Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. 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.
I was invested once but would just like to know if Dmitri still owns his Trabant?
Hi Lamtree.
Hope you are doing well.
I don’t know if you recall yesterday I requested from you to provide a case (with substantial assumptions / facts) central to the notion that EUA will never come out of suspension. I was just wondering how that was coming along? I’m sure you can’t be bothered but I'm genuinely interested in anything that can hold up this claim. I’m not doing this to prove a point that you perhaps haven’t got anything like many will think. I want to make a fair judgement for my own sanity and I’m just lacking any substantiated reasons / proof to think this has all now gone **** up!!!! Genuine request...
Hi Lam.
Regarding PDAC.... don’t want to go other that again. I made a right c0ck up not taking a screen shot of that infamous Instagram message I got.
Basically I made a contact who was on the adjacent stand to Rosnedra. I made an enquiry with her whether Eurasia were present. Time passed but eventually I received an instagram picture message of a screen on the stand what appeared to be playing a company (Eurasia Mining PLC) presentation... they didn’t have their own stand but it was definitely exhibiting their company. Wouldn’t bother looking back I got got burnt by many in here that I was telling porkies only for the photo of Dmitry and what’s his chops on the stand....
Weren't eurasia there representing Russian mining as a whole rather than just as Eurasia mining the company with there own individual stand. The picture posted on Twitter showed this with Dmitry standing the front of a stand with a load of Russian mining companies listed.
There were photos of Dimitry there at PDAC online ... unless those were fabricated like the ... errr ... moon landing and me winning the Olympic 100 metres ...
Lamtree, you made the comment below about Eurasia not being interviewed. Can you post any links to interviews by the other miners on the same stand?
‘Its just little things as you go along Alex,it all starts to build up.
PDAC,for example they had no stand and no recordings of a speech of which all stand owners normally give out.’
For the record, I am not invested in EUA. This has been more of a case study if you will.
Iv`e been reading the board on and off for a while [just curious as to what happens] and see one thing I can`t get my head round, maybe I`m a bit dim!
From what Iv`e gathered it was the LSE that suspended trading in EUA shares and I keep reading it`s a good thing at the moment [it probably is]. I also read posts that give the impression it is up to the company when to re-list...surely that isn`t right, don`t the LSE have the authority here? They don`t/shouldn`t care if its a good time to re-list, they order the stock to be re-listed possibly on information from the nomad.
Hopefully there is a resolutin to this and the people invested come out with some lolly :) The tweet didn`t seem to say that much, but what do I know!
Lamtree, you’ve not answered my question. Have you got links to interviews conducted with other miners ‘on the same stand’ ?
LSE didnt suspend the shares. The company asked the shares to be suspended and its up to the company when they return.
lamtree: No I havn't.
Then why use this as a point to criticise EUA? If they all did interviews and EUA didn’t you’d have a small point. All you’ve done is made a pointless point.
You know this how? All Iv`e been able to glean from RNSs is this...
"Trading on AIM for the under-mentioned securities has been temporarily suspended from 11/02/2020 7:45am pending an announcement." RNS 6050C issued by LSE.
Then:
"The Company confirms that, following social media speculation, trading in its ordinary shares has been suspended (at 7.45am today) pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC.
The Company's AIM securities remain suspended. Further updates will be made shortly." RNS6696C
Nowhere do I see that the company asked for the suspension and granted I don`t see the opposite, either way the company didn`t suspend the shares the LSE did [that is where the`re listed] maybe with guidance from the nomad or company!
Afternoon Mr Ed, may I ask why you think that the LSE suspended this stock?
genuine question, where are you obtaining this information from, is it from the 1st RNS which was subsequently amended by the totally new replacement 2nd RNS 25 minutes later.. which states it was the NOMAD... as I say a genuine question?
Thanks
The LSE must have suspended the stock, otherwise it wouldn`t be suspended, surely! The first RNS [6050C] was a notification from the LSE that the share had been suspended this was subsequently amended by RNS 6053C which adds "the company nominated advisor" then states the full amended text is below, but that text is axactly the same as 6050C, the second [6696c] was a statement explaining why from the company.
I find this quite interesting at the bottom of 6696C
"The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014"
So from that text we can ascertain that the company asked the LSE to suspend its shares because of the tweet. The LSE agreed and suspended the shares...what happens now is anyones guess!
"The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014"
I'm pretty sure that text is on every RNS.
It does seem to be on quite a few but not all...my bad, the whole episode is confusing [but intriguing] for someone trying to learn!
Lockdown sickness, go walk the block get some air away from 4 walls
Hi again MrEd, sorry for the delay in responding, the point I'm trying to make is this -
The first RNS states contact the LSE for further information ..... ( all RNS will have LSE info on the bottom as they run the RNS system ) and should have "The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 "
The second and replacement RNS states contact the NOMAD (as the first RNS was issued incorrectly and attributed to the wrong issuer ) and again ( all RNS will have LSE info on the bottom as they run the RNS system ) and should have "The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 "
The point is, the second and correct RNS is simply stating that due to a technicality the NOMAD has deemed it prudent to suspend trading in this stock, presumably to protect YOU the investor from the leaked insider information during this time of company sale discussions, this is in my view a very minor suspension reason performed by the NOMAD.
If we take your view that the company was suspended by the LSE, that would imply a much grater misdemeanor had been carried out by the company and would carry a greater penalty, can you see the point I trying to make, yes we are suspended on both counts but one is more severe than the other, and that is my point, not trying to be argumentative on this, just trying to be clear on a point which although may be seen as trivial puts a whole different light on the situation.
All the best and stay safe.
Ian
is there anything you don't know.
Evening DWF, I do not disagree, but people will find comfort if they know that the suspension is due to a minor rather than a major issue and that is the only point I'm trying to make.
Have a good evening.
Prior to the virus 99%.... since the virus 77% ..we could start a new game .... :-)
Hi again DWF, and that is my point, there is no ambiguity in my mind if you actually read and digest what has been written, the only point is that it does not state the actual specific point but uses an umbrella excuse as it were, it is not specific, but it does not need to be as a valid point has been used in the wording and that is sufficient for the time being... the news will come soon do not fear..
Ian_ 19:51: “The point is, the second and correct RNS is simply stating that due to a technicality the Nomad has deemed it prudent to suspend trading in this stock ...”
ian, the second RNS does *not* say that it was the
nomad who asked for trading to be suspended.
(it does direct queries about the situation to
the nomad, but that is not the same thing.)
The replacement just changes London Stock Exchange to company`s Nominated advisor but still gives the same phone number!
Anyway it would seem it was the company that asked for the share to be suspended and the LSE agreed on the "protection of investors" rule, although we`ll probably never know.
I haven`t got a clue who the guy who tweeted the "issue" is, has he any connection to the company, the tweet sounds like good news to me.
p.s. Thx for the response and your point of view...stay safe and take care.
Spikey, in my view it does, as why would they direct all queries about the situation back to the NOMAD if that was not the case... that is exactly my point. if we were suspended by LSE then all queries would be directed back to them...
I feel you may be trying to be nitpicking and so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Good evening to you.
Hi Mr Ed, I totally agree with the point in your post that the tweet by Hammond (I think that was his name) would have done the company NO harm at all and investors on hearing the good news may have invested on that good news and that would have initiated the NOMAD to act due to as you say the "protection of investors" rule, which is as the RNS states the cause of the suspension...
The Company confirms that, following social media speculation, trading in its ordinary shares has been suspended (at 7.45am today) pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC.
The point again, The company never asked to be suspended, the NOMAD had to act and the NOMAD suspended trading due to the protection of investors' rule.
You take care and stay safe
All the best to you