Member Info for addicknt

The people who will have been diluted here are us, the retail investor. And I don't mind one bit.

rcgl, quite right, as the wording of the RNS made absolutely crystal clear.

ssmith, I tend to agree with your suggestion.
The key to the move from BHP has always been timing. Is it better for them to wait until a PFS has been produced, which will probably result in them having to pay more, or do they have enough information already to enable them to make a move pre-pfs?
I suspect we'll get a clue to this once the results of the placing are made public i.e did they invest or not? (if they and NCM didn't take part in the placing it would be perverse in the extreme - having made such a fuss about Franco) And it's worth bearing in mind their revised strategy, which was a reversal of the gung-ho approach of recent years.
They have time and money on their side and will act when it suits them.

The divestment of the BHA project makes sense.

RK, so you've mentioned.
I kept a close eye on all reported trades in that period and the largest was just under 400k shares, not value. Earlier you suggested the minimum purchases by institutions and I agree with you. There has been nothing remotely close to that figure. In any institutions were buying, the sums involved were completely insignificant.

RK, as we know, those shareholders with declarable stakes account for 59.5%. Of course, we don't know how many institutions hold stakes less than the declarable percentage.
And to repeat what I said a few days ago, I saw no evidence to support your theory that institutions were buying as a result of the roadshow...the size of purchases simply didn't support that thesis.

Just one minor issue for Quady and his dilution argument, he has absolutely no way of knowing how much BHP and NCM subscribed for. Until the announcements are released, we are all in the dark.

RK, I understand your point, but is liquidity really an issue here? I'm guessing about 40% is in the hands of retail investors and that's usually sufficient to create a decent market.

we've all been slightly overlooking is what good news this is. We no longer have any cash worries for the remainder of the year and in the meantime we can expect a steady stream of good news.
My worse nightmare was us running into serious difficulties in terms of raising cash and having to get the begging bowl out. Thank heavens we didn't leave it until the last moment.

rcgl, agreed on both points. However, and this is a question I asked the other day; I wonder if NM regrets his decision?

Madpunter, indeed it was, but don't forget all shareholders would have been affected in the same way.
In any event, this will be irrelevant in due course.

Madpunter, simple answer; no, they haven't.

rcgl, you are right - let's hope the new shares are in 'sticky' hands. The last thing we want is a constant dribble of new shares coming onto the market.
I guess we'll see a few announcements over the coming days showing the movement in holdings of those existing shareholders with declarable interests, but what will be really interesting will be if any single new entity has purchased sufficient to warrant a declaration.

Doug, that was my reading of the situation.

Tiger, why didn't you actually read what I said in the tone in which it was written? I asked 'is he being excluded?' I was simply posing a question which arose from the wording of the RNS. As it turned out NM invested, and I'm pleased he did.
I'm afraid there are a number of people on here, BNC included, who deliberately misinterpret everything I say.

CD, it was pretty clear to me they were offered shares; the key question is, did they take them up?

Phew! Thank heavens for that!

1. We all knew that a fund raise was coming - particularly as a result of the objection to Franco.
2. It's obvious this is being done with the agreement of BHP and NCM. How much will they subscribe for? What happens if they don't? Although this would be perverse in the extreme.
3. Only 'certain' directors are subscribing. Why not all of them? Is Mather being excluded by agreement?
4. The RNS finally puts to rest any argument about the reasons for the withdrawal of the Special Resolution at the AGM. (there were still some people who appeared not to have understood what happened and why)
5. I suspect the Primary Bid offer will not raise much money.
6. It talks about the Placing being offered to a 'majority' of shareholders. Does this beg the question; 'is anyone being left out? If so, who and why?'
7. I'm guessing CGP will be offered shares; are they in a position to take them up?
I admit I'm praying that this is a success. The failed book build attempted by BCN still haunts me and it led to the company effectively falling into the hands of the Chinese.

a very interesting paragraph in the appendix relating to the mechanics of the placing. It talks about ordinary and redeemable preference shares being issued to Peel Hunt via Jersey (Rover) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary.
Admittedly, it's early in the morning, but I'm struggling to understand this; does anyone know what it means, or why this route was chosen?
In fact, there's quite a lot of interesting stuff in the appendix.

CD, I tend to agree with you with regard to the book build. If it wasn't as good as done, I'm guessing we wouldn't have allowed Ingo to run with it on his own.