The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
thankyou feeks, I really thought that was self-evident but it obviously isn't and needs articulating. If you have any background in money management, especially familiarity with large, hedge-fund-like institutions like the Lombard fund(s) that hold nano, then you understand that 'the fact that Lombard are selling' is simply not the only 'fact' available to us. Their patient, liquidity-available selling over a long period, with minimal price impact, as well as the recent price action and even conversations with market professionals, are also very much part of the fact pattern, and that fact pattern does NOT point to a bearish, get-me-out-yesterday holder, but rather a still constructive shareholder who is trying to mitigate its exposures in an increasingly hostile small cap market where they are the only visible institutional holder (an environment by the way, which has shown some early signs over here of being somewhat less hostile so far this year, as small(er) caps have started the year strongly with some evidence of fresh capital coming back to the market).
'......There is no evidence that LOAM are "re-balancing", "risk reducing" or that they need the money for anything else. All we know is that are selling. I don't see how that can be interpreted as implying anything other than the mCap exceeded their valuations......' Well then, it's a good thing I was here to explain it to you. You can bookend it with your lesson on how markets operate in UK small caps....
Gigawhatever - There is no evidence that Lombard 'understood' anything, as you are so fond of asserting as fact. In fact, their selling has been ongoing from the summer and has all the hallmarks of a risk reduction exercise based on the lack of other institutional investors in this name, and has been focused over that entire time on days where liquidity is high, likely in order to minimise the share price impact (that would explain why they seem to have accelerated their selling recently where daily turnover has jumped materially for obvious reasons). In my opinion, the market is telling us that that process would appear to be ending/has ended as the share price has stabilised and is carefully starting to recover (obviously, we will have to wait for the next few sessions to confirm no more Lombard disclosures and then the price action continues to recover). The result of course, is that Lombard will be left - still - with a very large position indeed. This is simply not the behaviour, over time, of a large shareholder who 'understands' something sinister as you so frivolously assert without evidence, but the rational behaviour of one who is trying to risk-adjust for a miserable market for UK small caps, while still maintaining a very bullish outlook on a still very significant holding.
Well HH, at this share price, it would be plenty transformational, and frankly, that's all I care about right now. And meantime, go easy on the exclamation points. You're going to burst something
That's meaningless, what was it again.....? oh yeah: twaddle. The people who determine the price of Nano work at firms like Peel Hunt, etc., market makers all. Meantime, that's it for this nonsense. Everyone else, look for Lombards to make another disclosure or 2, but the market is telling us they are likely done - or close to done - for now.
sorry, giga, that's not at all correct. For mid-sized/smaller names, the market makers/brokers are still the most important traders in Pantheon in determining the market price. The fact that it trades on SETs is essentially irrelevant
Prepare for a bit more bullishness as I completely disagree with Intrusive and flyinghigher: Today's price action was far different than any other session since the bombshell last Monday. By mid-afternoon, market makers were clearly less frantic when they were getting hit in shares and a instead - finally! - an effort to find form a bottom was evident, and of course we closed unchanged after having flirted with a gain on the day. While I agree Lombard was likely in the market selling a bit more today, I reckon today's price action - particularly given the fact that LO has been such a massive presence on the sell side for such a long period, but of course particularly aggressive in this past week, and market professionals are going to have a better idea about a major seller's continued (or not) activity than any of us - is likely consistent with Lombard being at or near finished. Expect therefore a position reduction RNS tomorrow but perhaps no more for a while, in my opinion.
HH - assuming the more conservative $, given that we can further assume such a settlement (or thereabouts) would involve the lower end percentage for the funder, then we're still talking about a per share settlement amount at or above the current share price. That's precise enough for me
2 words: 'transformational' and 'successful'. The former of course has been used in multiple public statements to the market , most recently in December when the sp was around 40p, while the latter is by far the most important word in the entire, otherwise benighted, second settlement RNS from last Monday; specifically when it turns up in maybe the most (over)analysed bullet points in the history of RNSs: '......The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the
lower end of the range of expectations for a SUCCESSFUL (my caps, obv) jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company.....' I have done quite a bit of digging around, speaking to some of the bigger shareholders, reviewing videos, etc., so there is a longer story here, but the short one is simple: Assuming that the Company's frequent (and therefore meaningful) use of the word 'transformational' applies both to the core business AND the market cap/sp, then it is very, very difficult to reconcile the Company's most recent use of the term, and the 2nd RNS's use of the word 'successful' in its main 'condition for choosing to settle', at a settlement figure below 200m. I just cannot get there under any reasonable scenario - again, based on the Company's clear public statements to date, none of which they have been withdrawn or altered - without the Company opting instead to go to trial.
I have the same or more time in a professional capacity to you, HH, and I'm saying that it's nearly 100% that such a move intraday would prompt a call from the regulator. Ask any NOMAD. Such calls are totally common, and happen all day, everyday. As for your thoughts on the efficacy/work ethic of the FCA generally, I don't disagree, but by definition, these specific situations are clearly different as they require an immediate decision and in fact, are again, quite common.
That's a fair point, HH, but I think the Times did repeat the number on the day. Otherwise, Troublesome - I'm not exactly sure if you're having a go at me, but I'm not here to fight. Sure, mine is a 'theory', but its logically sound given the highest quality evidence we have, namely the near 70% gain we saw at the highs (brought down to, I admit, a far more pedestrian 30/40% by Lombard's selling, but that would not matter as much to the FCA as the 70% gains at the highs), the published figure of 500m in a mainstream source (which is, in fact, very, very relevant to the FCA in these situations if you were not aware) and the subsequent release of the 2nd RNS. As I hope you also got from my post however, I believe - again thanks in part to Lombard - that the current share price way 'over-discounts' my theory. I believe, at 37p, we're actually trading near or even below our eventual cash award and I'm quite bullish on the core business post-payout, putting a value of between 10 and 20p on it. Finally, I think that the bulk of that cash is likely to come back to shareholders, not in a special dividend, but in a massive share tender by the Company which will allow some shareholders to sell a decent chunk of their holding at a price materially above where we are now as others will opt not to tender all (or part) of theirs. Quick side note: Gigawhatever - you are the worst kind of mindless troll. There never was and never will be any share suspension in NANO. Utter nonsense.