Member Info for addicknt

Pilgrim, management teams are judged on past performance...that is a simple fact. Any CEO can promise jam tomorrow, and most do.

Bluegrass, the idea that a private investor posting something on this web site could influence the price is, to say the least, fanciful.
As I've mentioned, I held this share for a very long time and didn't trade it (that's not my investment style). I sold when it became obvious that things were goibg very wrong. I have only traded it in order to recoup my losses and, as it's turned out, to make a few bob as well. Can you explain why that is wroung? There are many folk nursing quite considerable losses...I took action to avoid that. Surely, this is what investing is all about?

Pilgrim, if you'd been around a bit longer on this bb you'd understand my background. But just for guidance, I was a corporate financier in an earlier life and have raised more money than Mr Secker is ever likely to.
Just out of interest, why do you think this is a good deal? What do you think the institutional shareholders, who all paid far,far more for their shares, think of it? They will have accepted it on a needs must basis, but they won't be happy.
Secker had the chance to raise money at over £1 per share and decided not to...great judgement, no? And as for the omni-shambles of last year, the least said the better.
Open your eyes, you'll stop walking into walls.

Bluegrass, I'm not currently trading this. I said I had traded it and recouped my losses and then some.
I've been in this share for nearly 5 years and am only stating what I believe to be the situation. As you are probably aware, indeed I said it earlier, I think this will be a winner and have always thought so; however, it would be naive in the extreme to fail to see the downsides of the latest deal and also of Seckers failure to produce somthing better.
I'm delighted progress is being made, but the funding story still has a way to

Indeed, Struthers. After all, we're not in this to make money, are we?

Pilgrim, which bit was tosh?

Dan1, a placing price is arrived at via mutual negotiation. Secker's back was up against a wall and Ganfeng knew it.
I wonder why Hanwa didn't want to pony-up any more cash? My guess is that having secured what they really want i.e the offtake, they are not concerned about the ownership question.
One further thougt; the new deal effectively rules out a bid for the company other than from Ganfeng.
TC, for the first time in nearly 5 years I've resorted to trading this and am happy with the outcome. I'll revert to long term ownership once the balance of the funding is clarified.

Both Ganfeng and the company agreed that, as it currently stands, the business is currently worth 25p per share. Private punters have pushed the price beyond that level and by cashing in profits they will also push it down from todays price. One major issue is outstanding: where is the balance of the funding coming from and what will be the terms?
As ever, Secker provides no answers and until he does, the market will bide it's time.
For long term shareholders, this is a crap deal and reveals exactly how far over a barrel Secker had been bent. However, for those with patience the rewards will come..
Not even Secker can balls this up now.

Rocal, WRN is a hoot a minute. The "free" shares in the bastard infant of WRN, Whet, have now been suspended and the loons seem to have disappeared...pro tem.
Something completely stinks about that saga, and that's why it's such a fascinating situation. Well, that and the fact that some of the posters are just about as insane as it's possible to be without being confined to a straightjacket.

By the way, these shenanigans have reinforced my view that we should forget about trying to take-out Cornerstone.

Jerry, it's kind of you to say so and yes, I have returned to the register.
The risk remains, but it has been reduced and I would sincerely hope the government gets its act together and reinforces the part of the legislation which states that all decisions relating to mineral extraction are its domain only. This type of action is seriously damaging to the wealth of an entire population and needs to be stopped.

the result is good news for the company, but is it as good as we would have liked? Has the door been left open for Senor Swampy to re-word his petition and re-present it at a later date, or does the statement that it is "unappealable" mean that it's "unappealable" in any form? In other words, has it really put the issue to bed? Looking at the reaction in Canada, which was relatively muted, it seems the market is as confused as I am.
It's almost tempting to contact an Equadorian lawyer who's expert in constitutional law and ask for an opinion. Hopefully, today's RNS will provide further clarity.

No doubt there'll be a blog explaining that dark and malign forces have been at work and the suspension is the fault of the interfering tortoise.

The fact they are raising the issue at the 11th hour sounds to me like they are not confident. As I said earlier, this should have been addressed at the outset.

You would have thought that they'd have pointed out a potential conflict of interest at an earlier stage. And given the body which is raising the complaint is the mining organization, you can guess what their fears are.

Spikey, sorry to hear about the family problems, but good to see you back on here.

Dmahon, the rise reflects nothing more than people taking a punt that the court will rule against the referendum, and nothing wrong with that, provided they understand what happens if it goes the other way.
Btw, this board has become almost unreadable. Hitherto, there's been a good level of debate; sadly, it has now descended into a childish farce. Those involved ought to take a good look at themselves.

spikey, you're back! Where have you been hiding?

earthling, you are absolutely right, the government needs to provide a clear and stable environment which will provide the miners and investors with complete confidence before they invest billions of dollars. If they don't address this issue, the country will never achieve its ambition to rival Chile as a mining destination. It really is that simple.

So, the company has its shares suspended from trading and doesn't feel it appropriate to inform shareholders. Odd, don't you think?