Member Info for cahoodle

@Chalker - I believe you are wrong re the call option, this is not contracted, merely available and convenient for both parties. The point is that the company can choose to re-purchase and stockco can choose to sell but neither has the obligation, merely the rational logic that to not choose that path would be pointless considering the software ties that are already in place and set up to manage the processes. There are other ways to manage this as a true sale but I believe this to be the most likely.

@Chalker - AZ has stated that the customer has no obligation to re-purchase. When a customer has a suppliers systems integrated with their business, there is not necessarily a contract to force a purchase, but by the nature of the integration (in the case of SYME - their platform) which automatically accounts for ongoing purchases as required, to go elsewhere for that stock wouldn't make sense if there is no significant gain from doing so. The legal issue is that they could if they so wished. It is therefore a true sale.

Chalker: you conveniently extract only part of ifrs15 you missed this part..

The agreement will be accounted for as if it were a sale of a product with a right of return (see 7.2.2) if ...:

•the repurchase price of the asset is equal to or greater than the original selling price and is less than or equal to the expected market value of the asset, and the customer does not have a significant economic incentive to exercise its option. [IFRS 15:B74]

AZ has already stated there is no requirement for a repurchase. So the customer could in theory repurhase anywhere and the financers sell the stock at market price but why go to the hassle of that when they need to purchase from somewhere anyway for the same price and the stock is already there. (This risk is considered in due diligence) This is a perpetual cycle remember via the platform which is invested in by the company for stock management regardless.

@Extrader, with regards to 1) Lenders selling the shares, they are under the obligation to transfer these back on repayment of the loan meaning they would have to buy them back if they have sold them

@Shrews - spot on!
Polymetal will have a very good idea from the cores and have a call option, positioning for negotiated takeover.
From Chesterfields side, much needed funds, news to come. Share price set to rise big time - all good. Polymetal would not be in here if it wasn't good

No Ian ..adjusted its 10p in 6 months .. Just remove the £ signs

@rentacone re website article
Just simply remove the £ sign from figures quoted
1.1p
0.35p
10.25p
Positive article but careless of the author

@ little earn .. no don't agree on never but silly talking like that at this stage

Your maths is also terrible little earn £2 is 588 times current share price not 1billion times

@bsg4: 'never happy with his lot'? I would never invest in a company that is merely 'happy with their lot'.

@Steve - good reply - made me laugh.
Logic is obvious - fully loaded here but might squeeze a little more. A no-brainner imo

Agree Scott .. RNS pre Xmas (if we get one) could just be an update with the bigger news early next year. The SP has already suffered with over enthusiastic expectations on time. I'm confident this will exceed expectations. This is a new concept and time has been needed to get the finer details of contracts finalised. Ducks are lining up!

Can't get a quote to buy any atm - even £1k ..bid price rising, this is going to jump again imo

can't buy more than £1k - think this will move up quickly

Thanks @Wolf, fair point, though there has been some big players mentioned. Guess the principle is the same that companies on the whole don't want their financial affairs made public hence NDA's likely.

@knowles - Yes I understand the SYME model - unlike when a company takes a major loan and has to declare through an RNS, I guess this wouldn't be the case for inventory monetisation thus making NDA's more likely. My question was whether anyone agreed.

I understand that the monetisation would not be shown as a liability on the books unlike a loan or other financing. I assume therefore, if a company undertook inventory monetisation, unlike a major loan or other financing, they would not be under an obligation to inform shareholders. NDA's may be a most logical option in this case. Could anyone better informed than me tell me if this assumption is correct.

Thu, 5th Nov 2020 07:00

RNS Number : 2905E
Blencowe Resources PLC
05 November 2020

Date: 5 November 2020

Blencowe Resources Plc

("Blencowe" or the "Company")

Publication of New Research Note



Blencowe, the natural resources company focused on development of the Orom-Cross Graphite Project in Uganda, is pleased to advise that Align Research has today published an updated research note on the Company.



The research note provides an update on operations since the first research note issued in May 2020 and contains a new target price for Blencowe of 19.1p per share.



The research has been placed on the Company's website and can be found here:

https://blencoweresourcesplc.com/analyst-coverage/

Good time to get back in here or top up, fundamentals unchanged, massive upside, JORC imminent

Still unsure how this could have happened on 13th Oct without an RNS then?