George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
And how could I forget, but you seem to have left out the most recent TR-1 a couple months ago where I am certain memory serves and Lombards filed that they had increased their holding. Must have slipped passed your marble-sharp googling.
Tgtd - first off, its 'bluerill'. I'm sure the misspelling was an innocent mistake and not a juvenile attempt to make this personal. Beyond that, who said the selling was evenly spaced over time or in fact didn't accelerate more recently? What I did say was they had been selling over a material period of time, which your post ably demonstrated, so thanks for that. Otherwise, I also explained that the selling was also likely liquidity-driven and so having the lion's share of the 'suspicious' selling (acc to you) occur on the heaviest volume days the shares have seen in years is also perfectly in sync with my comments. So 'check' there as well. Finally, there's the bit I left out: the last few years have been inarguably the worst in living memory for UK small caps. The most likely reason Lombards would have been reducing oversized positions like Nano in the first place, would not only be accelerating redemptions but also heightened rules around position sizes relative to daily volume which would more than adequately explain why their selling accelerated into early this year. Finally, pound sand, you cretin.
The only problem is, qd is absolutely right. This conspiracy nonsense has really gotten out of hand. Tariq is a serious investor, tbs, but as an activist hedge fund, he's an outstanding litigation specialist. Just because the guy has taken his theories public - which some of you are treating as if they were delivered straight from Mt Ararat, but are actually just a bunch of profoundly circumstantial accusations, which many of you seem to forget he was compelled to withdraw from the LSE website - doesn't make them true. Just one example is this insane idea that the Company somehow conspired with Lombards to artificially juice the share price so the fund manager could dump a slug of shares. Its so ludicrously unlikely as to be almost certainly false, yet many of you seem to take it as gospel and then when qd CORRECTLY points out that in fact, Lombards had been steadily selling over a long period of time, particularly on what are often referred to as days with 'liquidity events' - exactly what happened with the first RNS - you dismiss him and his information without blinking an eye. Sheesh, grow up.
My thoughts exactly...Echoridge/ADVFN: '....Early signs I concede, but BVC shareholders should try and keep one eye on the Israeli line. For more than a week now, the price over there has been grinding higher and trading above the UK price pretty consistently - admittedly on light volume - on much tighter spreads than normal and has begun to lose its knee-jerk twitchiness towards every little down move in the UK line as it grinds higher (last trade: 27p equivalent). I think that has also caught the attention of UK MMs as the bid on the screen over here seems to have perked up a bit. Perhaps the bottom-line is that, as I've written before, the big volume of the past month (other than this week of course) has taken out a lot of loose institutional shares (dominated by a one-off fund closure) in both jurisdictions and if there is another institutional buyer or 2 around (last one bought around 5.5m), which I am also on record that I believe there is, then they are likely becoming aware that they will have to work harder to build a position from retail sellers and at (hopefully) higher prices....'
Ok, I can see we're not going to get anywhere, so this will be my final cut at this: 1. Every major (and most minor) firms in the City from fund management to insurance to investment banks have very similar codes of conduct in 2023 (and long since today frankly), particularly as it pertains to a situation like this, and the penalties for serious breaches are swift and brutal. If the fund manager at Lombard had been confirmed to have conducted a phone call with management from one of his large positions, and for any reason it had not been conducted on a taped line ( no matter the hour of the day), or there was a tape, and anything seriously inappropriate was discussed, he would face the severest of punishments and then, we would very likely have heard about it already, most likely from Tariq himself. I am 100% certain of this syllogism? Of course not, but I maintain my reasoning is very sound.
No, no, no, kooba - please read what I wrote. I said Lombards ITSELF is not accused of anything. The fund manager(s) involved have been. For now there is a big difference and that's - again - why LOAM would necessarily conduct a rapid and thorough investigation to satisfy itself that - on the evidence thus far - no breach of the rules has been committed by any of its employees.
I just read the bottom portion of your message, kooba. I'm not making much of an assumption at all, honestly. First off, confirmation on all sides that the phone call(s) took place is in and of itself near-confirmation that the fund manager(s) followed protocol and there is a tape of the call and then that conversation was judged to be benign or else heads would have rolled. However, as I've written already, if the call was NOT been done on a taped line, then the fund manager(s) involved would also likely have been sacked already as that is a serious breach of protocol.
Sorry, kooba, I meant NANO's response letter. I got that needlessly muddled. The letter constitutes NANO's response of course, and if I haven't said so already, since LOAM has clearly not been accused of anything, no one should expect them to comment at all, unless of course they choose to do so if they find/have found malfeasance in their own internal investigation, which again, I have been bored on endlessly that I believe they have already completed without uncovering any serious transgression and thus no comment from them to date likely means no comment at all!
Trouble - I'm really not going to explain this again. Unless you're some kind of conspiracy theorist, Lombards, a major institution with billions under management, has neither the motivation nor the inclination to whitewash a simple, relatively small compliance issue. They are not 'investigating themselves' (spectacularly dopey thing to constantly claim as if it were self-evident when it is precisely the opposite); the Firm would simply be performing a routine compliance investigation into of one or 2 fund managers, at one fund among dozens, who is/are accused of serious, but by no means shockingly unique, malpractice. The relevant comms would be examined, the professionals involved interviewed, and swift action(s) would NECESSARILY be taken if appropriate, very much including dismissal which would be swift. The risks to LOAM of doing any less, both reputational (ie., investors don't need any more excuses these days beyond high fees and perennial underperformance to withdraw funds from traditional fund managers. An investigation of accusations such as Tariq's that is seen to have been slow-walked is an almost automatic catalyst for more withdrawals) and much more importantly, with the regulators, is way too high to risk being cute in a case like this. There is nothing to gain and much to lose for the Firm and that's why the fact that nothing seems to have happened to any LOAM professional thus far is such strong circumstantial evidence against Tariq's central accusation(s). Pete - I never claimed otherwise and in fact that is my view too. Obviously the Company seems to feel differently so that's why I wrote it the way I did.
Aside from high performance exclamation point-abuse, that post has little to recommend it. Firstly, 'low level shorting' is not a thing. In stock markets anyway. And where's the evidence that buyers have dried up? Share price continues to be stable/grind higher to my eye.