Member Info for archways

Barclays are now showing the correct valuations.

I wish you all a very Happy Christmas and good health for the New Year. I had my first covid vaccine on Monday - it was very well organised and I have had no side effects at all.

Thank you to all those who continue to give their expert advice to us - it is very much appreciated.

Could it be that the 7,099,981 shares involved in the ut were the number required by the market makers to satisfy the fund's order, and that the fund's total purchase has yet to be revealed?

CoinCollector at 12.06 - I wouldn't want those reading this board to be misled by your words "Technically if you buy a car, or a watch, or a sandwich, and then sell it for a massive profit at a later date, it is potentially subject to CGT".
Cars and watches have moving parts and are considered to be likely to wear out and depreciate in value. As such they are exempt from CGT because buyers would be likely to lose money and could claim a loss for CGT purposes. I believe that this is the law even in the case of collectable cars and watches which potentially could go up in value. Collectable objects such as ornaments, paintings, books etc are also exempt from CGT if they have been bought for less than £6,000 each (unless a few items which were originally issued as a complete set were bought by the same person for more than £6,000 in total, in which case each item would be potentially subject to CGT). I suspect that if you pay £6,000 or more for a coin which is not legal tender it is potentially subject to CGT if you sell it at a profit, but non-legal tender coins which are bought for less than £6,000 each are exempt from CGT. Perhaps you could confirm that for me.
As always posters should DYOR to ensure that my comments are 100% accurate - Gov.uk re CGT would be a good starting point.

I would think that the answer to that question is no, but I recommend that you check with someone who is experienced in company law. If a claim is made I think that it would be a class action against Sirius and/or Anglo American, and I would have thought that all of the affected shareholders would benefit from a successful case, not just those who have signed up to the Claim Group, and lawyers would instruct the various nominee companies to disclose who were the beneficial owners of shares which were, for example, bought in the rights issue and open offer, so that everyone receives their fair share of the proceeds of the claim after the legal costs have been deducted.
There is, of course, no certainty that a claim will be made. Much will depend on the strength of the evidence.

Sorry, I should have said info@sharesoc.org

Haus - yes, I am sure that you can still join in. Go to info@sharesoc.com
jonesrichard - I am almost certain that it was you who drew my attention to Greatland Gold, and I thank you for that. I put the proceeds of my Sirius shares into Greatland, and have more than recouped my loss.
I am sure that anyone who put money into Sirius at the time of the rights issue and open offer (in May 2019?) at 15p per share will be interested in the Sirius Claim Group's efforts to bring a case against Sirius and Anglo American, and it does not matter that the shares were sold before the 5.5p per share offer went through - the claim would be for 15p per share less the actual proceeds. That is not to say that the Claim Group is not looking at other possible grounds for a case, but I am just answering jonesrichards' question.

Everything on the exploration/mining front was very promising, but I was pleased to hear that following pressure from institutions the Board decided to withdraw Resolution 5. If it had been passed the Board could have issued 750 million new shares without giving the existing shareholders the right to buy their pro rata share. No doubt we can trust the Board implicitly, but if it did decide to issue those shares, and we didn't like the way in which it was going to be done, there wouldn't have been anything we could have done about it. The chairman said that discussions will be held with the institutions, and it will be interesting to see whether this resolution is resurrected in future.
After the AGM I took the opportunity to use feedback to ask why it is that an RNS re the number of new shares issued during November in connection with the exercise of options or warrants had not yet been issued. I think that companies have an obligation to do this at the beginning of each month, but Greatland has not done it in December. I hope that this is just an oversight and we shall not have any surprises when the RNS appears. The Board has been entitled to issue 750 million new shares since Resolution 5 was passed at the 2019 AGM, but that entitlement expired last night. I am not implying that any of these 750 million shares have been issued since the end of October, but an RNS at the beginning of December would have given us the facts.

Hi Gertfrobe - yes, I am well thank you. I have had two CT scans and an ECG since March - my optician thought that I had had a mini-stroke, but it looks as though I only had a very small blood clot which caused a 30 second loss of vision in one eye, and on another occasion I bled for a few hours and my doctor suspected kidney or bladder cancer but again it looks as though I had had a blood clot so I am now taking some tablets. I have had three cancer episodes in the last ten years, all independent of each other (prostate, liver and lung) so it would not have been a surprise to learn that I had acquired another cancer - I seem to be susceptible to it - but apart from being a bit short of breath through having only one and a half lungs I am fine. Sorry about the lengthy report but you did ask, and it would have been easy to have said that I was okay, but that would not have been a fair summary of the past nine months.
I have more than recouped my loss in Sirius. I put the proceeds into Greatland Gold on 31st March at 4.58p, and they are now 32p. On 31st May some Greatland posters were giving us their share price targets for five years from then, so I said that at the age of 81 my target was just to live for another five years to see what Greatland could become. That remains my target!
I hope that you too are well.

Hi Gertfrobe. A couple of posters discussed Aberfan on the Greatland Gold board this afternoon. One was involved in the reshaping of the tips and the other's father was involved with the rescue operation. I get the impression that their conversation will continue. I just wondered whether you might like to join in. You and I met at the final Sirius meeting in London.

I wonder why we haven't yet seen the monthly RNS re issues of shares following the exercise of option rights.

laallee - in October 2019 Scotman said that Danaman was AlanG.

dodgemeister at 10.05 - this discussion started at about 1pm last Saturday when speedymeadie said that the Board were seeking approval to issue £750,000 of shares.
I pointed out that the Board are seeking permission to issue shares with a nominal value (not a market value) of £750,000, and the nominal value of a Greatland share is £0.001. This means that the Board are seeking permission to issue 750 million shares without giving the existing shareholders any opportunity to apply for them, and at the then current market value of 22.5p 750 million shares were worth £168.75 million, a not inconsiderable sum.
I was not suggesting anything. I was pointing out to speedymeadie that he had misinterpreted the wording of resolutions 4 and 5.

loftmonkey57 - it doesn't say pre-exemption rights, it says pre-emption rights. Pre-emption rights mean that if a company arranges, for example, a rights issue, then all of the shareholders are entitled to the opportunity to take up new shares pro rata to their existing shareholding, so if a shareholder holds say 1% of the issued shares before the rights issue he/she can buy 1% of the new shares if he/she wishes, thereby maintaining a 1% share of the company.
Resolutions 4 and 5, if passed, would give the Board permission to issue up to 750 million new shares to whomever they want at whatever price they want, and if 750 million new shares were issued to one person/company he/she/it would then hold about 15% of the total issued capital of Greatland, and there is nothing that we can do about that. We must have faith in GH and CB continuing to do everything in the best interests of the existing shareholders.

daveri007 - I have realised my mistake and have just logged in to correct it, but well done for noticing it. Newcrest will in time almost certainly own 70% of Havieron (not Greatland), and at that stage they have an option, but not an obligation, to buy a further 5% at "fair market value". They may, or may not, do that.
In addition to that what is to stop Newcrest saying to GH and CB that they would like to subscribe for 750 million new shares in Greatland at current market value or at a small discount? This would enable Newcrest to (a) benefit to some extent from any successful development of Greatland's other tenements without having to make an offer for the whole of Greatland, and (b) tend to put off Rio or any other competitor from making an offer for the whole of Greatland.
I don't expect this to happen, but if it does don't say that you haven't been warned.
I accept that similar resolutions were passed at the 2019 AGM, but I wasn't a shareholder at that time so they are new to me.

There is an article in today's Mail on Sunday which is relevant. It says that Richard Wilson, chief executive of investment platform Interactive Investor is lobbying the industry body Pimfa, the Law Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority to reform the rules. He said "It is nailed-on wrong that other shareholders can put more money in at a cheaper price and dilute the value of retail investors' holdings without their consent".
The permission to dis-apply pre-emption rights on 750 million new shares COULD result in an increase of 18% in the share capital of Greatland, giving the recipient about 15% of the increased capital. Probably all of us have the utmost faith in GH and CB and relations with Newcrest, but if Newcrest happened to already own 70% of Greatland's shares it would be possible for GH and CB to allow them to increase their holding to around 85% by being allotted these 750 million new shares at a discount to the market price at that time.
I am NOT saying that this will happen - I am merely saying that you will not be able to object if resolutions 4 and 5 are passed and such an event occurs. 750,000 shares would not be a problem, but 750 million shares could be.

I am not going to spend any more time on this matter.
The document mentions in at least two places "an aggregate nominal value of £750,000" (or words to that effect). The nominal value is £0.001. £750,000 of shares at £0.001 = 750 million shares. If they were issued at the current market value of 22.5p they would be worth £168.75 million. If they were issued at 20p they would be worth £150 million. Nowhere near the £750,000 that GGPThruandtru claims. End of.

GGPThruandtru - you still don't seem to accept that I am talking about 750 million new shares which represent about 18% of the current fully diluted share capital. This is a huge block of new shares which COULD be issued by the Board if resolutions 4 and 5 are passed. You are talking about a mere £750K's worth! I am talking about £168.75 million worth. I repeat, I am not saying that the Board WILL issue those new shares to people other than the existing shareholders, but they are asking for our permission to do so if they so wish.

GGPThruandtru at 19.27 - it is tru (pun intended) that nowhere does it say anything about 0.01p per share, but in note 10 to the Notes to the Notice of the AGM it states that the nominal value of each Greatland share is £0.001. We are therefore definitely talking about 750 million new shares which have a market value of about £168.75 million, not your figure of £750K's worth.

the doors - no, I think that 20% is more accurate than 2%. We use 4.2 billion as the current fully diluted number of shares, so 750 million new shares would represent an addition of about 18%.
Resolution 5 on the Form of Proxy says "dis-apply pre-emption rights". Now if I remember correctly pre-emption rights mean that new shares must be offered to existing shareholders pro rata to their holdings, so if the resolution is passed the Board has the right to issue up to a maximum of 750 million new shares to people who are not existing shareholders.
I am not inferring that the Board intends to do that, but it would have our consent to do it if resolution 5 is passed at the AGM.

speedymeadie - resolutions 4 and 5 relate to permission to issue shares to a nominal value of £750,000, not a market value of £750,000. The nominal value of Greatland shares is shown further down the notice of the meeting to be £0.001, which looks like one thousandth of £1 each. That means that the Board is seeking approval for the issue of 750 million shares which, at their present value of 22.5p, is a market value of £168.75 million, a not insignificant sum. E&OE