Member Info for Couerdelion

Forest stated - "Based on all available regulatory announcements up to April 2025, there is no evidence that Jubilee Metals (JLP) ever received the US $6.75 million from the sale of 10 million tonnes of Large Waste Project (LWP) material, and the payment does not appear in any published financial accounts."

Presumably you can give us all a breakdown of all the payments which appear in the published financial accounts so that we can confirm there is nothing relating to the LWP. Otherwise I can only advise the audience that a lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. You might also try looking at financials after April 2025.

Has anyone even got a response from the Company on this point....?

So where has this new claim come from that JLP are not getting paid for the LWP material? Are we going to now going to see endless repetitions of this fabrication?

"We are all fully invested and here for T/O" - presumably that's for take-off rather than take-over.

Sadly the rest of those posts could have been written in Greek for all that I could make of them. But I think you're saying the share is likely to go up.

Is the Environment Assessment only likely to start after ratification? Being such a lengthy process it would be nice if we could get some of these activities progressing in parallel rather than sequentially.

Sold any more envelopes recently?

If you predict the SP to surge every week for several months, there's a decent chance you might be correct in any one given week.

Dress it up how you will. Lipstick meet pig.....

Meco, correct me if I'm wrong but when L&G shown Own Funds, do they not usually show this as a "shareholder" metric. I appreciate there is the "Statutory" figure which will include some debt finance within Own Funds but many companies will present the information to investors showing the more useful figure.

I do sometimes find it interesting that the more negative voices on this Board appear to be able to hold conflicting views on JLP depending on the situation. The raise is a case in point where the key argument is that the new investor is buying in at a cheap price.

Rewind to a week ago and you'd be forgiven for thinking they felt the SP was going down further. Or at least that the shares were not cheap enough to be buying.

Sometimes I don't know which side to believe - and that's before we consider the positive voices here.

One measure you can look at for value is the Own Funds (£13.2bn at YE2025) which is shareholder capital within the life business and equates to around 240p per share. Probably worth noting that you'd expect some discount to this for MCap because the money is only released over time but it's a solid guide to an inherent value of the insurance business.

You can then add on something for the asset management business which is probably simpler to measure and targeting operating profit of £500-600m p.a by 2028.

Sadly there are plenty of JLP shareholders who are willing to extrapolate any management decision and view it in the worst possible light. In this case I suppose a negative vote now makes sense because their mind is already made up despite the limited information we have at this stage.

I can't really dispute the argument that we have not got enough information to vote on the proposal but surely the logical response would be to seek the clarification we need.

I will not be rushing to judgement here but if I had to vote now it would be a rejection based on the information provided (ie not enough)

Hard to say really. Since the market already knows that it will be joining (is this confirmed?) some element of the natural boost it would get from tracker fund investments will already be reflected in the price now. If you are going to invest for the "index boost" it's probably better picking stocks that are a little further back.

As it is, BMY doesn't look overpriced to me yet and the narrative right now is strong so I am confident that it will continue its steady rise.

Let's see where this run takes us. It's only a few months since we were trading in the 250's - admittedly only for a week - and if we are so confident that the market is mispricing this share badly, how can we be sure that it won't do so again? While the share is around these levels - and certainly under 200p - I'll be happy enough trading the range but at some point it has to start heading back to the 300p+ levels.

Is that daltry bring up brown envelopes again? While quoting names like Hawkey Siddeley show which century the ideas come from, but even back then the views with regards Chile were out of date.

Showing the expected resistance at 200p now so settle down for a short battle. Fully expecting it to break through quite soon and then we can see to the next hurdle.

Once again, be aware that the ex-div date is not far away so if you are trading based on DY, be aware that the annualised return will be higher than the quoted DY due to the proximity of the dividend payments - eg at 202.5p, the dividend yield is 6.42% but the IRR figure is 6.76%.

No sign of this slowing down. Any views on the next price resistance?

Everything seems to be about validation for you, wozzer. Rather than regurgitating the headline numbers presented, have you not stopped to "look under the bonnet" to ask where the profits are coming from?

My own take on the SALT results today was that they are still some way from demonstrating that ability.

Before my time. I guess the roasting thing got steamrollered by airfryers.

Well that didn't take very long. The 60-70 range is looking quite solid for trading profits if that's your thing - I just think of it as active investing.

Too true, absolutely nothing in that presentation about his 49% ownership in the new company while talking about how TEK capital got the investment for no cost. Don't know how Investor Magazine are funded but it wasn't an interview that asked any of the big question.

I also noted that he said the Guident IPO would "bring us closer" the date on which distributions might be made. So not even any prospect of a special dividend at that point when all of the real assets held are in quoted shares.

Finally he stated the Ventura whodyamaflip was the 5th investee company of TEK capital. If you're a fan of revisionism then just strike BELL off the historical record then all the statements like "proven records" might even have a ring of truth to them. Or they would if there was at least a prospect of the companies making even a profit, let alone enough to justify the original investments.

I'm still waiting for one of the companies to indicate when they will be profitable. Very easy to show revenue increases but what does the bottom-line look like.....and even then we get to the question of how much of any NAV will flow to shareholders.

No, the 60% discount may even be on the generous side. Looking ahead to the next funding request - and I do often wonder who he finds to provide the cash to keep the lights on.