Member Info for Alfacomp

Smokedodger can you remind us what 10% that was. I don't recall anything along those lines.

I suspect 'e is only sleepin'

I don't know but it is what I have concluded by looking in detail at pretty much every trading day for the last year.

Indeed without some people selling shares to the Market Makers they will simply walk the price down until they can induce enough paranoia to get the shares they need. This is why the typical behaviour you see in illiquid markets like AIM is a slow (quasi-exponential) decay in share price, occasionally interspersed with period of news driven rerating.

If you really do want to sell then let the Market Makers know by placing a limit order just above the current share price, you may not be surprised to see that they walk the price up so that buyers of shares pay higher than what they'd need to pay you for them. Without you giving them this signal they cannot know that any move up of the SP would be something they can close, and might indeed lead them to being in more of a hole if momentum buyers turn up. The typical assumption that SP up means more PI sellers, SP down more PI buyers, is not true in illiquid markets.

fatbanker,

indeed I bought quite a few more of these when the price was under 2.8p - it was obvious that many BMN holders would sell at low prices and so I took the opportunity to buy cheaply into what was once the largest opencast tin mine in the world.

Good evening Bonker - if you wish to find out more about the company's fundamentals then you should consult the 2017 annual report here:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/slides/bmn-financial-5

If you wish to understand the setup of the Vanadium market at present then you should read:-

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/vanitec-2nd-energy-storage-meeting-part-1-206
then https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/july-2017-vanadium-shock-what-and-why-203
then
https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/vanitec-3rd-energy-storage-meeting-part-1-175
and finally https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/vanitec-4th-energy-storage-meeting-part-1-274

If you wish to see how analyst forecasts of SP around current levels use extremely conservative assumptions for the price of Vanadium the see this:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/analyst-watch-232

If you want to see what the price of Vanadium is actually doing then see this:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/vanadium-prices

If you still want proof that Vametco is selling as much Vanadium as we think then see the independently audited shipping logs here:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/nitrovan-shipments-to-the-us-183

Please let me know if you want more information about Vanadium Flow Batteries as that is a whole other subject.

Cash in bank >50 Million USD

Easily worked out 3750 tonnes annual production at average sale price of 65 USD/Kg with all in production costs of 23 USD/Kg leaves 42 USD/Kg gross profit before royalties and taxes x 59.1% = 95 Million USD - 28% for royalties and tax = 68.5 Million USD - minus some cost for Phase 1 and 2 expansion, Phase 3 underway as we speak.

What other information do you need ?

Captain_Al - no sorry I have other work commitments, and to be honest there is little that is discussed there that is of public interest.

At 3pm I make it 2.16m Buys vs 1.43m Sells - so a trade imbalance of c. 740k to the Buys and that is despite round number sells of 100,150,200,200,200K

Either there is a very big sell that has already happened that is yet to be reported or they are edging the Bid up trying to get the 750K ish shares that they need.

I make it that the amount bought in from share sells to us (Buys) is 586K sterling whilst that they have had to spend on buying shares from us (Sells) is 384K sterling.

Thus they have 202K sterling to buy something like 738K shares - I make that they could spend up to 27.36p on buying those shares and still be in profit.

Spppoooky how do you do it knuttie ?

Yep I think we could consider an update a little overdue.

knuttie - that was over 3 months ago:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-blog-1/post/analyst-watch-232

Dav3J no I believe that the assessment date is 4 weeks before the review effective date (i.e. the date on which any changes go live) and that effective date is listed as being september. I believe that someone found a reference that stated exactly when in september that the 27th Aug was the Monday 4 weeks before this.

Wikipedia also confirms that the assessment date is at the end of august https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_AIM_100_Index

Dav3J - I don't get you, high noon is yet to arrive and it is only 3 weeks away

The only qualification for doing any of that is to be able to hold a ruler.

Fortunately bonkers99 has blocked me on twitter so I am not forced to wade through this nonsense.

Dav3J - indeed the date is estimated as 27th Aug as explained here:-

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/aim-100-entry-sept-2018

Dav3J - that of course is only those companies already in the AIM100 - we have to consider that there may be other companies like ourselves that are outside the AIM100 at present that could be promoted along with us, hence using the wider list that BP suggested. Unfortunately that list was created by a paid for software package - we need to find a free online system that shows AIM companies ordered by Market cap. Then we can go through it to rule out those that for some reason appear to not be eligible for inclusion in the AIM100

Razoshultz, every discharge reduces the power and energy capacity by a little bit. The degradation is faster if you deep discharge below 20%, but there is still degradation every time you discharge even a little bit.

No I was working on it.

Beingpatient posted this listed of AIM companies 70-90 by Market cap:

TM17
IGR
MUL
MAB1
WINE
EAH
ATYM
CAM
BMK
KETL
BXP
PAM
STAF
TEF
SAA
CDM
DALR
CTH
RNWH
ABBY
JOUL

However BXP looks incorrect and there is quite a lot of these that are not in the AIM100 despite apparently having sufficient Mcap at the last assessment date to make it in so I wonder if some of them are not permitted in the AIM100 due to failing certain tests, eg liquidity etc.

If anyone wishes to work with me on this let me know.

yep it was something like 8.5% - I couldn't find any specific reason for it, just reality kicking in perhaps