Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Can we be sure that there is no change to the investment allowance,i.e. would he have had to announce it, or could he sneakily publish changes in a technical document (in Budgets all sorts of documents get published alongside the actual speech)?
You can think of it as if the income from the oil just starts a bit later (say 2026 instead of 2025) at the original tax rates. So not a massive change. But on the positive side, the incentive to invest from the investment allowance is now even bigger, given that the tax itself is higher.
Not sure how Euroclear would have that information.
Is it available publicly?- I can't see it on their website. Or is it "secret" insider information supposedly? In which case I'm not sure that we should believe it. Anyway, the fact is it's not showing on the FCA site so I am somewhat skeptical in the meantime, unless someone can give some clarifications.
Jimmy, where did you get that information from? On the FCA website I can't see any short positions notified as of yesterday. Also, if that's true then surely shorters are not stupid so what rationale could they have?
Based on the last report of 28.6.22 there are 584,552,350 warrants, and another 100,000,000 have been issued recently per the convertible loan facility. If you add that to the 1,980,219,255 share in issue you get 2664771605 shares, so 592,830,258 is 22.2%, which would mean he is overstating the percentage owned. If you ignore the 100,000,000 recent warrants then you get 23.1%. I suppose you could say he was taking an approximate average figure as there is a doubt as to whether the warrants will be exercised, so it's anything between 22.2% and 29.9% so he just took a figure in the middle.
I don't follow how the 25% is calculated as on 26.8.21 Tomco said that Valkor would get 592,830,258 shares. As of now there are 1,980,219,255 shares, so that makes it 29.9% based on the current share count. Actually based on the share account when the deal was announced it would have been more than 30% so perhaps someone can elighten me please.
Interesting remark from FInncap near the end of their note: "The end-point of the ACTIV-2 4000+ patient phase II/III study in outpatient COVID-19 patients, which includes SNG001 as one of the treatments, has yet to be reached. It is not clear exactly when the data will be published, but it is likely to be a news item for Synairgen in Q4 2022. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, the last patient intervention was in l ate March 2022, so a time frame before the end of the year is reasonable."
Gtx1, thanks. I have done plenty of DD including reading virtually the entire court filings of Argentina and Petersen (the main ones anyway). Of course as I am not a solicitor it's hard to know sometimes which arguments are more likely to be accepted. Having said that, on most legal points I think Petersen (Burford) are likely to prevail, although there is one particular legal argument that Argentina have brought up which I don't feel able to determine who has the upper hand, which is why it really needs lawyers to cast an opinion. Someone like Maril who is just a journalist simply doesn't have insight into the legalities of it. Just saying "Preska will nearly have to give this to Burford as a win, or any country can take other foreign assets off other share holders" is actually neither here nor there - the judge has to go by the legalities of the case, whatever the end result will be. So my question is - is anyone aware of solicitors who have been through the filings and case an opinion and if so who and where and what did they say?
Gtx1, am interested to know, when you say "nearly all the experts" who are they exactly please? Do you have any relevant links? And have you found any dissenting views? I would be grateful to hear more details/links about that as well. Thanks very much.
What's Jason's email address?
Very interesting, thanks. Can we assume that Chariot, who do have the full data set, are able to assess very well the likely upgrades in the CPR? Or is it fair to say that they themselves don't properly know how the CPR will turn out because whoever does the CPR will have more advanced computer programs which know how to analyse the data better than even Chariot themselves can? I mean if it was so simple that Chariot can understand the data very well by themselves why does it even take so long to produce the CPR?
JImmy thanks for your estimates. But would you mind to please answer specifically this question: is there any chance (and if so how much) that it could just simply all go wrong in the CPR and for some reason it will conclude that the gas is not commercially recoverable? Thanks
Thanks for the replies, perhaps I need to rephrase the question: is it possible that the CPR could produce a really negative outcome, like saying there is hardly any gas or it's not of good quality or commercially recoverable, i.e. something that we are not considering at the moment? That would only be if they somehow see this from their detailed analysis of the technical data they receive and clearly is not something which Chariot or AP think at the moment, but could it nevertheless happen? Have such things happened before and if so how often?