Member Info for addicknt

Cornford's first paragraph will have plenty of resonance with many on here however, his second is very much at odds with his previous stuff and indeed, his own share holding. And yes, he meant PFS, not PEA.

Gawd! How about Dunkerton at Superdry? Or Walker at Iceland? Honestly, I could go on and on. - the list is endless.
There is no obligation whatsoever for departing directors to sell their shares and that is a fact.

You are talking tosh. As I said, HL is just one example. Both founders continued, and still continue, to have major holdings despite leaving the board - Hargreaves still has 20%.
I'm sorry, but you are emphatically wrong.

RK, that is simply not true and I could provide you with countless examples. Hargreaves Lansdown being just one. I thought you used to be a plc director?

Hear, hear, Jerry.

zoros, ha, ha! So, apart from him, no one has any experience. I'm pretty sure Eliza doesn't have any, but I may be wrong.

9 announcements since listing and 8 are price monitoring extensions.

RK, he wouldn't have to sell his holding if he left.

Takayama, no it isn't. Have a look at the number of new shares issued.

tangental interest, but RIO's results today provide further evidence of just how well miners are doing at the moment. In fact, they are throwing off more cash than BHP at present. I wonder how long it will be before these significant cash balances start burning a hole in their collective trousers?
The conundrum is; do they pay off debt, or do they use it for acquisitions? I guess the answer is a bit of both.

smartinvestor, yes, they got it badly wrong. However, in their defence, the pricing exercise is very tricky, particularly in a stock such as this. It really is guess work. If they over-price and it flops, they incur far greater damage to their reputation than if it flies - although the client tends to be less than happy.

PAUL, you asked an unanswerable question. No one knows how the election will turn out, least of all a pr person based in London. In any event, we have our own resident psephologist...you need look no further for all the information you need.

Suggest you consult a map, RSR.

Thanks, Pad. They're still very much focussed on selling, albeit he sees the delay as being value-enhancing.

from their current rate of free cash flow they could cover the cost of acquiring us in about three to four months. And then another four or five months to cover the development cost. Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

They provided an upbeat assessment of the copper market.

not sure if it's new, but I've just seen an announcement on the BBC website stating that Jaguar will move their entire range to electric by 2025 and they will be investing heavily in hydrogen technology. Worth a read. Apologies if everyone already knew this.

DBW, CGP are in a tricky situation, however, if we raise money via an underwritten rights issue, they will have the same opportunity to buy as everyone else, provided they have the cash.
I can see both sides of the argument as to why they didn't accept our offer, but I'm very pleased they didn't.

DBW, no it doesn't help the cause, but this has been the case from the day we took their shilling. A valiant attempt was made to reduce their influence but, and as was totally inevitable, it failed.
We are where we are, BHP and NCM aren't going anywhere so, and as I've been banging on about for over a year, the only option is to engage with them...which is what appears to be happening.
SOLG faced the same dichotomy as many, many companies when faced with the prospect of taking money from trade investors. Yes, it's great to get the cash without having to go to the markets, but it comes with strings, and those strings are the investors will want to protect their interests and dictate the direction of travel.
I've lost count of the number of times in my career when I've had this exact same conversation, either when I was principal or advisor. It's never an easy choice and both arguments have pros and cons. In my opinion, and it's not easy to generalize, the preferable route is to rely on the markets and maintain distance from entities which are, in the final analysis, competitors.

Read what I said and put it in the context of previous comments. You'd then understand my observation.
To help you out, I was referring to the need to act while we are still in the position of relative strength. Or perhaps you'd rather wait until our backs are up against the wall, 'cos that always works, doesn't it?