hold a share. Lend it to a short. They sell it to someone - that person now holds it. They lend it to a short (maybe the same one). Repeat.
People would only lend shares they hold but you still end up with a system where huge (even 100% or more) is lent out.
I'd like to see the penalties for failure-to-deliver increased a lot - puts the pressure on the shorts to be really sure that they can locate and deliver the shares that they sold - hit them where it hurts, in the wallet.
Yeah they just loan out shares that don't actually exist, just gotta look at GameStop to see that, setting a sell limit high up really won't affect the system. Now the petition I would sign, "only shares held and available may be loaned to shorts." Remember you can loan your own shares out for shorting too (broker dependant), most tutes do this as they wait for the real action, accounting wise, brings down the average cost of your holding. I mostly deal US market and it's just pretty much accepted over there, remember this is not your game & if you don't like the rules don't join or leave because the BIG TUTES don't care.
OK I know it's been MANY years coming but to actually see an ISR doing it's thing, even in pure test mode with no real extraction, excites me a bit. But this is the real physical thing, something that we have not ever got close to seeing in situ.
Set upper limits on your holdings, prevents the market lending your shares for shorting.
Not to forget that shorting brings liquidity to the market place which would have to be covered elsewhere if it were gone. And is something that drives good shares up as those shorts get burned and HELPS investors because it SHOULD be focusing their attention on the WHY of the shorting. But shorting needs to limited to ACTUAL shares available - rather like BASIL III is set to limit 1 gold bar per gold bar contract & not 10 or so!!!
Unfortunately it helps 'create' a market and it is illegal unless you are a multi-millionaire, besides which it's impossible to stop without having extremely constraining financial laws which would pretty much stop trading for the masses.
What I find despicable is the fact that your own broker can (and does), lend out the shares in your portfolio to shorters without your permission. There are companies now that deal exclusively in borrowing and lending shares, I had an e-mail just last week asking if I'd like to make a few measly quid lending them my shares,
I said 'yes please, I'd love to make up to two whole pounds while you reduce the value of my portfolio to as near zero as you can get it before handing it back to me'.
GLA.
https://www.thormining.com/investors/presentations-and-recorded-interviews
hi all,
invested in here but also on GGP. someone don't he board have started a petition make shorting illegal in the UK. i believe we (PI) can all benefit from this.
here is the link to sign up for it: https://www.change.org/p/department-for-business-energy-industrial-strategy-make-short-selling-of-shares-illegal
GLA
Absolutely spot on, adpowers!
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/THOR-MINING-PLC-39432762/company/ lists current share ownership. I'm not really sure how up-to-date/accurate it can be/where they get their data from, but note:
- MBB Trading Pty Ltd is also Mr Billings.
- The AIM rules are that if 3% is crossed one way or the other there would be an announcement: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-1710 so he has still got >3%.
Naise> Have you had a look at the trades going through on ASX?
I can see daily trade volumes... is information about each trade published freely like the LSE does? No matter, it's all such low volume... when I look deeper I'm just seeing patterns in randomness like seeing faces in clouds... I now agree with you, care about "which way the price goes and the spread" rather than looking at individual trades.
"The early worms catch the birds". -- I don't think he was referring to the dietary habits of our feathered friends, but he may have been referring to the birds and the bees.
Snooz
Just a quick note to say I appreciate your effort to put these urls together.
V useful especially for ASX news if something tasty comes up.
As my old headmaster used to say at our boys school "The early worms catch the birds".
If Billing wanted to sell a large amount, I don't think he'd do it on the open market; he'd arrange a deal with an institutional investor that wanted to buy in. I know this is how the chairman of Hochschild reduced his holding in that company about two years ago.
Who knows snooz. My only interest in which way the price goes and the spread. Have you had a look at the trades going through on ASX?
>How many shares did Mick Billing have? Is this pattern him selling them?
To answer my own question: https://www.thormining.com/investors/share-information
At the end on Jan, Mick Billing: 3.22% -> 52m shares. I reckon a broker has been selling his bit-by-bit daily.
But then, on the other hand, based on my understanding of the LSE rules I would have expected an RNS when his holding crossed below 3%.
Maybe I'm seeing patterns in randomness... but I saw a pattern:
There was a period where there would be 1m sold per day, at a random time per day.
Then that changed to some days where 3m was sold.
I'm sure it wasn't a retail customer as a retail customer would have noticed it would have been better to do it in sizes of 0.5m and 1m as much better RSP quotes were available for those smaller sizes.
And now we have these 2.5m "Non Protected Portfolio" trades (previous one looked like it was at mid, this is at the lse offer).
How many shares did Mick Billing have? Is this pattern him selling them?
nice one DCGC, a good start of day so far
Another pre-market buy of 2500,000 shares today making it the 3rd since 14th October. 18.8 mil shares traded last night in Australia far more than normal .
To correct myself:
>now only have to provide proof that they are legally allowed to use the access routes the site(s)
I don't think this is true, I've mixed up my own research. The pending permit work is to do with a San Miguel permit & when that's done the Colorado DRMS permit should be approved.
Hi, Snooz
Thanks for this. Also Nicole on twitter, as below. (Galloway is her maiden name; and Warland presumably the surname of her husband.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/gallowaywarland