Member Info for Crocqman

Steps headlining the Pyramid stage on an AFC powered Glasobury willl surely be one of life's most memorable events.
"Everybody, 5, 6 , 7, 8 ... "
Or will it be Fedde Le Grand "Put your hands up for AFC"

Schroders may well have stopped selling.
But we can only speculate until there is another TR1.
My personal view is (still) that they have only sold down for portfolio compliance reasons, and that their conviction has not changed (i.e. forced selling due to rapid price rise and maintaining a % holding to comply with their internal requirements).
Time will tell, and no one view will be right here until any official RNS is released to confirm, then any view will be more robustly backed up.
Good weekend all

HITS,
Your earlier post was rather defensive/affronted about me calling you a naysayer,
Your last post does little to suggest otherwise.
Saying the options are either a planned 'dodgy deal' to 'look after ourselves, and our own first' is not exactly a neutral view.
Sorry, just my opinion.
You do provide balance here vs the many who have clear agendas (either way,) which is good), but you are certainly more half-empty than many posters.
Your prerogative, of course.
Good wekend to you and all investors

In fact, looking at the RNS again, they have used the new TVR figure of 7,093,912,190 for the % calculation (either the company has done this, or EGT in completing the TR1), so this could be the reason - more shares in issue so they have been diluted as well as selling even if the dates of the TVR change did not occur that day. An admin timing discrepancy?

Fair point aandi,
My understanding has always been that the position is what they hold at the end of each trading day, so this is what they need to report.
I know that others think that if they have an open order they only need to report once the order has been finished, This does not make sense to me as liquidity means it could takes several days, or even weeks to complete an order, which would mean they are reporting a false position over the intervening period.
I have not looked back at the trading volumes tbf, so only going by what my understanding is.
Perhaps when they made the calculation they included the new 66m odd shares that were due to be added today in their calculation? Apologies, I have not really drilled into the numbers to calculate the figures properly, I may have more time later to do so.

No. There is not a code out there.
A '1 trade' (like a trade for any other seemingly too small amount) could be there for several reasons.
An adjustment to a limit order placed as a value amount due to fractions/rounding, part of a larger automated trade where each fill has to be reported, a sell-off by a custodian to cover monthly/quarterly fees.
The '1 code' thing may have had some substance a long time back, but not for me now due to elevtronic trading and logging of RNS, etc.
Often when the 2 coincide it is hailed as 'proof' that it is a thing, but on the overwhelming majority of occasions where there is no RNS, it is mooted as being 'as reliabe as anything else'.
Personally, I view it similarly as the cries for the likes of 'MM games', and 'shorts closing'. Others may disagree

GVH,
A director selling for tax purposes (or other liabilities) is quite common which is why there has been no negative market impact imo. You see this on FTSE stocks all the time (I guess it is tax efficient for them to do this).
The fact that only 10% of their total position was sold, and that another Director was buying will have helped to confirm to the market that there is nothing out of the ordinary with the sell. Again, imo

aandi,
They crossed from over 4% (4.04%) down to below 3% (2.90%) on the same day (01/02), so they only need to report the move to the new position for that trading day. The crossing from above 4% to below 4% is implied by the final position as of that day being 2.90%

You are correct, DerSack, once a holder goes under a 3% holding (TR1 to notify), there are no further obligations for them to report any further movement, unless they go back up over 3%.
It will be pure speculation from now on whether they are selling or holding, and no one will know with any certainty, unless for some reason they choose to announce they have sold completely (not required, but it is a possibility they may do so, especially if they were to invest in another company in the same sector and look to avoid any potential conflict of interest).

I note that the RNS yesterday was incorrect as they state that the threshold crossed as being 2%, holding a new position at 2.90%. This should have read '3% threshold crossed'
gla

Agree btb,
You would have thought one of the first questions Biden and his team would ask the FDA is - what do you have in the pipeline for approval, why is there a backlog, and what resources do you need to speed up the process for giving approvals to ramp up our capabilities here.

On the shares in issue front, I agree that it may just be an oversight. A change in % held through dilution should be RNS'd just like any buy/selll, unless they remain within the confines of a reportable threshold (i.e. it was at 3.8% but dilution took it to 3.2% so no threshold crossed).
My understanding anyway - other shares I hold have seen some TR1's produce produce an RNS for some holders, but not others.
It should be remembered that for TR1's it is the holder who has the responsibility to inform the issuer, and the issuer will only RNS if they get notification from a holder. It is not the responsibility of GDR to chase up any holders in this regard, but they are obliged to RNS every notification they receive, as I believe that the holder also notifies the FCA of their position too.
Also, it will most likely be the holders' custodian who makes the notification to the issuer, not the company, so nothing should be missed, although it is not as robust a system as it can be.
I believe it is confusion/unfamiliarity of the rules, rather than any deliberate act if notifications are not made

Agree Scarface,
Many telling us it is not worth 1p with the assets held, so 2p (certainly for new investors) is a highly encouragable a target.
You could of course wonder if this was pruposely delayed whn the SP recently hit the 1.40's and after the placing news to ensure the starting SP was as low as possible, but with all the dots seen so far, perhaps the market will finally allow the SP a proper re-rate on the funding news and/or first gas - an end Q2 target, although later than expected this time last year, is not too long to wait.
I will still not be totally comfortable until the funding news lands and all the required equipment has been procurred/installed.
The proposed shareholder presentation later this month (presumably once funding has been closed) and the investor call will be hotly anticipated by many.
For naysayers to consider a 2p exercisable price to be a short termist view is very encourging imo
gla

Each to their own with their view on this.
Some find it helpful to know if fellow posters are buying, selling, holding, especially if their reasons may have changed.
Personally, I prefer to inform any board I am invested in whenever I buy, or sell, but do not give amounts or values. I feel it gives some transparency as to your reason for being here, but appreciate that posters can only take these comments on trust. It is down to the poster and their posting history for others to gauge if they are being honest in this regard.

What I can't abide is those shysters who bang on about SP rockets, regular top-ups, holding long, but who are trading quietly and never mentioning their sells. Fair play if you are open about trading, but those posters that are selling while talking the share up, I have no time for.

Perhaps due to a rounding in the % held (i.e. reported to 3 decimal points) this looks as if it is not actual reduction by HSBC (i.e. a sell), but their new position following dilution from the placing (i.e. same number of shares held, reduced % of new TVR)

Added a small amount at 1289 yesterday.
Does not do much for my average, but the drop seemed too severe to me.
Need low-14's to break even, but a hold for me.
gla

He was just an anonymous person who posted (too) many times on a free BB board

He is now asking Premium members to demand his reinstatement by LSE with a threat of cancelling their memberships for refunds and leaving the sire if he is not allowed back :-)

On the subject of setting limits to prevent MM's using shares for shorting, my understanding is that all account holders shares are held separately in your own custody account in order to keep them separate (although they may be pooled under the provider for a total holding with regard to voting rights, calculations for disclosures, etc), and as such, cannot be lent out to anyone who is looking to short.

This may be different for Fund Managers (who control their own funds) and II's (who may have it written into their client agreements that any holdings can be lent out), but I am not sure if it is applicable for PI accounts.
I have checked my own platform provider agreement, and cannot see any mention of whether personal holdings are eligible to be lent out. Maybe other providers specify this in their T&C's?

Not convinced there has been any manipulation, despite the constant talk of the SP being held around a 500m mcap throughout most of Jan, for II's to buy in cheap before the next leg up.
Or was it for them to sell out before the next leg up? Or any of the other theories imbetween put forward?

For me, like many other stocks, it rose too high, too quickly at the end fo 2020, and is simply at a more realistic level until the next set of firm news lands.
Holding and unconcerned with the short term SP movements
gla

Unsurprised that it hasn't taken the charlatan long to start with his massive SP predictions, backed by nothing but the 'suggestion' that everyone is talking about it.
General consensus = rampers' tactic to gather momentum with unsubstantiated claims
s-t = shameless trader

LSE suggests 112m and following days total circa 100m (inc. today).
With total placing shares of 165m, I highly doubt they account for more than 75% of trades over the past few days since the RNS.
Tbf, haven't seen the late trades each day, or the size of the trades on 27th, but still.
Happy to disagree though.

Can't see how the placing shares have been flipped already, the volumes don't account for anything like what has been added (the forward selling mantra does not wash imo as placees would be blocked from trading under MAR).

Also agree that some posters view of what is a large trade is really odd.
Need to see multikple orders of circa 5m in size, or more for anything to be considered chunky here imo