Member Info for addicknt

Coop, great minds think alike! I made the same point about the DFS assumptions. I don't believe PS will allow this to slip too far and feel something else is going on.

Coop, you are quite right...identical. The fact remains, it is at complete odds with what we've previously been led to believe. Confusing, isn't it?

I haven't received a reply to my follow-up email, which is fair enough, the guy's got a job to do; so this is what came out of my exchange.
In essence, I'd asked if he felt it would be appropriate to provide an update on funding, given that we've been so heavily punished by the failure of the last attempt.
Apart from a load of stuff about the depressed nature of the commodity markets in general and the lithium stocks in particular, he addressed the issue of funding and this is what he said; " in terms of timing, we will continue to monitor the equity markets and will wait for commodity prices to strengthen"
Now, I took this to mean that he's currently not engaged in the fund raising exercise; in fact, it's not really possible to interpret this in any other way. As you can imagine this made me sit up.
In the last web cast he stated categorically that he expected to announce funding within the 'next few months'. Now he's saying he won't even be trying until the commodity prices strengthen.
He reiterated the fact that in the meantime the company would be working hard to complete the front-end design process and he added that he was 'looking forward to welcoming SGRF to the register at the next fund raise'. He also referred to the ongoing support of our existing institutional shareholders.
To say that I was surprised by this response would be a serious understatement and consequently I emailed back to ask for an explanation of the apparent contradiction in his comments. I also suggested that he may be being optimistic that commodity prices will recover anytime soon and that a bear market was far more likely. I then asked would this imply he wouldn't be going out to market at all.
So, what can we deduce form this?
My take is that he's currently perfectly relaxed with the situation, but it did make me wonder if the reason for this is that he doesn't feel we will ever need to raise more funds. In other words, he's talking to potential buyers. How else can we explain the very obvious contradiction in his statements?
I told you I was confused by his note and that remains the case.

I stand corrected; I have now received a response and I'm completely confused as it raised more questions than it answered.
I have written another email asking for more of an explanation and I will wait until I've received a response to my latest email before going into further detail.
Sorry to be cryptic, but I don't want to set any hares running. What I can say is that he sounded completely relaxed.

Pathetic response and as we all know, a load of old ballcacks. We know why this has fallen so much and to blame it on the market is the laziest and most contemptible of excuses.
Still, at least you got a response. I sent him an email today and have not received a reply...just like the last time I emailed him.
As each day passes, I'm less and less impressed with this man.

I submitted a question about this to Secker...he failed to answer (despite stating that he'd answered all the questions) The silence relating to this issue is totally unacceptable.
Thankfully, he's decided not to pursue NextView, which would have been a vast waste of money and energy.

researcher1, I'm interested in your comment about cheaper methods of getting at lithium as this does not accord with the many articles/comments and broker analysis that I've seen. In fact, the consensus appears to be the direct opposite i.e that too many people underestimate just how complex and expensive it is. Of course, we know where BCN sits in the cost of production curve and you'd have thought this would be a major plus point.
In the meantime, this will continue to drift until so kind of announcement is issued...and who knows how long that will take.

6% shareholding is of no use whatsoever for BHP. It gives them no leverage and economically is utterly irrelevant.
There are no "ifs" or "buts", this is a precursor to much more significant action. The only question is; when?

Coop, sadly you've named the three things (sic) at which he's utterly useless.

The difficulty Secker will have is persuading new investors that the current price doesn't reflect anything like true value. Additionally, those current institutional investors will be reluctant to accept dilution at these prices (although they can obviously ameliorate their own position by subscribing to a placing at these lower levels)
The argument will further be strengthened by Secker stating that the current malaise has been caused by no more than small private investors selling (which is true) and that the iis are sitting tight.
Although slightly different circumstances, look at today's announcement on SOLG, where a large chunk of shares changed hands at a premium. It can be done, but it ain't gonna be easy.

Under any other circumstance, holding a share under this amount of pressure, I would be in a state of anxiety. But for some reason, as far as this is concerned, I'm not.
I wouldn't say I'm happy with the situation, but I remain of the view that this is just too good a project, set against a hugely positive macro-background, for this not to go-ahead. Combined with the nature of our shareholder base and our off-take agreements, BCN remains a great prospect.
Yes, Secker made a gargantuan error of judgement, but we still own one of the largest lithium deposits in the world. Secker gave himself "a couple of months" to resolve the position and the clock is ticking (he has one month left). If he fails, in my view, the ii's will kick him out.

Yes it was. The shares opened at about 80p. There was never a chance for private investors to get in at 33p...although that may change!

From memory, about 80p. It then dropped to more or less the current sp. I think 40p was the lowest...December 2014.

The drawdown is indeed interesting; it makes you wonder what the bond holders have been told.
Why would they allow a drawdown if the project looked doomed? Or more pertinently, why did the terms of the facility allow it without restrictive conditions precedent?
Perhaps one of the thoughts is that they are packaging-up the whole project for sale and the design stage is part of that package.In other words, it's seen as being value adding.
In the meantime I agree with the comments about further purchases. It's very tempting at these prices, but common sense dictates it's best to wait until clarity is provided; and if that means missing the bottom, so-be-it.
BTW, at these levels, there won't be a single private investor who's in profit.

Benjie, I've tried them. Effectively, the product produced the same results as simply cutting down on food intake, but had the disadvantage of of lack of variety. In fact, normal dieting was far more successful, and has the advantage of being much cheaper. In truth, I wasn't impressed.
I should say that this is only my personal experience and I'm sure it works for other people.

Agreed, Marsh. As I said, I sincerely hope the company is not involved in any action. It's been made quite clear by the actions and statements of the current board where they believe fault lies, and I couldn't agree more.

Dar, you say the SFO inquiry doesn't 'help anyone'; I'm afraid that rather misses the point.
If the law was broken and fraud was involved, those responsible need to be held to account. That includes the directors then running the company and the company itself.
I happen to agree that this is not fair on the current shareholders, but that's the way the law is, and if shareholders don't wish to run the risk of this potential situation, they should sell their shares. Of course, it's possible that action could be taken against the directors and not the company and let's hope that's how it turns out.
So, if fraud was involved and it's proven in a court of law, the people it provides redress for are the thousands of shareholders who lost billions of pounds and it seems rather strange to me that you would wish to brush that under the carpet.

I've had several highly lucrative trades out of this so far and note Shore's comments with interest. Hopefully this will be a huge success, but the 'traditional' side of me finds it difficult to understand this market cap based upon £1.3m of sales.
The next trading update in September will be hugely important. Any failure to hit the previously announced stellar increases will be punished, in my opinion.
Having sold yesterday I shall keep a keen eye on this one. It's certainly a lot more interesting than many AIM shares.

bluegrass, that 313k transaction at 47p took place at 16:09, at which time the bid was 46p. Therefore, it was probably a buy and explains why the price rose by a penny.

bandit1, I'm not calling for his exit, I simply said his position looks weak. He and our advisors, made a catastrophic error of judgement that halved the value of our company. I can think of many instances of people losing their jobs for far less.
My other point concerned his apparent insouciance with regard to the matter. I'm afraid that does not sit well with me.
And yes, I agree with your point about 'high quality' executives; we will find out soon whether he fits that description or not.