Member Info for Crocqman

Punit,
You ask the same question every other day and have long become a parody of yourself.
Why not DYOR and make your own investment decisions, rather than relying on other board members for constant reassurance on something that no one can possibly quantify due to the number of different variables at play.

tj,
The buy and sell indicator on the trades is just that, an indicator.
It is not always accurate, but a best efforts interpretation given the bid/ask price at the time of execution.
The market is never notified wheter a trade is a buy or a sell transaction, it is just reported as being a 'trade'.

Southernhay,
Whilst a portfolio as a whole may be rebalanced on a quarterly, or 6 month interval (indeed likely more frequently as they need to be pro-active with decision making as well as reactive), if a particular stock breaches the internal guidelines, then action will need to be taken 'within a reasonable timeframe' to correct that position.
As with most things, 'reasonable timeframe' is open to some interpretation, but it would not be left unchecked unless there was special dispensation given to do so.

No one will know for sure
Unless there is a TR1 (or someone is leaking inside info), no one has any idea if anyone is buying, selling, or holding.
It is all speculation, or assumption

Whilst I am not remotely surprised that the RNS is still not showing on here, I do recall a post from the summer (June/July) where someone had contacted LSE about their poor RNS notifications
They advised at the time that there were trialling a new version of RNS notiication delievery that in testing had proved to be 100% accurate. It was supposed to have been getting rolled out live onto their platform the next moth
So, why the continued problems, a feed issue from Reuters to LSE perhaps?

I have Mirasol on filter so can only imagine what he is saying, presumably urging caution due to the years of buying up of additional stakes by ukog in various assets before producing anything material, and UJO seemingly doing the same?
I admit that it does have echoes, but the different locations, for me, is what makes this very different (along with good comms, partners, funding...).
Time will tell!
gla

Good post (again) Ogggs.
It is good to see factual and well explained reasoning for events that will occur 'as the norm' with any large investor

I always like these translated sayings, often very similar to ours, but not quite.
"two flies are beaten with one stone"
I suppose it is more acceptable noeadays too than 'killing 2 birds with one stone'

RT,
I am not sure that your first para here is correct.
The offtake agreement was signed more than 5 months ago (tenders sent out in April), and more than 2 months before the subject of funding came up.
with a MOU RNS (prior to then, I beleive it was assumed that the original costs estimates were correct and funding would not be needed)
The offtake RNS states that the agreement was based on the CPR assumptions and is for everything produced.
I would think that funding doesn't come into this agreement at all, if nothing is produced, they take nothing.
I agree that the funding will be approved, and news is imminent going by the forecasted timescales, but it is the terms of this that will be a concern for many investors.
We should find out within the next 10 days on this
gla

Not disagreeing, as the evidence we currently have does back that up.
But, the HY results will show where the company is currently at (as of 31/12), so will allow a more informed opinion on factual evidence provided, rather than the generally accepted one based on the lack of anything concrete seen to date (e.g. if there has been any sales of substance, and if so, where and to what extent).
Like one of those seeing eye pictures, things may look a little different when viewed from another perspective!
Here's hoping
gl

Valuefinder,
I have posted similar in the past week or so, your choice if you are considering an end Jan timescale for any action, but the HY results to December are due to be announced in early Feb - we should hopefully get a confirmed date this week going by the timeline last year.
I will certainly be looking for a solid update with some confirmed sales figures, or an accompanying update with progress, timescales, etc before making any firm decision as to my holding.
I may sell half and keep the balance as there is undoubtably good things in the pipeline in the 'non-covid' activities.
This is still a small and growing company that is doing good things, but perhaps not in the position to scale up and accelerate matters as other companies have been able to do.
Not trying to gloss over some clear failings over the past 6 months or so, but there is much to be positive about here, just like there is much to be disappointed about, and this certainly feels more of a long term play currently.
I will be balancing the positives and negatives off against each other when frim details are available, and hopefully make an informed decision as to what is best for my investment.
Good luck whatever you decide though, and to all holders.
My average is considerably north of the current SP, but it is that tipping point of time vs potential return that will be a factor for me, especially having held other stocks far too long in the past when I should have just cut loose

I used to do that too, Oggs.
I also used to code them, monitor them and build trade orders to ensure compliance of them in various roles - Institutional client mandates a very different beast!
Good luck to you here

Ogggs,
These Institutional Fund prospectuses are always written with wording like 'generally' and 'primarily' in the guidelines.
The whole point being to have as little restrictions as possible and to allow scope for alternative incestment opportunities, so long as they fall within the 'spirit' of the funds objectives (spirit, being open to interpretation too).
A good Fund Manager would not restrict themselves unnecessarily from investing in a stock they considered suitable. The guidelines are vague and non-specific on purpose for this reason

Haggis,
It is a UK Smaller Companies Fund.
Of course it is going to invest in small-sized UK companies. That is its' remit as a Fund.
It is NOT correct to say is has a mcap restriction though - you dropped the £500m reference in your original post from your reply, I see.
It's a bit like saying a FTSE 100 tracker fund is restricted to buying FTSE 100 stocks. That is the whole point of it!

I also understand the highlighted section very well, thank you
The ONLY restriction this Fund has is that it cannot invest more than 20% outside of the FTSE UK Series Small Cap ex Investment Trusts (Gross Total Return) index. It can literally buy any listed stock anywhere in the world, and is only limited by this 20% non-index requirement,
The index will include a very wide range of mcaps. FTSE Russell data show that from September 2018, the constituents ranged from £61m to £775m.
It is worth noting that AFC is not even in the index currently, so forms part of the 20% non-index stocks. This means that the AFC mcap has always been irrelevant for it to be considered a holding in this particular Fund.
You are quite correct, it is all there in black and white, and in both the KIID and the Fund Prospectus too.

Of course others can decide for themselves what they think, that is the whole point of dyor, and it is very magnanimous of you to leave it for the better of the board.
As I said though, I will continue to challenge any posts if I think anything posted is incorrect, or misleadng and there is a different view to be considered, and am happy for others to challenge mine if they disagree. Things are often open to interpretation, and quite often, there is not alwyas a right or wrong answer. In this case, mcap, imo, is not relevant from the published documents available
gla

Haggis,
You seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to try and prove your investing opinions as being fact on here, quite often by trying to discredit other posters at the same time.

For weeks you have been telling everyone here that the MM's have been manipulating the SP at a 500m mcap level saying that this is where ALL II's will invest, and that they cannot invest below that level.
This is simply not true.
It is just one of many possible mcap levels that all the different types of Funds, II's, etc will consider, and MAY have in their varying gudeline restrictions. Some will not have any mcap restrictions, like the fund you are now trying to say does.

Your initial post in this thread is, again trying to prove this point, and you comment:
"1) The Fund does have restrictions on the MCap size of companies it can buy (Exactly as I told you is the case with Funds having MCap restrictions like £500m!!), so those claiming otherwise are proven wrong again. "at the time of purchase, are similar in size to those comprising the bottom 10% by market capitalisation of the UK equities market."

No one chas been proven wrong again as you claim.
You are now saying "restrictions 'like' £500m", when previosuly you were saying ALL II's have a 500m mcap level. A small, but subtle change, but you seem to do this quite a lot when others question you, like saying what you have previously quoted as being a fact as to what is going on in the markets, is actually just your opinion of whay may be happening.

Funds such as this ALWAYS have loosely written guidelines to enable them to invest some of their money in shares that would not normally sit within the investment universe, to allow them to be flexible and invest in non-qualifying stocks without breaching the mandate. There WILL be restrictions on how much they can invest in these outlier companies as what you have provided does show.

Where in this Funds guidelines does it say anything about a 500m mcap? It doesn't
There is ZERO mention of any mcap restriction in the KIID, or the Prospectus, so this fund can actuallly buy any stock it wishes, even a FTSE 100 stock, European, Asian or US stock within very loose guidelines (the additional 20% where the fund is not restricted in any way).
Being able to invest 80% of the Fund in small sized UK companies is NOT the same as saying there is a mcap restriction, it is by nature the very reason it is a Small Companies Fund.

As I have said before, you post some great research on here, which I, like many greatly appreciate.
But, whilst you have clear knowledge of the investment industry, you are not the guru of all things investing that you seem to want to portray yourself as, even if others do seem taken in by much of what you say - you seem quick to filter those that disagree though.
Feel free to filter me if you want, but I will continue to read your posts, and challenge anything I feel is incorrect, or has an alternative possible explanation

Posted by some other contributers to their respective boards, a mention for EQT too in the article.
Apologies if already posted here

https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/how-alternative-energy-beat-oil-and-gas-aim-2020-ii514770

Tks ocelot,
I was looking at the more recent milestone IQ, so missed the part about one existing site and one 3rd party brownfield site.
Which existing site do you think they are referring to, Lidsey perhaps given they seem to have firm plans for Brockham and Balcombe, but this site seems less of an integral part of their plans ?

RT,
We are waiting on details.
Based on RNS and Investors Questions, the timeframe seems to suggest that ANGS need to present their proposed project to the Funding guys by the end of Jan as part of the SF funding arrangement, to potentially receive the additional 8m odd extra.
They intend to inform shareholders of this project by the end of Q1, presumably if funding accepted and project is viable.
They suggest it is something that have been working on for over 1 year, so a lot of time spent on this.
I am here for SF, but this project may cause me to leave some shares invested, it is certainly interesting to see what this may be, and where.

Let's not forget also that we have been told for weeks that the SP has been deliberately manipulated at this mcap level to allow II's to load up, so we can surely expect some new TR1 holders soon..

Re: Schoders.
Any selling activity may just tie in with what could be a regular review of the portfolio weights within their own funds and their clients, and a required rebalance to ensure compliance with internal holding restrictions following a near doubling of the SP/mcap in the last month.
A high profile seller does not necessarily mean a loss of conviction, sometimes it is prudent portfolio management, much like a PI with their own account, or even compliance-led to in order that restrictions are not breached.
Many possibilities, and without a statement from Shroders, no one will know the reasons, or if they are indeed selling out or just holding at a reduced level.
As with most things, folk will put their own spin depending on their own particular viewpoint

Phats,
Posters here have already had to talk Garonne down from the ledge once today.
Here's hoping he has switched off for the weekend

haggis,
Re: "I do wonder if the move to publishing the filled orders to 12:00 the next day was because people like me were looking for them at 5:30pm and posting them one BB's? Either way, they can't hide them!!"

I do hope this was tongue in cheek.
There are clear guidelines published by esma as to the reporting of qualifying delayed trades which I believe is any time up to 7pm local time on T+2.

Good weekend all