Member Info for BritishPeculeum

*35p strike price on a “put” would actually have given you a 1,086.44% profit if exercised at an sp of 2.95p.

Isas just looking back at some of the most recent previous block listings (the Company has a disclosure obligation to do these every six months), I can see that only:

423,913 warrants were exercised at [a strike price of] 11.5p in the six months to 7th October 2024 (RNS No. 2308H). In the six month period up to that date, the sp peaked at around 24p on 21st June and then dropped back to 10p by the period end.

2,000,000 warrants were exercised at [a strike price of] 18p, and a further 250,000 were exercised at 16p in the 6 months to 10th October 2023 (RNS No. 6847P). In that 6 month period, the sp largely stayed above the strike prices of those warrants, starting the period at 23p, peaking at 31p and dropping back to 15.75p at the end of the period.

It is interesting to note that no other warrants have been exercised in the period since April 2023.

What’s more, the 10th October 2023 block listing also states that 2,000,000 warrants exercisable [at a strike price of] 35p valid to 31/08/2025, and yet no warrant was exercised at that strike price during that time, before those warrants lapsed on 31st August this year.

I take that to mean that those (and quite possibly the vast majority) of those warrants in issue and outstanding are “Call” only warrants (which requires the share price to be above the strike price to profit from the warrants being exercised) because if those 31p warrants that lapsed on 31st August (when the sp was 2.95p) were “Covered” warrants, it’s unlikely that anyone would give up a potential 950% profit on exercising those warrants as a “put”.

It’s fair to say that since those 31p warrants were issued by PXC, the sentiment has changed in terms of the risk profile. If covered warrants weren’t in issue then, I can’t imagine that the same is true now.

AIMHO of course.

DYOR

GLA

Isas I hope that helps.

If you look at yesterday’s trades, the transaction going through as “unknown” at 12:02 for 1,300,000 shares at a price of 2.5p was most likely a warrantee exercising his “puts”. Which is why it appears on the LSE published database as “unknown”. The way that the database works is that it every trade that goes through in a day, it doesn’t actually “know” whether it’s a “buy” or a “sell”. It’s actually an algorithm that is working out, on the balance of probability, whether it’s a “buy” or “sell”, based on what the price is struck at vis à vis the “bid” and the “ask” at that time. So, for instance, you could have been on your, say, HL platform and purchased PXC at say, 2.5p, and thought to yourself that you’ve got a particularly good deal at that level, as the LSE published “Ask” was at higher than that, and it too is “thinking” that that deal is too good to be a “buy” so it publishes it as a “sell” (and the inverse is true too where “sells” will appear as “buys”). It might have happened to you when you have bought or sold shares before. Those appearing as “unknown” the algorithm just can’t figure out where to put it. Or the LSE has chosen to programme the algorithm to see it that way (more of your “schroedinger’s cat” behaviour going on in the Old Boys’ Club than you care to think about).

GLA

Isas that’s a good question.

The effects of a short position being taken up and the exercise of a “put” warrant will have the same effect of downward pressure on the sp. However the difference is that the warrant holder exercising his “puts” will get his cash out immediately on exercising his warrant, and the profit he will take will be the difference between the strike price of 4.4p and the share price at the time the warrants are exercised. So the lower the sp is, the more the warrantee will stand to profit. And his profit is realised immediately upon conversion of his warrants. The same however isn’t true for the “shorter”. When he takes up his short position, he is, at that point, leaving all of his chips on the table, with the expectation that the price is going to go lower. If that happens, then he will buy the shares at a lower price and profit from the difference at which he “sold” and bought. News of funding, that could drop at any time, particularly with PXC, would have a dramatic upward surge on the sp, and leave shorters stuck in a loss situation with no prospect at that point , of the situation ever being recovered from that point on. So my thinking on who is selling at the moment is therefore that it is more likely to be warrant holders offloading a bit of risk for a reasonable profit of 40% or thereabouts at the current sp.

So in other words and to answer your question, a warrant holder, if he is minded to convert his warrants as “puts” would want the sp to be as low as possible at the point that he converts his warrants to shares. The lower the sp, the bigger the differential between the strike price of 4.4p and the sp will be, therefore the more profit he will make on conversion. The moment the warrants convert at that sp, those shares add to the total shares in circulation. At that point, the laws of supply and demand kick in. If the supply of shares has increased, at that price that the warrant is exercised; all other things being equal, the sp will fall.

So, a sensible strategy in this theoretical situation - theoretical because in any real dynamic market, buyers are always in the market so it’s never quite as clear cut as this) would be to release the warrants over time to increase profit from the incremental decrease in sp as the supply of shares in the market increases. These warrant holders will have brokers that have algorithmic solutions weighing up the optimum time to exercise.

Assuming these warrants are “Covered Warrants” (ie can act as a “Call” or a “Put”) warrant holders at the moment are in a no lose situation. A warrantee could be offloading risk at the moment by converting the warrants as “Puts” and taking a 40% profit for his troubles, and yet tomorrow, PXC could spring the news we are all waiting for, the sp could go to 6.16p and he could exercise the rest of his warrants as “calls” and take a 40% profit for his troubles.

I h

Red666

Sorry I did want to add to what I said regarding the warrants yesterday and it is that the c21m warrants in issue right now are held in various different ownerships. NIU hold the most warrants from what I can see… not all warrant holders are necessarily going to take a bearish view on PXC’s prospects.

Only time will tell, and news on the funding will be the ultimate antidote to a sustained sell-off.

GLA

Call me naive and stupid then. Trump is doing more to untangle the nightmare that WEF has created for Western economies, and I am all for that.

Red666… when the Block Listing RNS came out last week, the writing was on the wall that this would go lower than it has in recent times. And I think it could still go lower yet, depending on how far into clearing the 6.1m shares from the block listing the seller has got.

The strike price on the warrants that were subject to the block listing is at 4.4p, in which case it would seem logical, to me at least, to believe that these warrants are “Covered Stock Warrants”, which give the warrant holder the right to buy the shares at or above the strike price (known as a “Call”) or, as is the case here, the right to sell the shares at or below the strike price (known as a “Put”), meaning that depending on the where the market value of PXC vis à vis the strike price, the warrant holder would still have the choice (but not the obligation) whether or not to exercise them.

The next thing to say about this, is that 6.1m shares still leaves warrants for some 15.2m shares remaining unexercised.

The question I am asking is: Is this 6.1m merely a tree shake or is it the start of a trend of an offloading of all of the unexercised warrants on a “Put” basis? The warrant holder profits more from a “Put” the lower the market price is from the strike price. In other words, it is in the interests of the warrant holder exercising its “puts” to see the sp go lower. It therefore has the same effect as shorting would have on the sp.

There is only one real counter to this ongoing sp slump now, and it is news of funding.

Rabbit out of the hat stuff this has become for sure.

GLA

Looking at this, there was a

Andrew4444 thanks for taking the time to clarify this. I’m a simple lad, you may have noticed.

I’ve said to you before, we are both on the same team and actually believe the same fundamental thing, which is that PXC is binary bet from here. I’m a bit more bullish on the financing of this perhaps than you, after the EXG/ MTB merger news from last Friday. I’m as positive about the technical standing of the open pit as you are. The only real difference between us perhaps is that you find me infuriating that I don’t always read your posts in a way that you would like me to. I’m sorry that this is the case. It’s certainly not intended to trigger you, more perhaps of having a not-very-polished skillset of being able to read into what you’re saying, if or when it’s actually not said.

I genuinely wish you, me, Isas, Sparky, Bankruptcy, OhDearAlan, HarChris and all the rest of the team invested in PXC the best of luck and prosperity with it.

Trump has openly said that he is not interested in standing beyond the end of his second term. He was asked about it last week, and he said that JD Vance and probably Marco Rubio will stand for the Republican ticket. Did you not see that?

Andrew4444, looks like our sentiment on this has swapped places since we last communicated on here!

In fact, given what you’ve said, I’m not sure why you are still here. LOL.

Oh Dear Alan, two things:

1. Jason Riley is the CEO of EXG, and also a Director of PXC. In his capacity as a director of PXC, he will know everything there is to know about the progress of the funding.

2. Under the revised Carry Agreement between PXC and EXG of Dec 2024, there is an obligation upon PXC to disclose the terms of any funding deal to EXG for approval. If I were on the Board of MTB, I’d want to see the terms of the PXC funding deal and be satisfied that it were certainly going to happen, before making a commitment to merge with EXG, because the cash flow from Empire (whether a pay-out or an ongoing 20% share of the net proceeds from the mine) is absolutely critical to the merged EXG/MTB unlocking the potential for its own projects.

GLA

MT Sparky… Great news for EXG and PXC as I see it. Would MTB have committed to this merger deal with EXG unless its BOD’s were satisfied that an acceptable funding deal was on the table for the Open Pit at Empire?

As I see it, it is unlikely that MTB would have wanted to put its own cash at risk into a bottomless pit (pardon the pun), unless it had some certainty that funding for Empire was imminent, deliverable and most importantly, committed.

This is close now, I’d say.

GLA

No human beings here on Earth at all might well be the greatest blessing and chance this planet has of a future.

ID78 that was the case as I recall, but how much due diligence the investor has done at this stage, if any, is anybody’s guess. The information flow from PXC is absolutely appalling.

Solid all-round third quarter 2025. Well done STCM.

Assuming he never existed, the action of the Company stating that he did exist when he didn’t in an RNS is a serious business.

Assuming he did exist but he walked away, then the inaction of the Company not reporting that in an RNS, is an equally serious business.

I’m calling it that at least one Mystery Investor does exist under the terms of a letter of intent. There was something that was alluded to in the recent trading update RNS, however, that suggested that the mystery investor may now actually be investors (plural). But as someone mentioned on here, it was a comment that was ambiguous enough to be not completely transparent what was meant by it. Such is the way of this BOD’s.

Bear in mind also, the presence of Jason Riley on the Board of PXC. ExGen published its own “RNS” on the Toronto Stock Exchange stating that PXC had engaged in a letter of intent with an un-named investor to fund the open pit at Empire a day after the PXC RNS in June. That comes with its own obligations upon him disclosing that information to the TSX, to ensure that it is accurate. I can’t imagine why he would risk going to press with that sort of information if it weren’t true. Furthermore, if he had known that the Investor(s) had walked away by now, he may have considered himself obliged to disclose that information to the TSX as a director of ExGen Resources.

I’m pretty sure that the investor is there, or at the least, someone is. Whether anyone else is, in addition to the initial investor, or as a replacement for him, I’m not too sure (I think PXC would have needed a further specific RNS if that was the case). What is clear is that the Letter of Intent was a non-binding LOI. So either he (or whomever) could walk away from the deal at any time.

Stick in there Isas. I know this must feel ridiculously uncomfortable for you, but have faith. Remember that whatever happens, the value in the ground is appreciating in value, with every day that goes by. That could well be our salvation at the end of the day.

GLA

It’s all connected Winalot. I can absolutely assure you that if it wasn’t for Trump in the White House, you would Losealot on a hydrocarbon investment ticket. The WEF and its various political gimps such as UK Government would put paid to that. Look at the untold damage that consecutive British governments under WEF control have brought to North Sea oil development and production.

“Even the most hard-core environmentalists agree gas needs to be part of the energy mix for decades to come.”

Right you are, Wryape.

The man in the White House is the only man in politics that is for and with the people. The rest are owned by the World Economic Forum. Our only hope of getting something out of AEX quite frankly will be down to the man that so many of you are quick to put down, because of the faith that you put in what you hear in the mainstream media about him. The bottom line is: he’s for hydrocarbons. The World Economic Forum and every institution it now owns and controls (which includes the mainstream media) are not… well at least not to the extent that anyone other than the WEF stands to benefit.

“You shall own nothing and shall be happy.” Vision #1 of World Economic Forum’s “Visions for 2030.”

“There will be a global price on carbon that will make fossil fuels history.” Vision #7 of World Economic Forum’s “Visions for 2030.”

Be careful what you wish for…

Surely it’s no big deal whatever Kread or anyone else says on here, if we have faith in the project and its management. Without the faith and resolve of gunmetal, AEX is no place to be.

First hand news would be likely to change the trajectory of the sp, but of course, the problem is that as a carried interest, we are reliant on news being generated by a third party. It’s completely out of the hands of the AEX Board to make progress with this project.

Faith, hope and the charity of the Zubairs… that’s what investment in AEX is based on.

Krack on Kread, and good luck.