Member Info for Daisan

Indeed Wolfman_Jack. These trades could be from anywhere. My question was really associated with the trading patterns. OTC trades that are outside AIM trading hours need to be satisfied on opening so can skew the trading at this time. I usually avoid trades first thing owing to the strange nature but opening quite often sets the scene for the rest of the day so has a significant influence on the direction of the price.

Well, given the quality level of the board recently it is likely to be a ghost town around here soon.

Perhaps we should all terminate messages with the following:

"This post will self destruct in 30 seconds"

(By this I mean people who invest via OTC markets rather than foreign investors who invest through AIM.)

There was a suggestion a few days ago that a trade may have been OTC. This got me wondering as to how significant are the holdings of investors who would trade in this manner. I confess that I have not used OTC trades to any great extent (I vaguely recall investing years ago through such a vehicle) but I suspect that the volumes are normally minimal. I know that we had one US based poster here that was frustrated with his investment options.

Does anyone trade OTC? Or know anyone who does? Anyone with any visibility of the size of the holdings of so?

pb940,

I think that is a whole new area of discussion - the ethics of investment! From what I have seen of people, most would profess that they support what you say but their deeds often suggest otherwise.

Not really. His charts have indicated that this is a potential set up. If it happens then he can take the opportunity if not he looks for the next one. I do not consider ma5k to be the inimical character that some on here believe and he has at least shown his charts to support his thesis.

Pigpen70,

To clarify ma5k's position, he is looking for set ups in a chart pattern to profit from. The bull trap he has identified would create a local low and rise to a local high whilst being part of a down trend. I believe based on his charts that he is looking at 28p as an entry point and around 35p as an exit point, so a 25% potential rise.

Personally I believe that TA deals with probabilities rather than absolutes and I have seen TA experts go horribly wrong with their investments where they feel that the reading is 'correct'. In this case I suspect that there is a low risk of this. After all, if it does not fall then he doesn't enter the trade and if it doesn't rise then it is likely that he has a stop loss.

I confess that I used to use charts more extensively in the past but I found that I had more success using a combination of fundamental analysis and charts than using either alone. After all, the former is a reflection of the health of the company whilst the latter is a reflection of the 'health' (sentiment) of the investors. For AIM shares it is not ideal as they tend to have less information in the public domain and are much less traded. As a result, they are much more susceptible to news driven events and the actions of a few investors.

I suspect that I am a bit weird in focusing on the fact that 'elsewhere' is one word and, hence, should not have the 'W' capitalised in the hashtag.

Even though your post is as riddled with disingenuousness as ever Inner-Harmony, I have to agree with the sentiment around EBITDA. It is too easily manipulated to be a reliable measure. However, its use is widespread amongst miners. Indeed, if I look at Glencore's 2017 annual report I see that it is mentioned 117 times. Presumably this is a company that would be held in greater esteem.

I can only assume that Mr. Buffett doesn't invest in miners at all and subscribes to view that:

"A mine is a hole in the ground. The discoverer of it is a natural liar. The hole in the ground and the liar combine and issue shares and trap fools."

I would suggest that profit is, in this world of creative accounting, as easily manipulated. At the end it is cash on the balance sheet that talks.

I am not sure that anyone is damning them. I believe that the original point is that the asset doesn't fit well with the direction of the rest of the company.

Ok. I confess that I disagree but that is the wonder of life!

Pdub,

You don't like the policy on providing quarterly updates? Why not?

Agreed. It is a well placed project but doesn't fit the positioning of the rest of the organisation.

I would have liked to have seen some details from the BFS of Capex/NPV/IRR. Presumably these will be released once the review of the entire document is complete but I won't count my chickens as it is difficult to determine with BMN whether they will deliver these aspects into the public domain.

Chartist2, That quote in no way implies what you have concluded. It implies that the market has had to adjust to a sudden change in circumstances. This is the antithesis of hope and expectation!

:-)

Share the love!

(much needed on these boards)

ma5k,

Thanks for this. I have always enjoyed your input as well.

I have to say that your description for me rather over complicates the situation. I agree that AIM shares often result in bubbles but for me the reference point is always the intrinsic value when the company itself that has something for which the intrinsic value can be calculated on a standard model i.e. the company is robustly producing profitable revenue, regardless of whether it is on AIM or a large company. For AIM this is a relatively rare attribute which probably means that your viewpoint closely aligns with mine for the majority of shares (something like GGP is an obvious one where the company has no revenue or proven resource). I think we probably deviate for those companies that do have a proven profitable revenue model.

But maybe I am being self-delusional as I am too close to the investment!

Very odd indeed. Did they just find some stock lying around?

Rollover?

Well, by definition a bubble has to exhibit a price that strongly exceeds an asset's intrinsic value. Now, the intrinsic value of any asset is obviously debatable but it would be hard to argue that there is not significant value inherent within Bushveld. This is not an asset like Bitcoin where it is difficult to ascribe any value (and most definitions of value involve tortuous logic), it is a company that is clearly making significant profits so traditional metrics are readily available to ascertain value.

I accept that the share price increased significantly but that does not mean that it is in a bubble.

Perhaps lower case is easier to understand!

i i !

I I !