Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. 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.
If Castro and Horizon are still there with their combined 5%, I am sure we can find another 5% who won't sell for 5 or 6p.
pretty sure they'd get to 90% udner 6p if the SP rises quick. Many might bail for a 50% in a week or so.
sounds plausable. And, having loaded at 3pm, quite frankly, I would be pleased for 5-6p in a few months.
@AA2020 - is 90% the minimum requirement for squeezeout?
As of now, SF&CO + placement institutional investors = 74% of the company. Hence non-SF ownership is AT BEST 26% or 270m shares.
However, 9 June to 25 June traded 250m shares, which is 70% of the tradeable shares during that period (about 350m) and 25% of current outstanding. I would think whoever bought during those period already owns a large part of the non-SF shares – but not sure if the 90% is already achieved. Because….
74m shares were taken by existing non-SF shareholders – so that is 7% of the current outstanding. Assuming they sold their existing shares, I think we can reasonably say that there are still 3% holders who are non-SF.
Also, Castro was one of the biggest holders – if they haven’t already sold out, they would be diluted to about 3.4%. Another investor is Horizon, who voted with SF to kick out the last board – they owned 6% pre capital raising, and will own 2% post the raise. So those two are combined 5%. Horizon’s intentions were not clear – they were aligned with SF, but they haven’t participated in the capital raise, and I am not sure why they would vote with SF to accept a lowball bid. My view is that a bid is unlikely, unless they already have a grip on over 90% of the shares, which seems unlikely at the moment.
Happy with the volumes these days though - they are sizeable
I also think that will probably be what happens - but would it be enough to get to the 90% level to force a squeeze out ? That I’m more sceptical of.
What I think will happen in the not too distant future is that SF will make a bid for all of the outstanding shares. They are now past the point where they were required to pay 22p or 11p in the new post shafting world, so they can and almost certainly will bid a much lower price. All those institutional investors who got in at 3p would probably be happy with a quick 100% profit and sell at 6p. My guess is that we will see an offer price between 5p and 6p and that the BoD will rubber stamp it and SF get all of the goodies for very little - in the olden days this was called piracy.
Is there a time frame? Many have been waiting for the special thing since a year atleast
I was watching for the past 3 years and have bought occassionally and then after the debt agreement as i could see trading improving. I applied for max over allotment.
My understanding of the issues to watch as far as I am aware are that we need to be well clear of the 10% which would allow a forceout in a bid situation. The more pertinent issue is the level of seafox friends who would not be not deemed connected parties, as they will be able to bugger things up for us if they use a scheme of arrangement.
Any corrections/additions to this view are welcome.
Any other
The total take up from existing shareholders was 74m shares (out of total possible of 371m shares)
i am the only one that took up my portion and subscribed for more and bought more at 2.95.
GLA.
This is the calculation I have on the current shareholder:
SF + friends - 44.3%
Existing shareholders - 26.4% (well, most of them sold out last 2 weeks, so these are also new shareholders/SF affiliates)
Institutional placing - 29.2% (definitely new funds, or are they SF affiliates?)
SF probably has power to influence 75% votes now, which is scary if they want to shaft minority
Indeed 4C - a big change in the non SF shareholding structure it seems. Hence I'm very keen to see who these new shareholders are.
@AA - given the large volumes in the previous weeks (150m shares?) and 22m today, that is about 80pct of non SF shares traded. And since not many non SF participants in the offer, seems like a massive change in holding structure
Also seems like no one bothered to vote either, knowing fully well there is no point. Fingers crossed on how SF will behave going forward with minority shareholders
Looks like not many shareholders took up the open offer - quite a big chunk now going to go with the conditional placees. Am very keen to see who these other institutions are.....
@4C - no, there was no investor call with the presentation
So who decided to sell today? We have some funny investors for sure....Good volumes though
@AA - was there an investor call with the presentation?
@candlestick - the fund raise is out there only since two weeks. They published their earnings prior to this, without a presentation or call for investors or guidance other than their utilization rate which is not of much use for the average investor. And they come out and raise equity at steep discount (3p) to what was already discounted price (6 or 7p). The communication from the board/management at this company has been a failure, especially considering that the vice chairman is a cofounder of an investment bank. The discount to what is considered a fair value will not happen till they communicate properly
Bought my initial punt here last week and added second tranche today.....not expecting quick fix here, it's all about at least a year from now and hopefully the company will use the placing funds wisely to sort out theirs balance sheet and to resume growth.
GLA
This is unfortunately misguided.
Competent investors ask for and generally get the most up to date figures in order to make a decision.
[See other fundraisings]
When stand up companies raise capital, they provide true and fair views. ie up to date figures.
GMS have the Q1 figures to end March and could have used them. Unaudited, true but so where the final results.
It is the decision not to include the Q1 figures in the fundraising docs that is one of the more obvious problems.
The management's intentions and the lack of independent directors allows this.
Not sure why this a failing.
Makes sense to include only end of year numbers as they’re in the public domain. Are there more recent numbers already RNSd that they’ve ignored?
Similarly, the fund raise is out there. That’s why it can be referred to.
Interesting now
But they have used the calender end 2020 figures, not the current figures and added the fund raise details.
E class vessels were going for 9% more this year than last year and nearly all of that increased revenue drops to the bottom line.
This is a serious failure of governance, not to present up to date figures, especially when there has been such a significant turn around in the business.
Thanks, well spotted.