Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Oh man, I thought you talk rubbish most of the time, but this last comment is just plain delusional. The SP isn't gaining 5 points in a month or even in a year. And while your numbers are right, AMTECH is even more right: the ghost of what's gonna happen at the end of the year scares the few investors still interested in GMS and prevents the SP from taking off. Best case scenario a sustained 8p after releasing the half year results followed by a sharp drop after whatever option they decide to go with later this year.
Also, who’s not to say this SP isn’t being artificially kept low? Major SHs might not want the SP to be that high anyway. Either way, it isn’t going to 12p anytime time in the foreseeable future.
CaptNemo, these are my two cents. I’ve been following this ticker for a while, and I wasn’t expecting a significant change in the SP. If you remember last year when Timmy&Co released the previous deal, the market reacted similarly. My best guess is that, just like last year, there are still a few things they need to sort out before we see the full benefits of the deal realized in the SP.
I wouldn’t guess any price, but I’m quite confident there will be a bump after the annual results, and an even nicer bump after the 25M is raised. And of course, we might finally see the SP reacting positively with any RNS related to increase in utilization.
I don't think driving a competitor to the ground while owning 30% makes much sense. That's an internecine strategy. What Seafox says and does nowadays don't make much sense in principle but I’m certain like many here, that these are just tactics to impart fear and disbelief in SHs, so they don’t trust the current management and are more open to sell their shares below their true value.
I, personally, believe in tangible results. And GMS has managed to meet my expectations (shown via their annual results) while sorting out a depressed energy market, banks arrangements, a hostile shareholder and a disrupting virus.
No, they can’t 4Corners, and they can’t get to 30% without board approval during the 6-m period. Also, as TTF pointed out, they don’t represent a majority of the board so I wouldn’t count on board approval for an increase in shareholding before the due date.
IMHO they need to stop lowballing the shareholders and undervaluing the company (current SP reflects uncertainty and not true value). If I were them, I’d be in a hurry because as time goes by GMS performance continues to improve and the loan continues to be paid down, which will be further enhanced by better times ahead (Post COVID, higher oil prices, etc.). This can only lead to a higher share price.
I was kind of expecting a lot of talk after yesterday's RNS. Since the last year or so we’ve been waiting to see a deal struck with the banking syndicate and now it is finally materialised. The wabbit of Good flying duck. I personally think the deal is good overall - tight but achievable- especially if the company's improvement path continues on track. However, SP went down when I was expecting the opposite. Am I missing something?
Driveat15 the discussion has never been about what price different investors are willing to sell at but that 38.78% of shareholders consider Seafox’s offer of 10p massively undervalued GMS.
Even if what you implied is true and Noster and Faisal showed their cards and would be willing to sell at 20p, their joined stock is 3.08% only. I personally believe that, because many other investors bought at a higher price, even an offer of 20p is still a hard sell - especially considering all the good news and great potential in the future.
I received a safety flash about it. Apparently someone was killed. It's still fresh in my mind when Seafox said they could manage GMS cheaper than dirt. I don't want to be insensitive here but I guess this is what happens when you go cheap by cutting corners.
NEDHAMMER:
I believe most of the questions in the EGM will be directed to Seafox - in order to know about their true intentions. If you were kind to ask:
- Does Seafox intends/have they bought more shares?
- What Seafox´s current share ownership is?
- How do they intend to save 30%?
- Will these be achieved by reducing or removing current GMS initiatives that set them apart from competitors?
TimmyTradeface...to answer your question: Because not all the vessels are equal and because the market is more interested in big class vessels atm.
In other words, it’s easier to find a contract for Seafox 5 than for a small class vessel. GMS has got 4 large vessels, 4 mid-size and 6 small size. If the 4 large and 4 medium sizes are all contracted and only a few of the smaller size were off contract, then the addition of Seafox 5 wouldn’t have been dead weight.
I need to add that with the sale of Seafox 5 by Seafox they ended up with a less attractive fleet, whereas GMS still got a good number of newer and better-maintained vessels.