Member Info for bluerill

What the hell does any of that even mean? Again

Go pound sand, you complete non-entity

Freudian slip. I meant 'IF he closes on a transaction', though the odds of such have objectively improved based on the company's recent successes in court, the results of which some here not only got completely wrong, but have still not acknowledged their 100% track record of ignomy in doing so, nor apologised for the exigent predictions for the company that followed each and every time.

So I reckon I have plenty of mulligans in reserve in this particular scrap with Elmer Fudd.

Red - I'd suggest you'd have better luck advising him to stop and grow another head....

The 'definition of insanity' rules clearly apply now and should necessarily be invoked from here on when/if someone decides to engage with 2Heads, particularly as SLE's prospects continue to improve and Fanning finally closes in on a transaction. That's when engaging with this particular snowflake could prove even more harrowing.

I think the formal diagnosis for you is 'dead, defunct, Kaput.' Primitive, near-illiterate prose, but it'll do.

Before you go though, tell me again how I lost 'thousands and thousands of pounds' for an untold number of nameless, faceless shareholders by with my near perfect record of correcting yours and other's countless dopey errors on everything from corporate finance to corporate law to accounting basics, as well as your endless boneheaded declarations of imminent doom for the company that you would then declare, over and over and over and over and over again (and over again), even though the company's shares were suspended or de-listed THE ENTIRE TIME. That's my favourite.

Smile

you.could.not.make.it.up.

Someone make sure and file that last post somewhere safe. We may need it for the medical authorities of course, but mainly, I'm certain that without hard evidence, within a couple weeks there is no way on earth anyone will believe someone actually posted it in the first place. It'll take on mythical status: the AI-generated post shared by someone - apparently living, but who knows these days - who edited themselves into the results - evidently without irony, but who knows these days - as a noteworthy example of someone providing information of unimpeachable provenance.

Time stamp it, save it, print a hard copy and file it under 'This Really Happened'. Otherwise, no one will ever believe you.

From the other board. sums it up today's RNS nicely:

Certainly not the most exciting RNS from a financial guidance standpoint, but this is clearly the central excitement here:

'...· Eco Buildings' advanced GFRG construction technology coupled with a systemised buildings delivery aligned with Passivhaus requirements supporting accelerated deployment opportunities in the UK market....'

Getting Passivhaus certification for Eco product would likely provide an expedited, regulatory-light entry into the normally regulation-heavy, but highly prospective public sector and environmentally demanding ends of the market, and these new partners are probably experts in that niche. In other words, this may give ECOB a chance to go from a standing start to a full-on penetration of the UK market almost overnight.

Let's hope we hear a lot more on this new initiative in the weeks to come.

Oh poo, AMGD. I was almost finished with a vulgar but hilarious post about how he posts mindless blah, blah on an anonymous social site because it gets him, um, 'excited' and then he waits for me to fire off some hissy fit directed at his dopey claim that I somehow cost punters money during a period when the shares were either suspended or de-listed - and thus never once traded - so that he can achieve 'release'. But then you had to go and post that perfectly reasonable message, treating the guy like any other normal human being with anger issues, albeit one whose hand you had to stroke ever so gently lest he get too excited, and spoil my zen.

Killjoy

"....It is a decent price but someone got to lock in at 12p and furthermore got issued a whole load of warrants additionally. We shouldn't be needing to give any of these entitlements away given the magnitude of Chile. Need to drive harder bargains...."

I think I know what you are trying to say, BoD, but that is not accurate. First off, this was essentially a bought deal, with a tight book of HNWs and small instos, many of whom are legacy shareholders. No one was/is able to 'lock in' anything. There was just a 1/2 warrant per share issued in the first place (representing only around another 9m shares) and, more importantly, the strike price is at 22p and time value of 2 years, nearly a 100% premium to the placement price. meaning the mathematical value of the warrant sweetener was not that significant.

Q.E.D.

It's pointless trying to deal with single-cell organisms; time to move on and prepare for valuing the company when and if Fanning completes a transaction.

With respect, you guys are missing the most important - and simplest - development here: the immediate impact of the Elevra sale on the gaming out of the bid process; ie, 1. the downside for shareholders (especially relevant for investors buying now over legacy shareholders) of the bid failing - which it is still likely to do imo, at least at the current 18.8p - has fallen away as you now have a willing, deep-pocketed partner and 2. the Chinese are well aware of the first point(s) and are therefore (much) more likely to bump and 3. specialist hedge funds will be thinking along the lines of 1. and 2. (fwiw, we definitely thought we saw some buying by funds near the end of Friday's session, as I had thought likely) and I believe will now see building a decent stake - and we know there are some blocks around that can be bid - and then going public formally with their intention of not accepting the current bid, making a bump even more likely.

The risk? The Chinese somehow withdraw their bid for Elevra's stake?!? Even if they could do that, with the enormous bargain that we all agree they're getting, is that even a tiny risk relative to the minor cost of bumping the bid to say,the 22p-25p range to insure success? I think not....

Claude just came back after a further prompt:

"....and don't forget shamelessness. Being devoid of shame, the ability to suffer near-ritual humiliation and just pop back up within days of the last hot mess, with yet another boneheaded attack, spewing a new bunch of flaccid insults at his tormentors, as if none of the previous cringe-bait every happened, is absolutely elemental to the species...."

Huh. And here I was thinking that this particular muppet was uniquely hopeless. Thanks, Claude

So, translation: even better than I set out, but also demonstrates - once again - how dangerous Google Alerts can be in the hands of a raging mediocrity who thinks because he's been posting banalities on a bunch of different companies for 5 minutes, that he's Warren Buffett. And just in case no one notices that he's once again run right off the cliff trying to outsmart the roadrunner, he titles his thread 'Goodbye, San Leon'. No, you could not make it up.

So, after yet another needless shtshow, another spectacular display of investment-naivete-meets-unearned-snark, will we finally see a chastened attitude out of this particular gadfly where he tries to self-soothe his bitterness perhaps by reading the re-admission document to try and understand just a little why SLE is in a stronger position than he realises? And in the process, maybe begin to try and figure out why he takes such glee in announcing its fake-demise constantly? Maybe even throw in an apology for needlessly misleading/frightening shareholders? Again?

Just did an quick AI search on that one. Came back: "Yeah, right. lol. The misinformation, the exigent conclusions based on links to obscure websites, ignoring proper DD because of an obvious lack of fluency in Corporate Law or Finance or experience in stock markets generally, is not a bug, its the feature of posters like these. All they look for is to trigger others and create what they believe is some kind of elevated status for themselves despite the anonymous backwater nature of financial chatboards like LSE..."

Clever fella that Claude.

Dear god, not again.

Busy life atm, but I'll bottom-line it for everyone, bar one little fella out there: Absolutely nothing has changed. SLE continues to pursue a solution to this seemingly endless process, unencumbered by ANY wind-up orders, especially and particularly, including the one from Brightwater. I reckon the parties were back in court last week on a technicality and the judge's original stay on SLE's injunction was RE-PRINTED and then picked up by a couple on-line sources. That's it. As Red said, we have long since moved on this and nothing changed last week.

I will be back soon I hope with a longer look at developments in the larger SLE ecosystem, which may include parties like bw getting paid by their true debtors (eg, Eroton), and especially a reflection on some needed counter-factuals like, Why have we not heard anything from SLE's significant creditors, like Toscafund or its major Nigerian bank lender(s)? Hint: because the former remains a strong supporter and the latter's loans to SLE are CURRENT.

Finally, I'll leave this for one special contributor out there who had the shame center of his brain removed when his parents panicked that he might not make it out of the playgrounds of his youth alive: If nothing else, when you're putting yourself out there, learn to spell 'LOSER' correctly. Otherwise, its a tell.

EEA - you're making a basic error, which in fairness is a common one here: if you buy and hold there is absolutely no guarantee 'You can get 18.8p minimum for holding the stock...'

While I'm absolutely a buyer at these levels as I think the return profile is definitely positively skewed over 6 months, there are no assurances here. In fact, at the moment, there is some rationale to the discount in the market; namely that the Scheme requires 75% approval by shareholders voting. At the moment, if the vote were held today, despite Assore's 'support', it is very unlikely management would get anywhere near that level of support. As a result, without another bidder emerging, management's position would be compromised and the share price would likely fall.

As I implied, I concede this is very low probability (and I am quite bullish at these levels), but its certainly not zero, and at this point, Keith's credibility is so low, I fancy the market could easily end up exaggerating the risk of the entire bid process imploding at some stage over the next couple months as well.

And as (sadly) predicted, 'they' did it again. I've been doing this a very very long time and I've never seen such an obvious, determined effort at manipulation, though I admit I haven't settled on a satisfactory explanation.

As I mentioned, for me, this is a far more important area to investigate/obsess over than disclosure trivia. But that's just one man's view

Oscar - I've read your posts on this subject. You may be right on the most technical of technicalities, but for all practical purposes, this has already been reviewed by advisors and the FCA, and everyone's satisfied that the information already released was sufficient. The rest is - no offense, truly - just an exercise in pedantry.

Will be to watch how the shares trade in the final 45 minutes today. Continued strength in equity markets has finally nudged us back above par vs what seems like a daily torture chamber of late of aggressive - some might call it coordinated - pressure on the share price in the final section of the day's trading, often resulting in a close well below the day's VWAP, even below the day's closing spread. Some bigger holders are convinced of an active conspiracy to aid one or more accumulators. If so, a break above key levels could see the share price hitting an upward air pocket causing a rapid move to the 135-150p range.

Time to put this (minor) issue to bed once and for all: the sale and resulting holding for Cascade was disclosed in an earlier release from the Company, so a TR-1 was not and is not required. I always believed this was the case, but I confirmed it with someone close to the company. There's no rules breach

The thinking of the typical risk arb guy is now how we need to think as well. Buying at the moment provides the buyer a near-15% upside to the mooted bid of 18.7p already on the table, sooooo, this theoretical buyer will need to compare the upside of that 15% PLUS (the probability of a higher bid X projected upside of a higher bid) VERSUS the (projected downside should no other bidders emerge X the probability of the current bid failing to get 75% approval).

This is, early on, what is playing out in the market. A price nearly 3p below the bid on the table can be fairly interpreted to mean that - I admit, its early doors! - the marginal investor is saying the likelihood of a competitive bid process is low and the current bid on the table will fail leading to some kind of difficult decision by the board. I concede as well however, that there is a general, additional factor of extreme mistrust in the Board in this market price - a kind of X-factor - which is difficult to incorporate in my theory.