Member Info for addicknt

Yes, he'll have shares and is therefore highly incentivized to get maximum value, but the great thing is, they're not our shares i.e he's not being awarded a whole bunch of cheap and dilutive options.

This is excellent news and signals very clear intent.

I think we'll bring this exchange to a close. I absolutely disagree with you and especially on the value question. Value may come in time, but the market is telling you what it thinks right now. And how often are equity analysts correct? Very, very rarely.

You say I'm "oblivious" to recognising the dynamics of project funding. I suggest you have a look at my first post this morning, in which I stated that it was "sensible" to adopt the approach they have outlined. But perhaps you didn't wish to read that? Confirmation bias at work?
The main point of my initial post, which I'd have thought was pretty obvious, was to point out the number of times we've heard the company say existing shareholders would be funding the development cycle. And the fact is, they haven't. In fact, they were nowhere to be seen when the company made the devastating attempt to raise money in the market (this was when the rot really set in) In my opinion, PS was attempting to give false hope and it strikes me as being pretty futile to trot out the same line again.
As for valuation, I agree. In due course, this should move towards reflecting true value. But the only thing to bear in mind right now is the fact that Ganfeng and, by definition the company, both agreed the it was currently worth 25p per share. And the market seems to agree.
As I said last week, over the next five years, the company should turn into a solid business, generating good profits and a decent dividend yield.

Mik, no, I'm not; but don't let that worry you.
You have your view, I have mine, which is based upon 5 years of following this company ,and I tend not to forget what the CEO has said...repeatedly.
There's no reason why you should, but if you looked back over my posts (and I wouldn't recommend it, as there a huge number), you'll see that I believe this probably will get into production and have said so many times. What I'm saying is that until the finance is actually in place, it is not 100% certain. Surely you can understand that? I've also said that PS has trotted-out the line about existing shareholders time after time and it has never, not once, happened. This is not a controversial statement, it's fact.

You missed the point, Mik.
What I was saying was that over the past five years we've been told repeatedly that the existing shareholders would be funding the next stages. They didn't. This is an incontrovertible fact. As is the fact that there remains a significant funding gap...which is not say it won't be filled, but, as it stands, it exists.
And yes, any company with an un-sourced funding gap does have an "issue". Until the money is in the bank the situation is unresolved.

No news on final financing until the technical review has been completed. This makes obvious sense, but still leaves the question open for up to another seven months.
The one thing I always find irksome in these announcements is the reference to the support of exiting shareholders (by that, I mean neither Hanwa nor Ganfeng). Despite similar assurances over many years, the one thing that hasn't happened is new money from existing shareholders; so, what will change? Indeed, as we all know, Black Rock have actually left the party.
Overall, I think this announcement demonstrates steady, measured and sensible progress, but there is still that significant gap hanging over the situation.

JM, agreed.
I've used financial bbs since 1999 - some shares seem to attract some very good and well-informed posters (SOLG is a good example), whereas others are populated by obvious fools. Share price volatility appears to attract the fools.

So, as far as you're concerned, anyone who asks a simple question is "sceptical"? Seems a very odd stance to take. And by the way, I share the view about the value here...that's why I'm a shareholder.

QED. Right on cue, someone comes up with old "he's a de-ramper" nonsense.
You have just ably demonstrated the endless stream of nonsense being posted on here. Do grow up.
For guidance, and to repeat myself, I am a holder of a large number of shares.

Stockdale, used to be; am now retired.
In an oblique way, I was trying to point out that some people are wildly ill-informed about their role. Perhaps I should have been more open and simply explained their error. What I find astonishing is that the assumption that they are buyers has also found it's way into certain articles written by so-called financial journalists, which is amazing.
Mind you, there's so much nonsense being spouted about this share at the moment, it's easy to see why people get confused.
And before you ask, yes, I am a shareholder.

LB, for the simple reason that people on here, and elsewhere, have continuously banged-on about them being potential buyers. That's why.

LB, thanks. Having spent most of my career in career in and around corporate finance, I have understand what they do.

Markyp, that's what I thought. Why then do people talk about them as being buyers, when most clearly they are not? They have also been reported in the less informative articles on the web as being buyers. It just seems to me certain people have failed to understand their role.

Thank you, Stockdale...although there was no need to be rude, was there? But as you are so clearly very knowledgeable, how about answering part two of the question?

Seemingly, no one knows the answers...which is interesting. Perhaps no one cares?

The company, and others, have often referred to an announcement on 15th September. I can find no such announcement. Can someone point me in the right direction?
I'm also confused by comments surrounding the appointment of the banks. As I understand it, they have been appointed to act as advisors on the disposal of the assets, and yet some people refer to them as being potential buyers. From what I can see, they are merely advisors. Or am I wrong?

This article made almost no sense whatsoever, particularly the last sentence (as reproduced here)

I know I'm pretty stupid, but how exactly does this explain matters?
The shareholders have not divied-up in the recent past, why would they do it now?

mac, he dug the hole and then, very effectively, carried on digging. Logical consistency between two messages posted minutes apart, may have helped the poor sap.