Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Pwh31 " when the BoD have been clear in legal takeover docs that there is none ?"
Just because there is not another offer on the table, it does not mean there is no other choice.
They have cash to at least the end of March and they could seek a loan
They could place $600m of bonds/offer to the markets in that time.
They previously repaid $400m of bonds in September and said they could have placed $500m if they had warrants attached - so VERY CLEARLY there is appetite for $600m of bonds - WHY DID THEY/ARE THEY NOT TRYING TO RAISE IT - they could have tried in parallel to pursuing the AA offer reality is they want the AA deal no matter what is on offer imo
Pwh31..people are struggling to believe what fraser says.last 10 months very questionable.
You cannot emphasise it’s certainty and then add ‘in my opinion’.
Nothing is certain.
I would expect administrators to manage the disposal of SM in a more impartial manner than our BoD.
My view is that if you were to vote ‘yes’, you should have sold up when the sp was 5.5p. That would have provided some certainty for you rather risking a ‘No’ vote.
The only reason to hold must have been to vote ‘No’.
OR
Let me first say that I have voted NO and I have done so for the reasons we both believe (fundamentals) Qatar ,polygon, fundsirius etc etc
But LTV they are right to point out the facts !!!
Whilst I we both believe the bod are over egging administration ? there is a real chance that if no wins we could all lose what we have left
Regards
ffc
seems to be big irony. share soc a wolf in sheeps clothing ?
from someone who has posted 10 time s a day for last 30 days trying to persuade people to vote no for another alternative , when the BoD have been clear in legal takeover docs that there is none ?
Agreed MaxDoom.
Truly inept , shocking, naïve behaviour from the Board. And JPM affiliates are still continuing to buy and sell and short shares. truly despicable.
IMO:
The board did nothing to try and raise the $600m from the markets/investors
Why did they not simply place $600m of bonds back in September? Is it because those great advisors JPMorgan told them not to bother, after all they were shorting SM heavily at the time why mess up a good thing.
All they appear to have done is pursue this AA offer with a tenacity that is quite shocking given that they could of raised the $600m in parallel to finding a strategic partner. They did not need to be in one package.... www.fundsirius.com
I don't have a problem with Sharesoc quoting Fraser who suggests that it is likely a no vote will result in administration, but when they give that opinion themselves, quoted in the Times suggesting that a no vote will "very likely result in administration", I have a problem with that. They have no way of knowing that. They are not qualified to make that scaremongering statement.
Fraser is conflicted and, IMO, will do anything at this point to save his 7 million payout and new job with AAL. He does not have shareholders best interests as his priority. Anything he says, given his track record of broken promises and mis-statements over the past several month should be taken with a pinch of salt. For Sharesoc to regurgitate this and pass it off as their own opinion is not helpful for shareholders, particularly those still trying tp find a plan B.
Why haven't sharesoc been more actively promoting and supporting www.fundsirius.com ?
whoops. administration IS a certainty if this deal fails, in my opinion. anyone who cant see that reality doesnt understand what theyre doing. sure there are lots here pretending they don’t believe it through denial or greed because they are still shorting
The advice in your post yesterday covering quotes from Sharesoc in the Times, coupled with the fact that I don't see much effort on the part of Sharesoc to promote the www.fundsirius.com campaign.
I think people that forked over 45 quid expected more assistance and support. Just my opinion.
LTV
what advice is that ?
If you are talking about the bits that have been cherry picked by the press then you have to wonder what agenda they are on because I feel sharesoc have only pointed out some thruths and possibilities ???
The Sh@te is about to hit the fan!!!
Is Sharesoc licensed the give investment advice? Should they not be remaining neutral on the vote and simply giving out information, rather than opinions? Should they not be more concerned with representing shareholders rights, particularly the right to vote, but leaving the voting preference up to the individual?
There seems to be a lot wrong with the voting system and one shareholder one vote is significantly compromised by the one nominee account one vote reality.
I'm sure many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of shareholders that forked over 45 quid to sharesoc feel a bit let down by the representation they're providing to shareholders.
Is sharesoc a wolf in sheeps clothing?
pwh - I quote - "administration isn’t a certainty if this deal fails."
only bit of your post worth reading and that makes sense
Fair enough.
Cheers
Miraclesdohappen what a silly post, I expect you believe in fairy tales, take your 5.5p and invest in AA.
miracle. stupidest post ive ever seen !!
ive watched this board for years and valued many contributors. am amazed at so many people in denial and so many sharks feeding off it who will still be shorting to make even more money in SHs misery. on your points ;
1- read the BoD recommendation - administration isn’t a certainty if this deal fails. (not medium to low like you say). fraser and BoD is out of options quite clearly. government has NEVER offered to help and never will. they don’t give a shot about PIs and anglo turning up makes them believe they never have to because someone will build it. they get jobs and PIs get nothing. the millions that a few chancer instos lose is nothing in their portfolios. most of time its money from our pension funds anyway but they still get paid !
2- any rescue package as you say will NOT be for SHs it will be someone picking it up from admin and PIs get nothing. cant see the BoD pulling a rabbit out of hat in two weeks or less at this stage. AA's offer may be opportunistic but sirius is out of money in one month ! and so far , no one else wants it. be clear mr miracle that you and me now have basically no chance of being part of this project anymore. its just what we do or do not get in the next few weeks .
3- true voting Yes does mean ( as you say ) that you have accepted and surrendered huge losses. but you made a mistake with this investment like we all did ! but voting no does the same but for some reason is you volunteering more to lose !! mustn’t matter to you
explain to me the FAT bonuses you see BoD getting ? the documents to my reading say all BoDs resign immediately. its only staley amd fraser that anglo want to stay. can you see anglo actually wanting them beyond a year , if that ? I cant.
on asking us PIs its all rubbish. me and mates invested in the area haven’t got the brass to put in more. fund sirius can’t even get 10% of what’s needed and no insto is going to take it seriously.
all sense gone here. people either in denial or pretending like they losing even more money. very strange.
This a harsh set up for al involved, im not now in truth but did hope to work on project as spark, wud of been a pleasure.. Such a shame the goverment have such a small mind.. its a perfect project and investment for. This country to make some nice money and create plenty of jobs and self wealth among us snd community s
I've had the same issue with Barclays and I do have it in writing so here it is:
"I am emailing you regarding your recent complaint, in which you advised us that you were hoping to lodge in one paper certificate of Sirius Minerals and that you were also unhappy that you had not received any notification or information regarding the Sirius Minerals AGM/EGM.
As mentioned to you over the phone by myself and my colleague, we would be unable to complete the lodgement of your certificate within the timescale that you have requested. A standard lodgement can take up to ten working days, therefore we would not be able to complete this request for you to meet your needs.
In respect to not receiving any notification regarding the AGM/EGM, this is not information that we notify our clients of. Our process is such that if there is a corporate action such as a voluntary event (i.e. tender offer, scheme of arrangement, etc.) we will contact our clients so that they can then act upon this accordingly. An AGM/EGM is information that is publicly available via the respective company’s website and as an execution only broker, we have no specific obligation to notify our clients of these events.
I appreciate that for you this has been a source of frustration but this is well within our process, so we have made no error. I would certainly be happy to take your feedback on board, however, and discuss with our business leaders whether or not we would consider notifying clients of these events in the future."
To be fair they have offered me a few bottles of wine so at £20,000 a bottle I hope I enjoy it.
FFC I would consider making a subject access request and give ShareSoc the recording.
It will be interesting to see how they word the letter .
OK I think I'll see if anything is posted about this in the morning and will try to follow it up
ffc - I think it’s Cliff ...
Barclays seemed very matter of fact and unbothered when I asked why they had made no attempt to seek the opinion of shareholders on their Smart Investor platform, I asked if I would get any confirmation of my No vote and their response was that all calls are recorded. They have certainly done nothing to facilitate shareholders having their view.
Taste- People arnt complaining simply because they have lost large amounts of money, that happens on the stock market so no complaints from that point of view, the reason why people are angry and frustrated is the way the project was managed and their suspicions of what went on behind the scenes!
Jumbo were you told that? or do you have that in writing ? $200 that's outrageous