Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Richlist, " it must take a bit of time to arrange funding and sign off on £100,000 "
Many of us are thinking that council fleets and use in park and ride etc would be excellent customers. They would not only need plenty of cash in their capital budget (likely long ago assigned elsewhere) but they are also required to put orders of this size out to tender to a minimum of 3 suppliers.... I'm not sure what they do if there aren't 3 possible suppliers.
I'm guessing we wont see any orders from the public sector until next year, I.e starting April and even then cash-strapped local authorities may well need additional, probably ring-fenced, funding from Westminster to allow for this type of outlay.
I haven't read the AGM document, but i can't imagine that is where this price has come from. Can anyone direct me to a source for these figures, please? (My experience is AGMs are all about voting on resolutions and little else).
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50706923
A report for the United Nations just released. A couple of the points made quoted below, showing that change isn't all about the immediate bottom line, as political policies are increasingly implemented between now and 2025.
"Car-makers with the swiftest transition to electric vehicles (EVs), for instance, are projected to increase in value by 108%, according to the study by Vivid Economics.
Manufacturers slow to move to EVs will see their value fall, as governments realise that petrol and diesel models must be phased out faster for climate targets to be met."
RNS Reach - This is a non-regulatory announcement 5 November 2019 AFC Energy Unveils Branding of Inaugural Technology Platforms
Highlights
· HydroX-Cell(L)TM - zero emission, high efficiency and low-cost alkaline fuel cell utilising a liquid electrolyte configured in 10kW modules, capable of deployment across large scale industrial applications utilising lower grades of hydrogen.
· HydroX-Cell(S)TM - zero emission, high efficiency, high current density alkaline fuel cell utilising an anionic exchange membrane configured in 10kW modules capable of deployment across a range of both stationary and mobile applications, again, capable of utilising lower grades of hydrogen.
· H-PowerTM - the new range of Hydrogen Power systems, including the soon to be released hydrogen fuelled off-grid EV charger, utilising the HydroX-Cell portfolio of fuel cell module configurations.
· AlkaMemTM - the new range of anionic exchange polymer membranes developed for the HydroX-Cell(S)TM fuel cell application but with universal application across a range of additional applications including Alkaline Water Electrolysis, fuel synthesis and energy storage.
In recent years, AFC Energy's alkaline fuel cell technology has become synonymous with low cost, high efficiency, and fuel tolerant hydrogen power generators following a redesign and development programme instigated three (3) years ago.
It is now only right that the technology underpinning the Company's core identity be afforded its own brand as a key component of AFC Energy's phased go to market strategy.
Alkaline fuel cells are distinguished from other fuel cell technologies in the manner by which hydroxyl group ions (OH-) migrate from cathode to anode. It is at the anode where the hydrogen reacts with the hydroxyl group ions, releasing electrons, and which gives AFC Energy its high fuel efficiency and tolerance to lower grades of Hydrogen.
The HydroX-Cell series of fuel cells draws its name from this unique reaction, whilst the distinguishing feature between technologies rests in the liquid ("L") and solid ("S") electrolytes used to conduct ions from cathode to anode.
The AlkaMemTM polymer membrane developed by AFC Energy for inclusion in the Hydrox-Cell(S)TM fuel cell has been afforded its own branding due to the multiple applications in which it can be used outside of the fuel cell field.
The Company will be releasing a specific update on each of the HydroX-Cell(S)TM and AlkaMemTM technologies shortly detailing updates on progress made in the development of these two core platforms within the AFC Energy technology portfolio.
Adam Bond, Chief Executive Officer at AFC Energy, said "The culmination of the past three years work has led us to a clear tri-pillar approach to the branding of our core technologies within the H-Power suite of products. With a clear focus on our customer value proposition, we believe that these three core technologies, utilised within applications suc
hafeez1 "Since trading update Ennismore Fund Management Limited have increased their short exposure, which has added to the downfall."
How do you know? It isn't big enough for them to have notified the FCA, which means it is less than 0.5% of market cap. That also means it is unlikely to have any impact on the share price at all.
Date ++ Shares ++ Price ++ Total. Running Total*
18 Oct . 94,482 -26.46p £25,250 $32,572
21 Oct . 29,000 -27.91p .£8,174 $43,199
22 Oct. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $75,771
23 Oct. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $108,283
24 Oct. 88,192 -28.35p £25,252 $?140,859
25 Oct. --------- --------- £--------- $140,859
28 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $173,178
29 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $205,750 10% completed
30 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $?238,322
31 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $270,895
01 Nov. 88,967 -28.10p £25,250 $303,467
04 Nov. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $336,040
05 Nov. 92,165 -27.125p £25,250 $368,612
06 Nov. 92,592 -27.00p £25,250 $401,184 20% Completed
07 Nov. 90,909 -27.50p £25,250 $433,504
08. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $?465,824
11. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $?498,144 25% Completed
12. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $530,464
13. Nov. 91,575, -27.30p £25,250 $?562,784
14. Nov. 93,283 -26.30p £25,250 $595,104 30% completed
15. Nov. 92,250 -27.10p £25,250 $627,677
18. Nov. 94,339 -26.50p £25,250 $660,502 1/3rd completed
19. Nov. 95,419 -26.20p £25,250 $693,074
20. Nov. 97,656 -25.60p £25,250 $725,646
21. Nov. 97,276 -25.70p £25,250 $758,215
22. Nov. 98,039 -25.50p £25,250 $790,535
25. Nov. 96,153 -26.00p £25,250 $823,107 approx 41% completed
26. Nov. 95,419 -26.20p £25,250 $855,680
27. Nov. 97,513 -25.64p £25,250 $888,252
28. Nov. 97,656 -25.60p £25,250 $920,826
29. Nov. 94,768 -26.38p £25,250 $?953,399
02. Dec. 93,283 -26.80p £25,250 $985,971
03. Dec. 91,911 @27.20p £25,250 $1,018,796 Over 50% complete
Over 50% through, I’m still predicting the buyback to complete in w/e 17th Jan. Yesterday saw the highest price paid for the buyback for 3 weeks. It might quickly jump back to over @28p if the sellers stay away. Good luck all.
Total number of Ordinary Shares in issue with voting rights now ?452,726,727
?2,800,918? shares have been bought and cancelled.
*Approx Running total in US Dollars inc. 1% stamp duty Fx rate taken from US close and rounded to the nearest cent.
Bluerill,
Every time you are shown to be talking rubbish you come out with another load of theories that contradict what you previously wrote.
Now it is small private investors fleeing a company that isn't to be taken seriously anyway and therefore it isn't a problem if they're throwing away $2m of their cash.
No suggestion as to why they might actually do that at all? I.e. embark on a non-serious, useless $2m buyback to use your own characterisation.
The waiver is 25% of the daily trade, by the way, not the 20% of some average you've dreamed up and incorrectly quote. As I said, you've got a lot to learn about buybacks. Do a search on 'successful buybacks', I did, and the first link happened to be about Buffet, but I'm sure you can find some others to read as you are well above his advice.
Well, I thought I might get some intelligent responses here, but I see its still all the same cheerleading people such as yourself and you've built up quite a claque, I notice. Poor, deluded fools.
"We'll never see 40p again" etc etc. Do they ever question you on the rubbish you have touted for so many years?
No genuine discussion, and anyone who tries to start one shouted down. Go watch the progress of a storage tanker with your mates, like its going to make a jot of difference to the value of your holding
While you're at it, reflect on how I warned you about Nigerian pipelines and how correct I was and how wrong you were. Then look-up the security of storing oil in tankers off-shore from the Niger Delta.
Date ++ Shares ++ Price ++ Total. Running Total*
18 Oct . 94,482 -26.46p £25,250 $32,572
21 Oct . 29,000 -27.91p .£8,174 $43,199
22 Oct. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $75,771
23 Oct. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $108,283
24 Oct. 88,192 -28.35p £25,252 $?140,859
25 Oct. --------- --------- £--------- $140,859
28 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $173,178
29 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $205,750 10% completed
30 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $?238,322
31 Oct. 87,719 -28.50p £25,250 $270,895
01 Nov. 88,967 -28.10p £25,250 $303,467
04 Nov. 89,285 -28.00p £25,250 $336,040
05 Nov. 92,165 -27.125p £25,250 $368,612
06 Nov. 92,592 -27.00p £25,250 $401,184 20% Completed
07 Nov. 90,909 -27.50p £25,250 $433,504
08. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $?465,824
11. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $?498,144 25% Completed
12. Nov. 91,274 -27.39p £25,250 $530,464
13. Nov. 91,575, -27.30p £25,250 $?562,784
14. Nov. 93,283 -26.30p £25,250 $595,104 30% completed
15. Nov. 92,250 -27.10p £25,250 $627,677
18. Nov. 94,339 -26.50p £25,250 $660,502 1/3rd completed
19. Nov. 95,419 -26.20p £25,250 $693,074
20. Nov. 97,656 -25.60p £25,250 $725,646
21. Nov. 97,276 -25.70p £25,250 $758,215
22. Nov. 98,039 -25.50p £25,250 $790,535
23. Nov. 96,153 @26.00p £25,250 $823,107 approx 41% completed
Total number of Ordinary Shares in issue with voting rights now 453,297,277
*Approx Running total in US Dollars inc. 1% stamp duty Fx rate taken from US close and rounded to the nearest cent.
Bluerill ". I'm sorry, but the rest of what you wrote about how the buyback is being 'handled' (huh???) and 'desperate sellers' is simply gibberish."
Is it really? You obviously don't know much about buybacks and especially about the best way to handle them.
Here are some of Warren Buffet's opinions, you might have heard of him, about some of the best ways to handle a buyback (huh?) and some of the worst ways (huh??). And the methodology he prefers (huh???). Just to get you started, as your comments appear to indicate you haven't got a clue.
As a flavour for those who don't want to be clicking on links, Buffet said, "Many management are just deciding they’re gonna buy X billions over X months. That’s no way to buy things". Substitute '£25k every day' and the penny might drop when I talk about handling a buyback.
Buffet also says, "Can you imagine somebody going out and saying, we’re going to buy a business and we don’t care what the price is? You know, we’re going to spend $5 billion this year buying a business, we don’t care what the price is. But that’s what companies do when they don’t attach some kind of a metric to what they’re doing on their buybacks"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/warren-buffett-explains-the-enduring-power-of-stock-buybacks.html
Please do point out the "gibberish" parts of what he is saying. After that, talking of gibberish, you can have a go at explaining how the company and 'one or two buyers' are 'absorbing' the daily volume of shares and the price is still falling.
None of which gets us any closer to who the seller is, desperate or otherwise.
Bluerrill:" why not try and determine who the buyer may be? ... very patient buyer sitting on the bid, dealing primarily off-market, building a position. Wonder who that might be?"
Well, I think that's the company buying and cancelling the shares, via Cantor. No one is building a position, certainly not of corresponding size, which is the whole point of the discussion. We know who the buyer is. The clue is in the term buy-back.
Maybe someone else has some plausible contribution to make as to the seller(s) and why the buyback is being handled so badly. Or Maybe you can come up with some source for your mythical upper limit set for the buyback in cash terms!
Bluerill:"As for the 100k sales each day, it is likely related to, for the time being, the seller filling the company's daily demand, which is obviously a known quantity of near enough, 100k shares."
How stupid would that be for a seller apparently desperate for cash?
Bluerill: " This is a silly discussion, "
Don't take part then. I didn't start the discussion, but I think it is a worthwhile question. You have made clear you think it is irrelevant, so nothing for you to add then.
In 5 of the last 7 trading days blocks of 100,000 shares exactly have been released.
It seems like odd behaviour from individual 'small holders' to me, but then what do I know?
Well, we don't seem to be getting anywhere identifying a seller. My theory that the sales are coming rom the inventory of market makers first and foremost, rather than P.I.s realising losses, appears to have fallen on stony ground, and I must admit I'm not very au fait with exactly how they work in terms of holding stock inventory. So I looked it up. I thought this seemed to rather confirm my suspicions:
" Understanding Market Makers
The most common type of market maker is a brokerage house that provides purchase and sale solutions for investors in an effort to keep financial markets liquid. A market maker can also be an individual intermediary, but due to the size of securities needed to facilitate the volume of purchases and sales, the vast majority of market makers work on behalf of large institutions."
""Making a market" signals a willingness to buy and sell the securities of a defined set of companies to broker-dealer firms that are member firms of that exchange. Each market maker displays buy and sell quotations for a guaranteed number of shares. Once an order is received from a buyer, the market maker immediately sells off his position of shares from his own inventory, to complete the order. In short, market making facilitates a smoother flow of financial markets by making it easier for investors and traders to buy and sell. Without market making, there may be insufficient transactions and less overall investment activities.
A market maker must commit to continuously quoting prices at which it will buy (or bid for) and sell (or ask for) securities. Market makers must also quote the volume in which they're willing to trade, and the frequency of time it will quote at the Best Bid and Best Offer (BBO) prices. Market makers must stick to these parameters at all times, during all market outlooks. When markets become erratic or volatile, market makers must remain disciplined in order to continue facilitating smooth transactions."
P.S. Bluerill - at no point did I say that market makers were not fulfilling their obligations. Your reply seems to imply that I had. Also the motion to have a buyback was put up by the company but decided by vote at the AGM, and the major shareholders, owning a majority, obviously decided to have one. So, the decision was indeed theirs.
Blackswan: "mop up the shares from the small investors who are prepared to sell leaving them in total ownership without them spending a penny extra from their own pockets."
thanks for replying. I fully understand what you are saying and that is what appears to be happening at the moment ....
except ... as I asked in my post, just how many shareholders are prepared to take a loss at this price (E.g. when they could have got 5% more last week) and are surely realising a loss at the current prices? I would suggest there are very few who are THAT desperate for cash or have a better place to put it knowing that there is a load of cash overdue to be paid out (under written agreement) as well as positive news on the way, probably later rather than sooner, but still due.
I don't see positive RNSs particularly raising the share price as suggested by bluerill, its been a long time since operational RNSs did that in SLE and the price doesn't even respond to the oil price rising.
It WILL respond when SLE announce the distribution of that cash, though, at least temporarily, but ultimately they're going to have to show an operating profit before they stop the rot in share price, I believe, or announce take-over prospects.
Also, if the major shareholders are intentionally doing what you suggest (and I'm certainly not denying the possibility or the actual current reality of what you say) its a very fractional, slow approach AND unsure, unless they have a grip on exactly who holds how many shares and where. The registrar should be able to furnish them with exactly those figures, but not who would be willing to sell at a loss. And if someone is prepared to sell at a loss, why not sell more at a higher price rather than taking a little less every day?
This is my point about market makers having to provide liquidity. Surely these sellers are not entirely dependent on SLE's buyback and wouldn't be able to sell otherwise? That would suggest the market was broken and the market makers were not fulfilling their obligations, as I understand them. I may have got it wrong at this low transaction level, I acknowledge that, which is why I'm asking it to be pointed out if I have.
Otherwise, the conclusions you draw appear to be one possible answer. Another is that the pre-set parameters SLE gave Cantor were unbelievably mis-managed. I wouldn't rule that out either, but seems even less likely. More likely they badly misjudged the situation ... so the question why they don't cancel the buyback then comes into play.
Sigh...
Bluerill, "you have a number of important misconceptions/misunderstandings about how market makers operate"
I may well do, I acknowledge that, which is why I'd like you to point them out if I have. However ...
Bluerill:" one quick clarification for you: It should be absolutely clear by now on the evidence (ie., every RNS on the buyback thus far) that the company is limited by the regulator to around £25k per day. Simple"
No such limit has ever been stated in any RNS by SLE or in any buyback I've ever followed. Just because they have chosen to spend £25k (plus stamp duty) each day doesn't in anyway imply a limit imposed by the regulator. In fact, the more usual regularatory limit of 25% of daily transactions was waived, which was made clear in the original announcement.
If there is such a limit placed then it is clearly laid down in the "pre-set parameters" laid down by the company, and not by
the regulator. SLE didn't publish those pre-set parameters, or what it hoped to achieve, which is one reason I have so many questions.
"San Leon Energy plc today announces that, pursuant to the shareholder resolutions passed on 27 September 2019 at the Annual General Meeting, it plans to acquire ordinary shares of EUR 0.01 nominal value each ("Ordinary Shares"), up to a total value of USD 2.0 million (the "Buyback Programme"). In accordance with the shareholder resolutions, the Company is proposing to acquire the Ordinary Shares at a maximum price of the greater of (i) 105% of the average market price of such shares for the previous five days and (ii) the higher of the price quoted for the last independent trade and the highest current independent bid or offer for such shares.
The Buyback Programme will be independently managed by Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, the Company's Nominated Adviser and joint broker, which will make trading decisions independently and without influence of the Company within certain pre-set parameters.
A buyback of Ordinary Shares on any trading day may represent a significant proportion, or possibly all, of the daily trading volume in the Ordinary Shares on the London Stock Exchange (and may exceed the limit of 25% of the average daily trading volume, as laid down by Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014). The Company may therefore not be able to benefit from the exemption laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. The Company confirms that it is not in possession of any unpublished price sensitive information, other than the information disclosed in this announcement."
So perhaps I'm not the only one with some midunderstandings surrounding this, unless you are party to the 'pre-set parameters'? I have not seen them, either in the AGM general document for allowing a buyback or any other RNS, but its possible I missed them. I don't think so though.
... here is today's example of what I discussed below in this thread:
11:28:10 21-Nov-2019 25.70 GBX 100,000 25,700.00 Off-book PRIC AIMX*
11:29:30 21-Nov-2019 25.70 GBX 97,276 24,999.93 Off-book AIMX
* The trade flag PRIC = Negotiated Trade Waiver Condition: N, PRIC, NLIQ, OILQ are all 'Negotiated trade types.'
It obviously isn't coincidence so can anyone describe what is going on? Or answer any of the questions below?
Why don't SLE's buyers at least up the daily value while the price is so obviously low? There is no restriction on them from doing so, unless their initial instructions were very inflexible and unusual and I don't remember them being so.
Are the major shareholders and/or board quite happy to cancel a few thousand more shares as the price continues to drop and see that as a desirable scenario? If so, why?
Are they content to prolong the buyback process well into January as this same buy amount each day will extend to?
Will they then announce another $2m programme in 1Q2020? Will this put off any dividend announcement for another 3 months at least, or will they announce a dividend while the buyback programme is active?
What will happen to the price when the buyback ceases?
Would two quarterly buyback programmes be seen as fulfilling the promised bi-annual return of value to shareholders from the loan note agreement? If so what happens to the rest of the cash? We know they had plenty on hand and have said nothing other than a dividend will be announced in 'due course'.
What are the board actually trying to achieve with this buyback programme? Clearly this type of buyback approach isn't returning any value to shareholders and was never likely to given the circumstances and style we now know prevail in a company with very few daily transactions.
Who among the shareholders here actually think the current programme is paying them any value?
Do any holders think that perhaps the experiement should be cut short now ... or is that squeee on 'free float' supply just around the corner with almost 40% of the buyback completed?
A lot of questions for discussion and any answers will be speculative. I'd still be interested to hear from people, especially anyone who believes anything I've pointed out or questioned in this post and my previous in this thread is incorrect in any way and why that is so.
NB. I'm not 100% certain that the £24,999.93 purchase is today's buyback tranche, but I'd be prepared to take a bets on it that tomorrow's RNS will confirm it is.
The market makers have to retain a certain amount of shares and provide liquidity, that is their job. If they have enough shares on their hands with a buyback as predictable as this then you would expect to see them releasing 100,000 shares or so into the market on a daily basis, which is exactly what we have been seeing lately. I was hoping that, especially at these prices, they'd start to run out of shares and have to up the price in order to attract sales from different sources and we would see supply and demand in action.... in a positive way.
I dunno, is that too simplistic a view? What we seem to have is an over-supply and its hard to imagine who is happy selling stock given that just about every holder must be underwater at these prices and supposedly there is a large divi payment due at any time now.
Right now over a third of the buyback is complete and its hard to tell how it has in anyway measured up as a return of value to shareholders ... the cash is coming from the same pool as any dividend yet to be paid, remember. Unless SLE's plan is to announce $2m buybacks every quarter. In which case eventually that must have a positive effect, all else being equal, but could be a long time in coming.
Meanwhile market cap is reducing through price and share cancellation and cash on hand is growing (we assume). Something has to give sooner or later.
Rooky, "My point is that I feel the AFC sales team will look after the £1,000 pocket change clients, with De-Nora dealing with any of the big boy £1,000,000 plus clients."
Presumably with the recently appointed director with power plant sales experience and possibly A, Bond. present also.
My reason for thinking AFC are still looking at leasing plant to customers is that somewhere on the new web site or one of the recent RNSs there was an expression of intent/mission statement which spoke about plant ownership.
I'm guessing there probably will be a mix of approaches depending on size of sale and product type also. All will become clearer over the next 20 days or less.
Also, I've spoken about cost of sales, but when cash has been raised over the year the announcements have always mentioned 'supply chain' costs rather than the sort of sales team costs and after-service I've been talking about. So, its all just speculation at the moment and I'm unsure what to guess at on the supply side as I tend to assume that partners like De Nora will be shouldering most of the up front costs there.
Time will tell. Certainly exciting times, especially if the share price breaks through the barrier set @20p by the recent placement. I think it will at some point, with that price becoming a bottom 'support' as the chartists say ... but who can tell when it comes to markets really? Just my best guess at the moment, obviously.