Member Info for Daisan

Whether it was a buy or a sell, it certainly doesn't seem to have had much of an affect on the share price at the time of printing. Of course, a trade that size may well have been worked for a while which would explain the afternoon drift.

Alternatively you could look at it as a company that:

- has a management team that has a level of excellence way above most other AIM companies
- has a vision and the contacts to build a major gold miner in the FSU states
- has picked up a producing asset (with production levels and resources in the same ballpark as AAZ) for not much more than the amount invested in it in the last couple of years by Polymetal
- currently has 1.2m oz reserves and 9.1m oz resources
- is targeting 1m oz production and 20m oz resource base within 5 years
- has identified a gold district that has identified 7m+ oz on 1/6th of the strike length

Always interesting to see how people view things differently.

knuttie,

On the basis of reported trades, yes, but, as we have long become accustomed to, the more significant trades are likely to be delayed in reporting so the picture may become clearer later (although even then it quite often doesn't!).

The only projects that I can see Statera carrying out include Li-ion storage. That doesn't mean that this has to be the case for what is a pretty large system but it probably makes it less likely to be VRFB.

OK, I stand corrected. Market makers are allowed to run short positions (naked or otherwise) without informing the authorities of these positions but not for proprietary trading (although given how inept the FCA is you would have to suspect that this takes place as well).

the_shareminator,

With regards to the VAT refund, I think the attitude of most is that there is a hope that it takes place rather than an expectation. Tanzania would not be the first country to shoot itself in the foot with punitive legislation and then wonder why they can't attract foreign investment.

One of the reasons I sold AAZ (very prematurely as it turns out!) is that they shifted to GEOs rather than gold ozs which for me is an obfuscation (I wouldn't have sold out for that alone but it was a factor). I prefer companies to call out put what it is, whether that be gold, copper or silver rather than lump them together.

I have no idea how AAZ manage to keep their costs so low. The currency is pegged to the USD so they have not benefited from devaluation and the grade of the deposit is by no means exceptional. They are even stockpiling based on the Q1 numbers which should increase costs.

allthatguff,

I hardly think the suggestion that there is a large holder selling is that complicated.

So now I have to factor in illegality to understand what is going on when an entity selling a significant position explains it much more simply? Occam's razor anyone?

AdamP100,

So you believe that it is more likely that there is an equally massive short as the size of the (for you fictitious) 'tame seller'. There is actually less evidence of this position as the requirements for reporting short positions are much stricter than those for long positions. Whilst I cannot categorically state one way or the other we would all agree that there is a very sizable seller, whether that be a short position or a long position liquidating. Personally I think that your position is far less likely.

AdamP100,

It was stated that the 'tame seller' sells to the short seller to cover their position. The short seller then returns the shares to the original lender. The original lender and the 'tame seller' are not the same entity.

So the short seller borrows from 'A', sells the shares in the market, buys from 'B' at some point and returns the shares to 'A'.

In actual fact there doesn't need to be a link between the short seller and 'B' as the short seller just buys in the market. I suspect that the more likely link is a market maker and 'B' (aka 'tame seller') that can supply shares as and when required.

Not sure what the point is of posting something that self-disproves.

I think that we are both getting confused by each others points so I'll just leave it there.

Sorry mcgrco I don't really understand what you are trying to say. My point was in reference to the suggestion that the TPEP short position in BMN was reflective of their position in REMX. If this is the case it is surely plausible that, as the BMN position in REMX is reduced, the short position in BMN should also be reduced.

I note that the reported position in REMX decreased by 1,110,000 shares. This aligns with a trade just after closing the day before yesterday which suggests that one of the 1m+ trades yesterday may well be another reduction. If one of them was, I suspect that it was the 1.25m one in the afternoon rather than the larger late trade although I could be wrong. Note that it may have been either or neither!

Given the fact that the price was pretty flat for this trust yesterday, compared with a series of drops the previous few days, it may be that today we may not get one of these sells.

One other point, if the REMX position is reducing and the TPEP short is associated with this position, then you would expect this to begin reducing as well.

It certainly feels like this is all coming to a head. I suspect that the interesting times we are experiencing could become even more interesting, but in a positive sense.

Hmmm. I always like very large odd number trades as it often marks an end. But then again I don't trust after market trades at all so not quite sure what to think of that one.

OK, the 650k trade probably kicked it all off this afternoon. I wonder what else we have to come out?

Interesting that this was around the time that the 1.25m trade was placed (which also explains the sharp fall around the time). The rate of these sell trades has certainly increased this week.

I suspect that the stockpiling is more aimed at covering the planned maintenance period.