REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses 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.
Great to hear MS... Good luck..
Fantasy, your part post:
" if I don’t trust the “management team”, doesn’t matter how good the remaining parameters are “I won’t be buying that share”.
================
This is exactly what I have learned and I rigorously adhere to it now.
Guess where I had the pleasure of learning that...
Indeed, here, with Vast and it's BoD.
MS
QED - your detailed posts had been spot on...
When we research companies - we look at management team, financials, underlying fundamentals that makes the financials, assets, location, risks/reward etc.. for me one big learning is that if I don’t trust the “management team”, doesn’t matter how good the remaining parameters are “I won’t be buying that share”.
Leadership is key to success...
GL
V111JAS - I hold less than 5% of my initial holdings... IMO it’s insignificant and have written it off... I have lost money in vast - we win some and lose some... I accept that. What I don’t accept is “misleading” from vast BoD. I have recovered most of my losses elsewhere.
Got to bring BoD accountable for their actions..
reasonable to assume I am unlikely to make money in vast... hope this helps.. GL
gkb47 , Fantasy and some others :
I am a little surprised to see that you have retained a material interest here .
I know that over the years you have consistently questioned the integrity of this business and its officers through balanced , well considered and detailed research information .
I hope that you can find an acceptable and satisfactory conclusion to this appalling situation .
Regards V111JAS
I just dropped in for old lang syne and the fact that for some obscure reason I still have about 100k shares here. That's about 10p worth.
Which I am about to donate to whatever charity it is that ii supports with zero value shares.
Just look at the share chart and compare it with the RNS over the last few years and you will see them for the "terminological inexactitudes" they are.
I saw Prelea in action a very long time ago at a presentation in London in the days of the two Roys (Pitchford and Tucker). The unconsolidated sp was about 1.3-1.5p, I had bagged and was expecting to make a lot more. Prelea made such an impression that I sold the next day.
What has happened over the intervening years has been the legalised criminal annihilation of shareholder value. There may or may not be anything in that thar mine, but if there is I am confident I know whose pocket it will end up in. And that is not anyone's on this BB.
Good luck all - you need a miracle.
GS
Hi Pecten11
Thanks. Im really not sure? I can imagine the answer is in plain sight, only I cant see it. It was just a curiosity I had.
I do have this horrible feeling however, that we may all discover that Baita Plai isn't all that it has been made out to be.
The company announcements have become incresingly vague and secretive, that when I think about it, I don't really know what it is we actually have at Baita Plai.
Given that, It worries me that Andrew Prelea may/could have just potentially dumped a poor asset onto Vast Shareholders.
Using my example from earlier, if the 'Tribe' can dump a poor asset onto Vast Shareholders for an over inflated return of £1.4M, and that return is far higher than its worth, or could be gotten elsewhere, then surely it must be worth the tribe dumping the asset.
If the Tribe already know that the asset they've dumped isnt that good, then the Tribe would also know not to expect a return from the locked-in 60.52% and can therefore effectively discard it. At that point the tribe no longer have the drive, or the incentive they previously had (pre-acquisition) to actually steer the company.
Providing the tribe can maintain their secretive stance, and limit the information being released, shareholders can be dragged about paying salaries for what could later turn out to be a poor asset.
This is obviously all just a 'worst case' theory, but given what shareholders have witnessed over the years, perhaps there maybe some potential.
I believe we are still waiting for confirmatory drill results to prove up historic drilling done at Baita Plai.......I guess that's when we will know if the asset was worth the Tribe dumping or not? Or they could, like zagra drill results, drag them out too.
I'm not sure what it is with this company, but it just seems that the more research you do, the less you know.
Anyways, thanks again.
If you want info on bad companies to invest in I am your man. My previous investments include :/
MYSQ
RRL
FRR
RMP
SOU
DDD
To name just a few
I sold GGP at 2p, EUA at 4p too
As you can see I know my stuff on how to invest in crap haha
gkb47 - glad you didn't know them... RRL = Range Resources Limited; check out Peter Landau (not 100% sure of the spelling).. GL
As I understand it, they have a lot of information and several larger shareholders backing the GM
They also have a lot of daming information, that the BOD would not want to be in the public domain
They also have very deep pockets to fight this, as well as bringing on a very high profile investagative journalist
Gkb47 - it is not impossible to prove.... Check out RRL's history and its CEO.. :) GL
I do wonder who took part in all the placings last year????? Vast has convinced them. They can't be all fooled into placings. Or perhaps those who took part in placings are extreme risk takers and sees a HUGE HUGE potential in Vast like 10x+ returns.
Honestly, doesn't make sense that through out last year there were many placings but then the 2nd last RNS says Vast has not produced as per the expectations (estimates done by Craig Harvey).
Whichever lens one looks at Vast they must come to the same conclusion that the CEO needs to go as he had 3+ years at helm and have driven the SP down year on year.
I can give you some info too if needed Rob, I was in Vast for years :/
I'll email you
QED message me at robertsaunders99 @ yahoo com
QED Message me on my email robertsaunders99**********
We are building a case against the Company and would welcome some more input
Haha, I did over do it a bit looking back but I was so convinced by AP's lies that I just ignored all the warning signs.
If you can trade Vast like I was and make money then do it but be very careful and dont do what I did and over invest then get left holding the baby. Its taught me not to be so foolish at the very least but has cost me tens of thousands. I am the only one who knows, I havent even told the family this :/. Perhaps this board is a way to be honest with myself and all of you and hope I can at least help others not do the same.
All I am saying is open your eyes, look back at all the promises and ask yourself, how many have actually happened.....
I agree with gkb47, handcuffs should be used here.
Great summing up of this shambles here.
Also VAST are now at 21 billion shares, good grief. Defo consolidation on the way IMO.
Such a shame as noted, I really believed in AP and this ****show, lost so much it hurts to rhink about it :/
QED - this doesn't directly answer your question - was the 20% given to APMG as an 'introducer's fee' as APMG was only incorporated on 16th Feb 2016 - after ACFR acquired Mineral Mining SA
'An Australian group, ElDore Mining Corporation Ltd (“ElDore”), in 2011 negotiated to purchase the mine for €15m which was later negotiated down to €5m. The group withdrew due to difficulties with a third-party vendor requesting non-refundable deposits, despite being positive on the potential of the mine. ElDore planned to invest $7m to double production to 200,000 tonnes per annum, improve loading, hoisting, ventilation, water pumps and upgrade the concentration (flotation) plant.
In 2011 a Chinese investor acquired Mineral Mining, the owners of the mine at that time. Mineral Mining operated the mine from early 2012 until March 2013, producing a single polymetallic concentrate containing copper, lead, zinc gold and silver with additional elements such as bismuth and molybdenum. The Chinese operators however departed in May 2013 leaving about €700,000 debt.
By 2015, the insolvent Mineral Mining S.A. had been successfully acquired by African Consolidated Resources S.R.L, a local Romanian subsidiary of Vast Resource PLC. During 2018, the association license was received and Vast Baita Plai S.A., formerly African Consolidated Resources S.R.L. "
I might add, that with a fresh, new, competent BoD this could be a success story. However, can't see the current shambolic BoD giving up their personal cash cow any time soon.
Would you?
If you can't see the red flags now, you never will. I've seen this type of AIM lifestyle company before with AAOG and it didn't end well.
Directors only interested in feathering their own beds. This is a bottomless moneypit.
PART 3 OF 3
Another thing I would also be interested to know is, how much Andrew Prelea, or APMG, actually spent acquiring, and (So say) modifying the Baita Plai Asset, before Vast purchased the entire share capital of APMG.
What if, for example, APMG had spent a total of say £500k on the Baita Plai asset, and then Vast was to then purchase APMG for a consideration of £4.845M, as was the case on 30th Nov 2020. Then regardless to the fact that Andrew Prelea and Roy Tucker were both forced to lock-in their 60.52% share of the transaction for 12 months, the remaining 39.48% owned by their sons and Kellow, could be dumped for £1,912,806 from day one, leaving the Prelea and Tucker tribe with a tidy £1.4M+ return.
At that point, it doesn't really matter what the shareprice is when the lock-in period for the other 60.52% ends, If the company does well........the tribe get a bonus. If the company folds in........the tribe made £1.4M profit. But regardless to which direction the company takes, the tribe will always take a salary.
The question is.........do the board even care which direction the company takes from here on?
Given the latest news, I would say that Andrew Prelea has decided to opt for the 'take a salary' route.
PART 2 OF 3
It wasn't long after that, that shareholders discovered that the Bank will no longer be financing the company, which I find totally unbelievable.
How could a Bank not have seen the issues with our corporate structure before, or even during the due diligence process? Why would the Bank after all that time, and at the last moment, then layout the pre-conditions of the finance deal, have Vast satisfy all those conditions (which all suit Andrew Prelea) to then discover an issue that was worth walking away for?
A Bank would have spotted the issues from day one, which is why Vast end up with lenders like atlas. This was never about finance, this was all about AP Options.
Now, looking back at Teacups questions, it is now clear to see that Andrew Prelea never did, at any point considered any other alternatives to AP Options.
Furthermore, in our Nov 6th RNS (letter to shareholders and Notice of General Meeting) our qualified??, Independent??, Non-related directors, somehow failed to include a lock-in period into the terms of the APMG transaction, effectively allowing Andrew Prelea, and Roy Tucker to dump their shares from day one. Not only did this contradict the simple, hands tied gesture given to Teacup as an answer to his/her question in the QandA, but also made it clear that Andrew Prelea and the gang, had the intention to avoid a lock-in period completely..............it's no wonder he smirked and said nothing.
Thankfully, a few users on the bulletin board flagged this exclusion of a lock-in period as soon as the announcement was made. Three days later, and probably much to Andrew Prelea and Roy Tucker's annoyance, another announcement was published, reluctantly agreeing to a 12 month lock-in period.
This was a clear demonstration of either lack of professionalism amongst the qualified, non-related parties, or quite simply that the Board of Directors interests are not aligned with the interest of the shareholders.
Quite honestly, I do not believe that this "International Bank" ever existed. I think it was just another fabrication of the Board in order to push through AP options by giving shareholders no other choice other than to accept and approve the transaction........can anybody tell me who this "International Bank" was?
This is the beauty of it. Nobody can.
PART 1 OF 3
Does anybody believe that this "international bank" ever existed?
When Andrew Prelea became CEO of Vast Resources in Jan 2018, the argument of 'AP Options' was a topic that was continuously bought up on the bulletin board, as a conflict of interest.
A poster named Teacup64 asked, in a recorded QandA, whether Andrew Prelea had considered any other alternatives to 'AP Options' given that the exercise of these options would massively dilute shareholders? to which Andrew Prelea simply replied "yes I have"...........no other alternatives were given though.
The next question that this Teacup64 asked was - are you planning on dumping your shares after the conversion of 'AP Options'? Andrew prelea (smirking) then raised his hands, putting his wrists together (with imaginary handcuffs) effectively suggesting that his hands would be tied.............no comment was made, as he moved on to the next question.
Since then however, sentiment amongst shareholders, especially in the last year and a half, has been on the floor. Back then, a year and a half ago, shareholders had not seen a single peice of progress from the company, only mass dilution, smoke and mirrors, and over inflated salaries, with a few lies sprinkled on the top.
I find it hard to imagine that Andrew Prelea himself, at that time, and given the damage he had done to the company, could even justify diluting shareholders further by exercising AP Options.
However, there was another way he could push his options through. He could force shareholders into the corner, and into submission, by introducing the idea of a brilliant new refinancing package for Baita Plai with a "Well known" "International Bank". An International Bank that would sweep all our problems away forever and ever.
At the time, this all sounded really good, up until the last minute when the company decided to announce that the 'International Bank' had pre-conditions, a £5M+ placing on Vast shareholders, and the need for Vast to acquire APMG.
I did find it strange when the company first announced the pre-conditions, it seemed as though the company was trying overly hard to highlight the fact that this type of pre-condition was a normal expectation........which I found a bit odd?
Regardless, Andrew Prelea now had shareholders in that corner, the only way we could get our refinance now, was by accepting the pre-conditions of the Bank. Most importantly, Andrew Prelea could now make it appear as though the exercise of "AP Options" was at the request of the "Bank", with the right to claim it had also been approved by shareholders.