Member Info for addicknt

sold out of here a thousand years ago but still keep an eye on it.
Sorry if this is old news, but I've just noticed everyone's favourite sage, TW, has revealed that the company is under investigation by the FCA for misleading investors.
Apologies if this is ancient history, but thought you may be interested if it isn't.

Why would anyone want to issue an announcement at this time of year, unless it was to bury bad news?
No one is paying any attention and are getting rapidly pissed in the City bars.

My main concern is not so much about the eventual ability to raise money, but the timing.
PS has repeatedly said we'll only do so when "market conditions are right". Well, the fact is, the markets are in for a very turbulent time next year; so at what stage do the conditions become "right"? The longer this issue is left hanging out there, the more pain we will suffer and the more difficult it will be to persuade investors to pony-up at a reasonable price.
We don't have any immediate need for cash, but I guess by the end of next year, we will have.
I bet PS is really ruing his decision not to tap the markets at a much earlier stage this year and it must rate as one of the worse corporate decisions of all time.
Not a happy message as we approach Christmas, but it strikes me as a fair observation.

Kluck, the fund raise will start in the New Year. I can't see why any institution would want to buy in the market when they can simply wait to subscribe for new equity.

It makes for great reading, although I was slightly reminded of those awful round-robin, self-congratulatory paeans one receives at this time of year from ghastly people you knew 100 years ago and that you hoped never to hear from again.

There was never any chance for those of us who believe the options packages are unjustified, but at least their card has been marked.

TC, I never bought into the shorts argument and thought PS used it as a convenient excuse to explain the falling share price. However, I have no information to back-up my opinion and your theory could well be right, which would be interesting because it would suggest the shorters think we've hit the bottom.
However, my view is that what we saw was a concerted effort by the company and it's brokers to mop-up the BR shares.
None of us really knows, do we?

Barksy, it's normally done broker to broker on behalf of a client.

greater market coverage.

by the way, my theory appears to have been backed-up by the description of the many trades we've seen over the past few days as being "off-book". I'm sure most of you will know what these are, but for those who don't, they are over-the-counter deals away from the market.

the buying programme may have been completed.

Yes.

A non-exec and I guess he's retiring.

The various asset managers/trading platforms should be excluded from this number.

This has been going on for five or six days now and I can safely say I've not seen anything like it in the last 4 years, and that includes the period during the race up to 150p. (there were many sells during those halcyon days)
There's no question about it, this is a very curious pattern of trading, particularly given that the sp hasn't risen.
I wonder if the board have, with our broker, organised a mopping-up exercise in order to absorb the surplus BR shares?

Jerry, of course you are right, however, if BHP decide to go hostile, they will, regardless of the agreement. They'll calculate that they would win and therefore avoid any penalties imposed by a legal action, which in any event, would take an age to go through a court.
In my experience, virtually all agreements of this nature (j.vs etc) go to hell in a hand cart once self-interest and commercial imperative take over.

BHP bid soon?
1) Political issues in Equador.
2) Weak global equity markets.
3) Difficult to establish true value of the company.
4) Risk of opening the process up to an auction.
5) How to value the other concessions.
6) Being turned down by NM and having to go hostile (risky and expensive)
7) their recently completed share buy-back and divi has depleted their cash reserves.
8) their statements to shareholders that they will not make the mistake of wasting money on expensive acquisitions. In other words, would they get backing from their own shareholders given that we are only an explorer?

Why would they bid?
1) it's too bloody big to ignore.
2) it fits exactly with their recently announced long term strategy.
3) they can't let it fall to a competitor.
4) given their uncertain nature, they would probably get a significant discount on the other concessions.
5) they've already invested a great deal of money (don't listen to anyone who dismisses the quantum by saying "it's a drop in the ocean"...it isn't.

I'm just throwing a few of my thoughts out there, so please add yours. By the way, most of the reasons why not can be easily answered.

anyone else suspicious of this relentless buying?
For some reason I don't think it's private investors...I just don't think there's sufficient interest in the stock.
Is there a trade buyer hoovering-up?

And I should add, the failure of BHP to nominate a non-exce remains of great interest.
It is so clearly in order to avoid the insider issue, which begs the question; why are they so keen to do so? The answer, at least to me, is crystal clear.

Their shareholding had dropped to 13% following the BHP purchase, this restores it to just over 15%. It also raises a number of questions:
1) what real difference does it make to them to have over 15%?
2) why did BHP not buy? They would have been allowed to if the company had approved.
3) who was the seller(s)?
4) did the company steer the seller in the direction of NC? Do they see NC as a 'friendlier' shareholder than BHP?
5) in the current broader market, why pay a premium?
6) is the seller still out there?
7) was it merely an opportunistic purchase, or is it prelude to something else?

Large shareholders such as NC do not like buying in the market. However, as the company doesn't need any cash, we were not about to issue any new shares, so NC had no choice other than to buy.
The key question for me is the issue of what difference does it make at this stage of the game? 2% makes no difference and their influence would remain unchanged. I am wholly convinced this was a defensive move and suggest they believe BHP will make a pre-emptive approach to the company sooner rather than later.
So many questions; so many possible permutations. Fascinating stuff.