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.
So Farallon went through the 17.99% notified today, but that is history. What or who has driven todays rise????
With a little luck that is now the lot sold. The last non voting shares 33,890,478 converted on 29th July have now been sold. The 17.99% level is roughly where they were just before the last conversion.
Most of todays rise is probably because the market recognises this milestone. IMO
GS
........but the RNS was timed at 5.23pm BST
The news was therefore not known until after the market closed.
The 17.99% remaining are voting shares.
18:31
GS - I roundly disagree with your explanation for today's rise. I offer as an alternative explanation a) the publication of Conor Maguire's excellent article published on substack yesterday and b) Jay's interview by Proactive Investors published today on YouTube, minutes after which the stock moved up smartly from 66p. I may have been at least partly responsible for the buying in the minutes after the interview was published......because I noted I was only the 7th or 8th person to start watching it!
The TR-1 was received after the market shut this afternoon. In addition there is absolutely no consensus across any of the shareholder forums about Farallon having a set percentage at which all selling activity automatically stops. Mathematically I have not yet seen sufficient proof for this contention and I note many posters have pointed out these supposed percentage thresholds v's absolute number of ordinary voting shares in issue v's the intra-party debt are still far too opaque to make an accurate prediction with any confidence.
For any newcomers, I'll repost the substack article and will provide a link to the CEO's interview of today.
I do know that the RNS was after the market closed today. However the transaction was last week, plenty of time for market makers to cotton onto what took place. I don't believe they are bound to wait for RNSs to capitalise on what they know. Common practice as far as I can see.
Yes, the interview and report out today helped the SP hike no doubt, but there was little new information in them, albeit well presented, and the comment about another listing in US was hardly a promise, was it?
As I've said its just my opinion. Thats what these boards are for.
I also know that the 17.99% share holding left in CHONS are voting shares. I simply said that all the non voting shares have now been converted and sold. Its is these shares that were the main part of the GB debt. If Im wrong on this point please let me know.
GS
19.56
The 17.99% represents all shares held and which comprise voting shares only, including those which were recently converted from non-voting shares.
Your argument appears to sway with the flow when the detail is queried. Why are you being so contrarian on such detail?Anyone holding a slightly contrarian view in the other place is roundly rebuked. Are you a holder? Are you a deramper? What are you doing here if you are a non-conformist?
Get my drift?
All views welcome.
PS. The shares converted from non-voting status (circa 34m) were only circa 5% of the total number of shares currently in issue (circa 693m). (RNS dated 29 July 2021).
Thanks cbaron. Yes, honestly I am invested.
To be honest again, I've been pulled up time and time again by others on what, to me, seem minor details. I am simply trying to follow LSE rules on what can be posted. Ie mainly facts, useful info with a few opinions. But I sense ulterior motives by others and that troubles me, especially if they are protecting activities that could be construed as, well, a bit bent. Perhaps it's my training that makes me a bit of an over enthusiastic detail cop.
I'm sure we can all work together if certain posters stop their constant contradictions of others posts. I post only what I see as the truth. Sorry if you want me ramp just because I hold shares but I hold shares because I expect them to go up regardless of these boards. Otherwise, why would I be here reading this stuff.
If you want me to go back to 88e and leave you alone I could do that, but then all the readers on here would not get the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You get my drift?
GS
GS,
It always useful to have facts, not information or opinions that have somehow been tainted or manipulated. On that I think we agree.
I wouldn't want anyone to go anywhere, simply because it didn't fit with my opinion or or contradicted it. As you know, in the other place you mentioned, to refer to PANR is a treasonable offence. I quite like to do that because it is relevant to them in the case of the linkages with Talitha. They don't like to admit this linkage; IMHO it is probably their best chance of success and in a very sustainable location. The link is even referenced by their own board of Directors in its corporate communiques and presentations. Ah well.
Good luck.
07.52 I agree with you entirely on your post.
Have a great day.
GS
GS, I am sorry but what can be construed as ‘a bit bent’?
13.52 Hi Rabito.
I think if you read some of my past posts, maybe it will be obvious what I am alluding to. Right now I will refrain from restating as I will be accused of all kinds of stuff and my post removed. As per last week. I have no wish to perpetuate the discussion.
Hope you appreciate the reason.
Take care. And I promise I am still invested despite my concerns.
GS
GS,
I respect your views, but having looked back again at the structure of the deal and the arrangements for repaying of debt by sale of shares, cannot see any ghosts. I simply see it as the ability for a lender to sell down collateral against a loan in the event of default on the part of the borrower to service that loan.
Moving on, the good thing, for GB is that as the share price improves, there will be fewer shares which need to be sold per $ of debt and so the negative impact on the SP by a reduction in the rate of sale ought to be beneficial to us all. We remain with a single shareholder with a holding in the upper teens %, but then that happens widely. At that level the single shareholder cannot trigger any actions which might be negative, as far as I'm aware.
Best wishes.
cb
PS The SP appears to have held up well yesterday given that there is often a retrace following a single day rise of the order we saw on Tuesday.
08.23 cbaron. Thanks for your further comment. I respect your views also.
Regarding the debate about the GB debt now being paid in full. Do you have any comment on that? I think the debt is now paid in full, but my opinion is derived from the fact that all non voting shares have now been converted (and sold, tbc?). Is that your understanding too? I am hoping, and it's the main reason I've kept my shares, that we will not see any more 'concert party' TR1s.
Following on from this, I also assume that if Farallon (CHONS) sell any more shares they are doing so not to pay debt but because either
a) they have made enough money and want to derisk further
b) they want the money for investments in other projects.
c) ESG policies make them a forced seller. Maybe?
d) Other reasons which could include they have lost confidence in the story.
Whatever Farallon do next, the market will be watching. After all, their founder did run for POTUS not long back. They are quite an influential player. And 18% is in my view quite sizeable stake.
GS
GS,
I'm not sure that we'll ever know the status of the current debt relationship as between CHONS/Farallon and GB until all of the shares have been sold or an RNS is published which may confirm that all debts have been paid. Once all shares have been sold then Farallon, it would appear, have no other collateral, at least not any which involves or impacts PANR. In the original RNS announcing the deal fund raising and shareholdings dated 21 December 2018, it was stated that on completion it was anticipated that the 'concert' would own 39% of PANR in a combination of voting and non-voting shares. We know from the RNS dated 29 July that the remaining non-voting shares had been converted to voting shares. We also know from the RNS dated 28 September that the total number of voting shares held was 125,079,113, equivalent to 17.99% of the total share capital of the company - so that's all that the concert have left, from a starting point of 39%.
In the absence of any ability on the part of GB to raise money elsewhere to pay off its debt to CHONS/Farallon, I suspect that the sell-off will continue. You must note however that CHONS/Farallon are only able to sell shares to pay off debts due to them through the servicing of the finance arrangements with GB, not for any other reason.
Happy to be corrected if I've misinterpreted the agreement.
18% is a sizeable stake but it is very far from one which gives the ability to exert control.
Farallon will do what Farallon will do, we are up 150% since some of their earlier sells.
In my opinion a lot of the recent buying is US but seems a different crowd from those behind 88e’s rise earlier this year. Mot much uptake on Reddit or Stocktwits but certainly more commentary from more sensible US players (contrarian8888/ seekingalpha etc). If the OTC crowd really catch on it could move much faster.
Just looking at the 14th Jan 2019 RNS, regarding the result of AGM and GM.
"In addition, as previously disclosed, 102,471,055 Non-Voting Convertible Shares and 9,607,843 Consideration Warrants will be issued to the Great Bear Vendors."
I have assumed all along that the non-voting shares given to GBPO as part of the $49m price tag when we bought them, which were then packaged into CHONS, were the security for Farallon to get their loan back. If I'm wrong I am wrong I hold my hands up. But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way.
Farallon must be laughing because the shares were issued when price was around the 15.25p to 17p range.
No need for any more discussion as, like you say, we will never know, except for further RNSs.
GS
Thu 16:27 (part 1)
GS - "But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way." Goldstinger, please do me the honour of opening your mind to the following answer. Kindly imagine the answer I'm about to give is written by "niceguy101" or some such username.
niceguy101: "Hi Goldstinger. I understand the reason for the somewhat unusual structure of PANR voting/non-voting classes of shares came about in order to provide a legitimate workaround of the RTO rules. Hope that helps?"
OK, GS, now please ask yourself the following? Did you have to look up what the acronym 'RTO' means within the context of corporate finance? Based on your posting history my assessment is that you did indeed have to do so, correct? It is for this reason that whilst I recognise your investment dollars or pounds are as green as everyone else's (including mine), I reject utterly the contention that everyone's opinion is equal.
I have no idea what your profession was, GS, but let's just say for the purposes of this exchange that you were a dentist. I am not a dentist, in fact I never have been a dentist! Let's say we are both sitting at a table in a pub and are joined by a third person. This third person is clearly in a great deal of pain, clutching their jaw in their hands, tears forming in their eyes as they explain the source of the pain and answer some of your (qualified dentist, remember?) questions. Being a dentist, you caveat your words but still convey your diagnosis and even have a brief stab at describing the likely prognosis, "all subject to you examining the third person's mouth back in your surgery, etc, etc". I'm sitting at the table and feel a bit left out when the other two are discussing the dental pain of the third person. Instead of recognising the formal training of the dentist and his >25 year career, I tell myself “I'm a clever guy, reasonably well-educated, I've got something constructive to add to the conversation too”. I then interject and proceed to inform the third person of my opinion based solely on my own personal history of dental treatment.
In the (intentionally patronising) parable above, the dentist isn't *guaranteed* to have assessed correctly the diagnosis, but he's *far more likely* to have made an accurate and informed diagnosis of the problem than I have. Equally, the venue was a table at a pub so I was as entitled to speak out loud as any other person present in the pub at that time. Just have a think about your recent conduct on here, GS. No need to reply, just think on it for a moment.
(cont'd above)
(cont'd from below) (part 2)
Now then, GS, you "assumed all along that the non-voting shares given to GBPO as part of the $49m price tag when we bought them, which were then packaged into CHONS, were the security for Farallon to get their loan back. If I'm wrong I am wrong I hold my hands up. But I can't see why the split of voting /non voting would have been done any other way."
Firstly, I contend that you have not assumed this “all along” because, having re-read your posts on the subject, it is abundantly clear you had *no historical knowledge* of the merger agreement of January ’19. However, I acknowledge you have subsequently done a fair amount of background reading. Good stuff. For example, it has taken you weeks to even entertain the notion that Farallon has a charge (or security) over the shares attributed to Great Bear as a result of the merger with PANR. Then there was the kerfuffle about “hedging” and accusations of unethical or even illegal behaviour on the part of Farallon, Great Bear (and I even got a mention at that point too, lol!).
As it turns out, you may actually have *guessed* the attribution of equity to Farallon/GB founders/GB funders correctly. However, that would just be a *guess*. None of us non-parties to the arrangement have uncovered the legal contract binding the various GB parties to the repayment of the debt to Farallon; uncovered the interest rate Farallon charged on the debt; uncovered the timing of the repayments schedule; or uncovered the penalties or conduct permitted if the non-Farallon parties don’t/didn’t meet that repayment schedule, etc, etc. To be clear, the parties within CHONS have no obligation to share the terms of their intra-party contract so please don’t go down another one of your conspiracy theory rabbit holes seeking an explanation, ok?
(cont'd above)
(cont'd from below) (part 3)
“Farallon must be laughing because the shares were issued when price was around the 15.25p to 17p range.” The personnel who manage the PANR holding may very well be laughing but the price at which the shares were allotted was ***solely*** a function of the mkt cap (and thus SP) of PANR at the time of the merger. I refer you back to my answer about RTO rules which was the guiding star around which the merger was shaped. You’re correct to observe the Farallon holding has likely led to a position whereby they’re sitting on a net paper profit of circa $100m at time of writing. But please remember, this would *not* be the case if the flow test at Alkaid had been unsuccessful; or if the data retrieved from Talitha-A (specifically the VAS data from Baker Hughes); or if PANR hadn’t bought out Otto Energy’s 10.8% of Talitha; or if PANR hadn’t secured an additional 80k acres during the January state leases auction. It is the quality of the asset which underpins the increase in SP from 15.25p at the time of the merger to its current level around 70p. And to repeat for the record, had it not been for CHONS’ selling throughout 2021, the PANR SP would, IMO, be a great deal higher than 70p (all else being equal).
GS – you’re welcome to accept or discard the content above as you see fit. It is a shame I feel I have no choice but to dismantle some of factually incorrect statements you make in your various posts. I take no delight in doing so because I truly do have better things to do with my life. My primary motivation is not to make you feel embarrassed, rather it’s to a) ensure your misinformation does not become part of the consensus understanding of the PANR investment case and b) hopefully, one day it will click and rather than making all these damaging posts due to your lack of knowledge/understanding, you will instead pose ***questions*** to those who have already asked those exact same questions months/years earlier or who have a background in small cap, UK, E&P equity analysis and investing. /end
From Farallon web site
We pursue multiple investment strategies on an opportunistic basis
OUR APPROACH
Farallon seeks investments across asset classes and around the world through a process of bottom-up fundamental research and analysis emphasizing capital preservation. Our investment strategies include Credit Investments, Long/Short Equity, Merger Arbitrage, Risk Arbitrage, Real Estate Investments and Direct Investments. Investment ideas compete for capital based on in-depth, critical assessment of specific risks and rewards. Risk is monitored and managed through rigorous and thorough analysis of each investment and, at the portfolio level, through risk management analytics and overlay and tail-risk hedging.
It’s what Farallon do to make money.
I sincerely hope they have no made enough and have had debts paid. I do hope they now observe their own green objectives and exit stage left taking Certain posters with them…
GS
Correction - ‘hope they have now made enough’
Glad you can see my point of view at last Scot.
Ps - I hate dentists. Wouldn’t trust them. Wolves in charge of sheep.
Take it easy.
GS
22:20
GS,
Your continued naivety is child-like.
Your belligerent self-confidence is both awe-inspiring and frightening. You really would back yourself to undertake your own root canal treatment, wouldn't you?
Your failure to recognise someone has gone out of their way to point you in the right direction to enable you to source the FACTS of the investment case is pathetic and wilfully ignorant.
Here's another fact for you, GS. The Farallon fund which purchased the GB debt from BofAM at 96c in the dollar (so a quasi-sovereign rating, with the SoA's exploration rebate repayments supporting the debt) was a credit fund and had *no intention whatsoever* to invest in an AIM-listed UK small cap. They can do whatever they wish with their shares, just as you or I are free to sell them whenever we wish.
You admitted on this thread you didn't understand what financial hedging is. I believed you. Go on then, did you know what an RTO was? Hint - no chance.
Me exiting stage left? Not when folk like you insist they're Gordon Gecko and, whether with nefarious intent or not, opt to post damaging, fact-less nonsense on public forums, thus endangering the consensus understanding of the facts of the PANR investment case => thus damaging my investments.
It's really quite simple. If you, GS, and folk like you didn't give in to the urge to post drivel on a public investment forum, I wouldn't need to be here correcting your nonsense.
Aw diddums
Who is laughing now, sure ain't you.