Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. 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.
Spot on Jiving.
There are clearly many negatives about the Zanaga situation, most likely country related and/or related to Glencore's involvement.
Otherwise why would Simandou be going ahead at 2-3 times the capital cost and a lower quality resource?
If anyone objects to any of these negatives being posted on this board, then they are in cloud cuckoo land. Firstly nothing posted here will materially affect the long term share price. And secondly if there are indeed no negatives, why are we all still here waiting ... (im)patiently?
We all hope we are nearing the end, but personally I don't think that end will be a buyout. It will be a development of the mine - and then we will all eventually have a huge decision to make. Cash out early as the share prices rises - or hold on for several more years for even greater rewards when the mine is actually in production.
A hell of a decision for me at my age - but one I am looking forward to be faced with.
Hi all,
My overall approach to investment can be summarised in the following :
(1)The Tenth Man Rule - Principle Explained - Insight Before Action
insightbeforeaction.com/the-tenth-man-rule-principle-explained/
."The 10th Man discipline is one in which the group designates at least one individual to act as a loyal dissenter. “Loyal” because their ultimate goal is to make the best option for the company. And, as the dissenter, they not only have the right but also the obligation to disagree and “poke holes” in the group’s assumptions..."
(2) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1939/08/the-indispensable-opposition/653471/
.."“The opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any other sensible human being, always learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters. For his supporters will push him to disaster unless his opponents show him where the dangers are. So if he is wise he will often pray to be delivered from his friends, because they will ruin him. But, though it hurts, he ought also to pray never to be left without opponents; for they keep him on the path of reason and good sense.”
(3) If folk read something they don't like/welcome/agree with, they're welcome to refute (and we can have a civilized debate) or ignore...or put me on filter.
I myself generally don't put people on filter, because of (2) above, unless they're particularly vexatious.
(4) Re ZIOC specifically, the idea that anything said on a BB may influence the eventual outcome is , frankly, laughable. Some people - 'no names, no pack-drill' - are full of themselves.
We are an irrelevance...and have been for some time, as the absence of corporate 'smooching' shows. Short-term manipulation of the share price may be a factor for a company where takeout is linked - however remotely - to the prevailing share price (' the price offered for XYZ represents a ..%age premium to the prevailing/preceding /whatever share price'') but that isn't the case here. We're surely past the stage where 'pumping ' the share-price short-term to get a placing away might be a possibility. If anything, management is showing what can charitably be described as 'benign neglect'
(5) Over-arching : 'Life is too short to be small'.
There are probably others, but that's enough for now.
GLA and ATB
Gla.(Will be taking a brake from posting, until mood lightens up a little!).
Good luck with that.
Jiving, we are going round in circles. Ex lied simple as that, agenda driven. Anyone can post what they feel is relevant but lets keep to the facts!
I certainly will not be filtering anyone, this allows me to see what liars are posted.
S86,jiving,eddsy,M71,Nibj,ex,v10,ATG,99IC,SD67,bear, Always,Mer ,et all(sorry if I’ve forgotten your alias)
I enjoy all of your opinions on this board.
Please can we remain on neutral to good terms while we await our long deserved reward.
Gla.(Will be taking a brake from posting, until mood lightens up a little!).
Eddsy, I don't see the Shard issue as being significant for ZIOC. But a lot of the issues Extrader highlight are highly relevant to ZIOCs situation. For example, his postings on the big problems/issues the locals face on very very basic matters like electricity & water supply, as well as the rising criticism in the press are highly relevant. One of the biggest dangers facing ZIOC investors is instability returning to the Congo via the undermining or overthrowing of the Nguesso regime. The sooner we get a strategic investor on board, hopefully for a full buyout, the better - such a development incidentally would likely strengthen the hand of the Nguessosas it would be a major victory for the Denis's!
I don't do squirming as I have no cause to. As I mentioned to Marcus previously, its critically important for rational investors to be aware of the positive & negative aspects of a high risk/reward binary investment like Zanaga & is exactly what an investment forum should be all about. I will continue to highlight both the positive & negative issues affecting the company & support others doing likewise. Please note some 12 months ago when MM came under criticism on this board I repeatedly defended his right to post. Of course there are people who disagree with my perspective, the filtering process is easy to put into motion on LSE & recommended for those wishing to avoid a particular poster.
Jiving there is no need to stick up for Pinocchio.
Ex’s was caught out in their original posts attempting to paint a negative slant and this was proved by the FT piece and link provided. Ex has form for this, its obvious to see for anyone that visits the boards on a regular basis. Blatantly writing an in accurate account of what occurred. Then tries deflection and the thread goes longer pushing their further lies down the thread. Common tactic!
The Shard culprit has not held a position for two years and been banned. In house cleaned up and we move on.
Theres far more interesting events occurring, than listening to you two squirm.
ATB
I have never seen anyone ramming 'negative' views down anyones throat on this board. The ratio of any so called 'negative' posts to the usual 'positive' posts I would overall put at well under 20%, likely less. Easy remedy Marcus filter those 'negative' posters, problem solved!
The reason most LTH are invested in this company is to make a vast multiple on strategic investor news, the only people obsessed by the inconsequential daily ups & downs of this horribly illiquid share are likely day traders not LTH.
Jiving I’m all for listening of both sides of the argument, but when’s it rammed down our throats several times over the course of a day it does make me wonder of the motives behind it.
Anyway shouldn’t be long before we hear of strategic investors then we will see a completely different narrative.
Well its always interesting to hear other people's point of view Marcus, which after all is what an investor discussion forum should be all about. For me the most vital part of an investor forum is to highlight the potential negatives around a company & the industry in which it operates. Why - because confirmation bias, people who have invested in a company clearly do so because they have a positive view on the company, which may or may not reflect (ever changing) reality & for essential balance need to be aware of the risks/downside that accompany every company in the world.
Actually successful professional investors take a similar view, my pal who is a long/short equity hedge fund manager reckons he seeks out & reads analysis the opposite of his position in a ratio pf 2:1. So if he is long Samsung, short Sony; he reads twice as much research which is negative on Samsung/positive on Sony as he does research that 'confirms' his view/position. Anybody who does not want to read Extrader/or indeed my posts is free to filter them so as not to be disturbed by them. But sadly it's often the case that it's not that they don't want to read the posts but that they effectively want to stop 'everybody' from reading the posts by chasing the erring poster off the board.
What I don’t get is that if you’re invested in a share then why would you constantly highlight any negative?
It’s like taking money out of your own pocket 🤦♂️
Anyway upwards and onwards. Well done to the posters who’ve heard back from Marty but I’m not sure there’s anything he can say at this point.
Hoping for a swift conclusion now to Strategic Investors talks and we can all enjoy a higher SP.
Anyone invested with genuine concerns would seek to clarify with the broker or company they’re invested in. Extrader has done this so many times now it’s hard to believe they could be genuinely invested. It’s good others can see it, making mountain out of molehills and creating concern where there is none. Good luck to all those genuinely invested here.
As mentioned by the company the next stage moves into FEED, starting costs of £22m.. and this Stage is part of Stage 1 costs. That should tell you everything you need to know.
"So extrader is out then. Fair enough. Everyone has to make their own move.."
Sorry to say Vet 10, that you've made an assumption (I'm not sure on what basis)...and you know what they say about 'assume'.....
For the avoidance of doubt, I have a larger investment in ZIOC (both absolute and as a %age of my portfolio) now than I've ever had in the 6+ years that I've held.
It would be interesting if you were to ask the same question of some of the more 'vocal' commentators around...and (of course) got equally honest answers.
I'll leave it at that.
ATB
So extrader is out then. Fair enough. Everyone has to make their own move.
PS and from the original article, it appears there were other (later than 2019) irregularities...
.."In addition, between June and July 2021, he provided misleading information to a further client purporting that Shard held substantial sums on its behalf. However, that client’s entire cash balance had previously been transferred out of its account..."
Misleading the auditors AND misleading the customers? Where does that leave Internal Audit and the Relationship Manager(s) throughout these events?
Hmm.
Thanks for highlighting the key phrase :
.."The FCA noted that Shard Capital contacted the regulator about the matter last year after discovering the existence of several documents “as a result of evidence disclosed by another party in court proceedings.."
So something that Shard's internal controls should have picked up in December 2019 (did they or didn't they ? - either way, not a good look - and what about those dealings from 2015-2017?) is made public (ie readily discoverable by the authorities) and Shard (aware of the original enquiry re 2015-2017) then contacts said authorities .
I believe that that's usually described as asking for 'other offences to be taken into consideration."
The FCA then agrees a discount on the fine and chalks up a (for it, rare) win.
I no longer subscribe, but expect this to be covered in Private Eye at some point.
HTH
Ex, well I can only deduce then your deliberately lying or spinning a negative? Which is it? What is your motive?
The FT article with link provide clearly states otherwise.
Shard Capital, which has not been accused of wrongdoing, said: “We welcome the completion of the investigation into James Lewis, which we have been supporting throughout. As highlighted in the FCA’s final notice, Mr Lewis has not held a senior management function at Shard Capital for over two years.” Lewis and Windhorst did not respond to requests for comment. The FCA also fined Lewis £120,300, allowing him a 30 per cent reduction after he agreed to settle the matter. The incident in which Lewis “risked misleading” a company’s auditor is one of two breaches flagged by the FCA. The other concerns a December 2019 transaction in which a client of Shard Capital instructed it to transfer $18mn of cash held for one of its “connected companies” to “its own account with Shard”. The FCA noted that Shard Capital contacted the regulator about the matter last year after discovering the existence of several documents “as a result of evidence disclosed by another party in court proceedings”.
https://www.ft.com/content/801e5e9d-1d5e-43cc-8f13-ea666cd7d101
The key sentence should you choose to ignore it :-
The FCA noted that Shard Capital contacted the regulator about the matter last year after discovering the existence of several documents “as a result of evidence disclosed by another party in court proceedings
Ho Hum always looking for a positive.
ATB
PS Lewis committed his offences in 2015-17 and was a repeat offender as recently as 2021.
The FCA - not Shard- did any 'house-cleaning' that was done, AFAICS.
'Fundamentally complicit' doesn't just refer to the FCA , on the face of it.
Hence my concluding remark 'I'm sure Shard are right when they say they're glad it's over'.
I call it as I see it.
ATB
Hi Eddsy
Thanks for asking!
C-B doesn't have any stadia that meet FIFA requirements, so will have to travel to their opponents' countries to play their qualifiers for World Cup 2026.
I don't follow the beautiful game that closely, but even I'm aware that having to play away is usually considered a disadvantage.
No doubt you'll be able to put a positive spin on this, as you do on most things.
ATB
S86- no nda here(can’t speak for Nibj), just nothing very interesting in the response from my 8th April email(also posted on this forum).
Only that Marty had commented on the recent update, and would be providing further updates going forward.
Gla.
Nibj and driving signed NDAs of course..
Ex, I see this as very positive, they stated he hasn’t held a position for 2 years and will be banned from financial services.
Well done them for cleaning house and freshening the corporate ethos. Now we know they are good going forward.
Oh how are the Congolese athletes getting on? Thought you might have unearthed an update by now.
Ho hum
Https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/fca-bans-and-fines-investment-firm-ceo-120300.html
.."Former CEO of Shard Capital Partners, James Lewis, has been fined £120,300 and banned by the FCA following two separate instances of providing incorrect information about clients’ cash.
The FCA found that between June 2015 and May 2017, Lewis told auditors that Shard held hundreds of millions in cash for a particular client. In fact, these sums were debts owed by another client in the same group.
In addition, between June and July 2021, he provided misleading information to a further client purporting that Shard held substantial sums on its behalf. However, that client’s entire cash balance had previously been transferred out of its account.
In each instance, the FCA says Lewis knew the information he provided would be used to produce the clients’ annual accounts and, as a result, those accounts were misstated.
Lewis agreed to settle the matter and qualified for a 30% reduction discount on the initial fine of £171,900.
Steve Smart, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: "Mr Lewis fell woefully short of the high standards of skill, care and integrity we expect of all those who lead financial firms. Investors depend on accurate information, and Mr Lewis’ actions put investors at significant risk of losses. It is right that he won’t be allowed to work in regulated financial services again."
A spokesperson for Shard Capital commented: “We welcome the completion of the investigation into James Lewis, which we have been supporting throughout. As highlighted in the FCA’s final notice, Mr. Lewis has not held a senior management function at Shard Capital for over two years.”
Not a good look, IMO, as this was in the public domain.
And unfortunate timing, to say the least.
I'm sure Shard are right when they say they're glad it's over.
Ho hum.
Did you speak to AT or MK?
Driving I recommend you to take a call with them. My feeling is the new CEO is a good guy to have onboard and is skilled in the industry with lots experience