Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
You seem a bit rattled Koobz?
‘companies do not normally get rerated on financial engineering’
As has been explored quite exhaustively. This hasn’t been a purely financial exercise. Sellers have been cleared out via the tender and so in essence it’s a bit of a ‘reset’ in terms of sentiment and the sorts of holders left holding. Price action no surprise viewed through this lens and yet it still seems to be eluding some…
I think the only things that’ll invite selling pressure is a lengthy period of no news or bad news. But the price will be at least sustained for the next 3 months through Nano buying alone…
I don’t see a big bounce on fresh air. The ceiling will be 24p until we get material news. But equally, I don’t see where the sellers are going to be to drive this to 16/17p in the near term. Current holders are likely to have sticky hands and there’s cash to hoover up circa 15million shares…
Thing is where do you see selling pressure coming from? This stock doesn’t typically produce volume that day traders would enjoy, any IIs looking to sell have probably took their opportunity during the tender.
This could take months to drift and even if it does, there are deep pockets buying shares.
‘Ok let’s focus on the value of the organic business . A few weeks ago it was nothing ..now its £20m with no new news.Amazing isn’t it’
Not really that amazing Kooba. Those that wanted out got their exit via the tender. That then leaves those that didn’t. So it stands to reason the price is stable. A share price isn’t solely a function of its mcap and you’ve misjudged how it’s panned out. It was a silly assumption to think Nano as a business would continue to be worth £0 and it looks like a few others have become casualties to this misplaced assumption.
You may recall Lord putting some maths on what the Mcap should be as reasoning for why he sold. The sheer mechanics of the tender are just one part of this equation. The other part of the equation is the behaviour and sentiment of those left holding, and if those left holding turned down 24p, it makes no logical sense that a lower SP will tempt people to part with their shares. Not for a few months at least.
Post tender, they will be in very sticky hands and liquidity will be low. I don’t see 16/17p regardless of the wishful thinking of some based on current mcap etc. it might have seemed a tidy little trade at the time, but it crucially discounts those left holding, who are likely to be hardened holders waiting for the long game to play out. Not exactly fertile ground for a big swing down.
Twogood. Why would they be in hot water? It’s not for the company to tell you what to do with your money. The tender was 24p take it or leave it, to each their own.
You’re creating drama where none exists.
It’s interesting they’re buying shares now. I would’ve thought it would be if the price was struggling. Do they see news on the horizon I wonder?
I think regardless of what it does in the near term, those holders who are playing traders thinking some free shares might come their way are taking a pretty big risk if you ask me.
If someone says they are going to punch you in the face tomorrow. You don’t sit and wait for the punch to land.
Much in the same way, with news of the tender now out, expect any price adjustments to happen now, I’d suggest…
‘The action happens tomorrow in my opinion when the shares are bought and cancelled. I don't expect any significant buy backs to happen today at 20.6p when tomorrow they can be bought at possibly 17p or lower.‘
Doesn’t make much sense. The news is out so regardless of the mechanics of the tender, the market will adjust to, and price in, the likely value it perceives the company to have now, not tomorrow.
Most brokers deadlines have since gone.
Kooba, your last comment isn’t coming close to a fair representation of what I said. Another straw man. I have no desire to get into a debate on semantics as that’ll get nobody anywhere.
And as it happens it’s curious you keep taking general comments as a personal slight on you. Despite your protestations it’s quite telling you recognise yourself in some of the criticisms being levelled at the general tone of the BB.
I’ll give you the opportunity of having the last word, as folks of your ilk tend do, as I won’t be engaging in any further posts on this.
You’ve created a bit of a straw man calling it blind faith, my point was that I didn’t see what BT bashing based on his T shirt and his oil analogy was really adding to discussion. That’s not questioning or critique, that’s just bad blooded whinging and there’s been a bit too much of that on here lately.
I still stand by my point that if you decide to hold then you need to accept the current situation for what it is and focus on what’s next. All the hand wringing is a bit overdone and if investors feel as jittery about BT as they’re making out here then it’s perhaps best to cut one’s losses and move on…
Do feel that NGR is ploughing a lonely furrow in terms of trying to keep discussion based on fact rather than gripes and moans. As much as I’m disappointed with the whole Samsung saga, I made a decision (as all holders would have done, one way or another) and as my decision was to hold, I don’t see that I have a right to keep hating BT for what’s passed. I’ve decided to wait and see.
So I feel that whilst we are in a ‘wait and see’ window… By all means we can speculate and discuss devlopment. But I’m really not sure what all this BT bashing is going to achieve, and feel we could all do without that. He’s the CEO of the company we’re invested in. Sure, a lot to prove, but a fairly convincing investor pres and some exciting developments to come in my view.
Some of the comments aimed at him recently are a bit OTT, and wide of the mark anyways.
I found the BT comment about dealing direct with end users as a bit curious considering that’s how it went with both Samsung and Apple. What’re people’s thoughts on this, and taking BT’s comments on board, which semi conductor firms could/should nano be approaching?
I’ve had a listen. I think the questions that were put to BT were excellent, so a well done and thanks to fellow shareholders from me on that front.
I still don’t like his tone around the buyback and the hit he’s implicitly expecting long term holders to take. There was a lot of wilful ignorance in stating facts on this topic which irked me.
That said…Generally I think BT handled the questions pretty well. There seems to be a lot of confidence in the relationship with STM but I can understand his guarded tone and wanting to put a lid on any overconfidence there.
I also picked up a real clarity of thought in terms of their offering and their place within the supply chain and the wider market. The sector seems to be growing but it remains to be seen how much market share Nano can grab, and how well integrated into STM’s plans we can get ourselves…
Trouble a bit of an unfair response to someone who took the time to clarify a point that was at the centre of much discussion, regardless of your differences with said poster.
I always felt that PR was something we needed to focus on and invest in. The website is still not up to scratch really. If the company is going to be a bit more bullish in its outward facing approach and trying to drum up business I’m all for it,
Twogood
I would say LOAM using this as a vehicle to completely exit is very unlikely, if they have been acting in concert with the upper echelons of this company as many suggest. The relationship has been too lucrative for them to give it up. I would actually be glad to see LOAM disappear but I don’t see it happening.
I would say it’s equally unlikely that they will use the tender as a massive trade. I’m not saying they won’t trade it but there’s no way they will pick up circa 40% of their holding without volumes being a dead giveaway and the SP rising as a result.
As I’ve said before something no one has thought about will probably come to pass.