Member Info for baldmark

How can it be anything other than bad news? Surely it means that the company either cannot, or chooses not to, publish accounts when due for a period which has already completed.

The only explanations I can thing of that is that they are either incompetent, unable to make a going concern statement, or up to something crooked which the auditor won't sign off on.

Can anyone come up with another explanation?

Hopefully not an issue with the going concern statement :(

I'm holding too. I'd even consider a top-up if I had any spare cash. However I'm still a concerned what else they have mis-valued. It doesn't inspire confidence.

While I agree a 50% discount is probably excessive, I'm not expecting to get anything close to the stated NAV in the fire sale which now seems inevitable.

Could today's screw up on the valuation make a failed continuation vote and wind up more likely? (On the other hand the wind up value is less certain based on this.)

I really thought it might have stayed above 50p, in which case the warrants would have provided the funding needed in the short turn. Unfortunately this doesn't look like it's going to happen. Therefore in AIM logic: More orders equals need for funding.

Down we go again :(

Not selling (I know from experience I'm a rubbish trader.) but I certainly won't be looking for something to sell so I can top up yet.

What do you suggest he does NOW to improve the share price. The, presumably Chinese, non-binding bidders in the data room can't be rushed. One of them either makes an offer that is acceptable to JM or they don't.

Nobody seems keen to invest in sub-scale explorers/developers a the moment. Not just Condor.

I suspect any plan b (e.g. JM and friends take it private as a massive discount and then hire someone who can build a mine) is likely to be far worse for small shareholders.

@Poppyseed, Thanks for your reply. I hadn't considered your alternative option 2. That would certainly speed things up. I hope you're right on 3 & 4.

Good luck with your punt.

I'm not sure that the shareholders at the time of any payment will have much crossover with the shareholders at the record date. I can't imagine I was alone in selling when the shares went ex-prefs. (I'm unclear as to the difference between a cash shell, a SPAC, and "an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is". Because I don't understand it, I'm out. Possibly my loss.) I would also expect more shareholders to leave once the RTO occurs and the new business is trading at whatever value the market assigns to it.

Not much I can do now, but as far as I can see the payout on the prefs depends of 4 things.

1. The claim being decided in favour of IMM.

2. AAG being able to recover the money from Govt on Mozambique.

3. AAG paying the money to PFP.

4. PFP paying the money to the holders at the record date.

IMO 1 and 2 are quite likely eventually, although 5 years seems optimistic. However I'm trying to get a handle on the probabilities of 3 and 4. I was hoping that someone with more legal knowledge than me might be able to shed some light on this.

Does anyone know if the owners of PFP at the time of any award being received are under any LEGAL obligation to hand it over to the holders at the date given in the timetable? (Assuming of course that they are competent to determine them and that their custodians at the record date are willing and and competent to forward the payments to clients who may well have moved by the payment date.)

11.5% discount on SONG's NAV would give 132p per share. Let's see how close it gets.

Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/infrastructure-trusts-buy-sell-interest-rates-dividends/

"We advise readers to hold on to their infrastructure trusts. For new money, our pick would be International Public Partnerships.

Questor says: buy

Ticker: INPP

Share price at close: 128.8p"

@Danger_Man, As I see it, as with all issues which are of no interest to the majority of the US voters, it's going to be down to how much influence various lobbies are willing and able to exert. Clearly we still have the strong headwinds of the Anti-Colonialism movement (i.e. to erase the influence and culture of the former colonial powers), the natural desire not to kick (or allow a vasal to kick) a hornets nest in their own back yard and, possibly, the desire of the US oil producers to limit competition. However Argentine becoming a paid up "bad guy" has got to help.

What we really need, of course, is a US partner.

@40thStreetBlack. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. In my understanding "international law" is whatever the international (i.e. US or might as well be US) elite say it is. What the population of the Falkland Islands, Britain or anywhere else want is irrelevant. They can bankrupt us any time they choose. Russia may fight, Britain wouldn't. Co-operative local politicians who lose office can always be offered some international role so they keep their snouts in the trough.

I'm not saying that we should follow Russia. Life in the cage is far more comfortable. I'm just aware that it's there. If the US administration doesn't want Sealion to happen, it won't happen.

Good find. Love the tie.

I think he was pretty clear that he was primarily focusing on US interests and the fact that the Soviets were backing the Argentinians. Also, as he stated, probably truthfully, he's not keen on "the settlement of claimants' property disputes by the use of force".

Applying economic/political pressure to persuade the British to reach a negotiated settlement with the Argentines over sovereignty and mineral resources which suits the current US agenda doesn't count as use of force. Hopefully, however, the fact that Argentina has signed up to the current Axis of Evil will align perceived US interest more with British sovereignty.

Does anyone else see the recent BRICS summit as positive for Sealion eventually going ahead:

1. Saudi joining reduces the available non-BRICS oil, making it more imperative to develop western controlled oil reserves. i.e. worth spending more political capital fighting the green lobby.

2. Argentina joining makes it less likely that America will decide to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina, however much Biden and the Democrats hate Britain.

One possible reason for the lack of buying could be that a lot of small investors (myself included) hold, or will be looking to hold in an ISA. The fact that the preference shares will be untradable means that at present it would be a bad idea to buy the cum-preference-share shares in an ISA since the preferences will be transferred out of the ISA which both wastes ISA allowance and is complicated from a tax point of view if the claim finally succeeds.

The market cap is too small, the liquidity too low and the bet too binary to be of interest to institutions so you're limited to a small pool of individuals who fancy gambling a few K unwrapped.

"buy now you are in both , soon you are only in the RTO"

Aren't the new preference shares likely to be exchange tradable too? If so, after the split you should be able to invest in either or both depending on which you feel will be more profitable.

"Paid" deramper. How? I assumed he was short, but with his own money. i.e. talking his own book which, let's face it, a lot of people are prone to. Do you know differently?

I'm sure I read somewhere (I think it was an LSE board for another share that Amati were dumping, having held from a much higher price) that Amati have limits on how much they can hold in shares with market cap under £50m. I'm not sure if this applies to the VCT though.

I seem to recall there was some plan to merge with a graphene operation in India, which was being presented as a done deal when the price was around a pound, however the Indian regulators blocked this.