Member Info for addicknt

Dar, the factual answer to your question is of course, he hasn't been charged with a crime, let alone been found guilty.
However, given what's hanging over him, surely any investor would have to be stark raving mad to want to get involved?
What sort of investor conducting dd would have a close look at the c.v and conclude "well, that all looks tickety-boo, how much do you want?" Mind you, with the rising number of recent AIM scandals, MYSQ being the plat du jour, anything is possible.

The Daily Telegraph have also reported this story today. They point out that the saintly Terry is boasting that 'shortly after he left the business, ONE of the subsidiaries was sold for $800m'. What he fails to mention is what actually happened to the subsidiary subsequently, or indeed the minor issue of the SFO investigation etc, etc. I assume he thinks no one will notice.
This bloke is utterly shameless.

of you may be interested to read an article contained in the Mail on Sunday concerning the activities of the charming and much loved Robert Terry.
Personally, I was astonished, but I'm sure some of his apologists will be pleased.

ohwhatanight, thanks for posting this. To me, this sort of political input is every bit as important as everything else we tend to focus upon. Without government commitment, we have nothing and this article demonstrates how things are changing in a positive way.

I'm not ashamed to admit that FOMO got the better of me yesterday. I was the "Dyson" that someone referred to hoovering up the 5000 lots.
I haven't gone as deep as my previous holding, but more than enough for the time being.
I rarely, if ever, return to a share once I've either had success, or failure. However, this one has held my imagination for so long that I've broken all my rules. Let's hope PS can deliver the goods.

This is a great Schlemiel and many thanks.
Just one observation; the % of shares in free float is higher than some people have assumed. This is because the report includes shares held by us retail investors via HL etc. Nevertheless, and as we all know, our shareholder register is very strong.

No disrespect, but over the past four or five years I've lost count of the number of times we've heard this rumour. This is not to say it won't happen, but just that there's nothing new about it. My personal favourite has always been RTZ.

One thing has changed and that is the share has become incredibly illiquid.
I've tried many dummy purchases over the past few days and the largest quote I've had is for 10000 and I've only achieved that on one occasion. Previously it was possible to buy fairly chunky lines of stock and this made it far more attractive. Frankly, I have no interest in trying to purchase 1000 shares at a time. Anyway, the question is; why has this changed? Why is there so little liquidity? The company's shareholder base hasn't changed, so why are the market makers holding it back?
Of course, the lack of liquidity would be of equal concern if one were trying to sell a reasonably sized position.

Kluck, you are quite right. For a long time I was of the opinion that a trade buyer would emerge, but obviously none has appeared...so far.
I seem to recall reading an article not long ago, written by a broker, or some such, which expressed the view that there wouldn't be any trade buyers as the resource didn't suit anyone's portfolio. At the time I thought this was an odd statement, and still do. Having said that, I think the balance of probability now looks as if production will the way forward and perhaps a buyer will emerge once everything's up and running.
Who knows?

L2, it's tempting. However, two things are mitigating against at the moment. 1) The fundamental issue is still outstanding and I'm trying to stick to my guns in terms of not wanting to risk anything until the financing has been arranged. 2) I'm very, very long on SOLG at the moment...perhaps recklessly so, and another speculative mining stock may not be sensible.
The price is currently approaching my original buy-in price, which was about 42p which meant at one stage I was sitting on a significant profit...as were many of us. It would be nice to repeat that, but I simply can't get the financing thing out of my mind. I know many of you will disagree and will argue that the balance of probability is in its favour, but the fact remains, it's still out there.
Of course, I could punt a short term trade...which I suspect quite a few people are doing, but that isn't my normal style. Having said that, did try to get a quote for 100k this morning and could almost hear the mms laughing at me.

mozax, I think you are right. My guess is that following the lengthy sell-off, they decided not to hold too much stock. They have been caught out by this mini-rally.

Well, one thing is for sure, they didn't pay 45p because they thought it was over-valued.

It's good news to see the price recovering a tad, but it's being driven by small private investor buys. The company has stated that it anticipates concluding a finance deal in Q1 2019, so I'm not sure if any other news is due.
By the way, I noticed there was very little discussion about the "extraordinary" cash outflow reported last week ( I use the word "extraordinary in a strict accounting sense i.e outside of the normal course of business) It does seem very odd to me that the company didn't clarify this; or have I missed something?
One other thought occurred; I wonder what the workforce are currently doing? Are they still providing samples? Have they been laid-off? Any thoughts?

It's a regulatory requirement and is no more than a statement of fact.

The blog appears to working, it just hasn't been updated since July, and I suspect the reason for that is the ongoing FCA investigation. You'd have to be mad to post negative articles about the FCA...which he did, whilst they're getting their claws into you.
And it must not be forgotten that what he said about £2bn of deals for Whet, all lined-up and ready to go, was palpably not the case; blatant ramping if I've ever seen it. I'd be very surprised if the team at Whet wanted to hear from him again. So yes, Bubbler, you are right.

ohwhatanight, the answer is straightforward: They need to be involved in this project and this route was the only one available to them. They had no other choice and their negotiating position was poor.
As was said at the time, NM played an absolute blinder in terms of negotiating the best terms for us.
Mind you, if anyone else comes along, all bets are off and BHP will be free to do what they wish.

of my uncles lives in Zim and has been there for 60 years. He sends a weekly round-robin email describing life over there.
One thing is absolutely clear, the situation has deteriorated hugely since the tyrant Mugabe was kicked into touch. In fact, things are really getting very serious and he's predicting civil unrest in the near future.
If ever a country needed to develop it's natural assets, it's Zimbabwe. Whether they ever will is another matter.

the impact of the options is not driven by their existence, nor by their exercise, but by what happens next. If the beneficiaries hold then there will not be a negative impact: if they sell, it may impact negatively.
My view is that they would be daft to sell (but I would say that, wouldn't I?) But the fact is a 10p profit is hardly the type of return I suspect the new holders will be hoping for.
I note 800, 000 were not exercised and have lapsed. I assume that was because the beneficiaries couldn't raise the cash or simply didn't want them.
Anyway, it's good the issue has been put to bed for the time being.

TC, actually, within the confines of its strictest definition, KDNC has not provided project finance. It has merely invested in subsidiary companies in return for equity in those companies.
Pure project finance doesn't demand equity and, as I mentioned yesterday, the return is provided from a specific projects cash flow. It is merely tailored financing and is often provided by specialist departments within most banks. I ought to know, I did it for 18 of the most boring months of my life.

Kluck, corporate vs project can most easily be differentiated with an example: Corporate would be where the quoted company raises new equity. Project financing relates purely to the assets of a particular development; in this instance, Sonora. The funding is secured against the assets and cash flow of the development and does not dilute shareholders. Not sure about your comment about the cash burn. This was the only "news" contained within the RNS and yet PS offered no explanation. This is not good, in my view.