Member Info for elir71

"management does not control the share price"

no, but it does in part judge the actions of the management. Is it a fair and accurate judgment, probably not with small cap stocks with low liquidity , which is why I prefer to look at fundamentals and arrive at my own conclusions of value. Ultimately fundamentals win out as long as cashflow is carefully managed and funding is sufficient.

saturated soil is about 1.8 T / cu m Unbroken rock 2.2 - 2.4 ish T / cu m except
for the same mineral makup of the aggregate the density will in significant part be due to the voids ratio and to what extent those voids are filled with water.

I agree Rob, macho type posturing , more suited to the playground of an infants school

@Torreguas .. I think they plan two 5000 bopd plants as opposed to 1x 10000 bopd plants
I'd have liked to have read that samples are being shiped to QFR, or is it that they are trying to imply that they don't need MSAR, (though they do), but as some sort of negotiation ploy ?

I wish they had explicity stated samples dispatched to QRF

Yes, the job is to facilitate exploration as opposed to expolitation, although, given that the exploration licence allows for selling the gold found during the process then I'm not sure what the difference is. I notice that Scotgold even drove an adit (as I expect we shall, and shafts) called an "exploration adit", which later became the "production adit". If anyone can educate me about what we can do with an exploitation licence which we can't with an exploration licence I would be grateful. All I can see is the timescales for the licences.

When dry, then 1T of tailings (or pretty much any soil from UK) fills a builders "dumpy" bag , which is why they are known as Tonne bags

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B_faWxhH73ZIu3XeFO6BPcPZZ4DNmbRo/view?usp=drivesdk

Liquid gold today

Beers and Chinese for me in sunny Anglesey

I'd agree that our priorities are different, however it is not a matter of asserting shareholders' rights for its own sake but to make a clear statement that ALBA will not conduct fundraises that exclude shareholders from discounted shares. That in itself will tend to make the share more attractive to new investors, raise demand, share price should follow, fund raises more cost effective in terms of shares. So in that sense is saves costs as fund raises at higher share prices is less costly. Contacting shareholders is not an enormous burden, as most shareholders as far as I am aware hold shares through nominee accounts, to their broker electronically disseminates information. (different brokers do this in different ways).

So to conclude that point, it is not more costly, when all things are taken into account

With respect to flexibility, yes you are quite correct, the process of raising capital through closed placings is far more rapid, however those shares can also be "rapidly" dumped on the market depressing the SP and causing a volatility beyond that which is inherent in the fundamental business risk. Is a two month process too far a horizon ? not in my opinion but I appreciate that other's would judge that differently.

As for my priorities, they are to provide a source of capital for the company, avail shareholders of the opportunity to participate in fund raises, reduce the volatility associated with the oscillations resulting from sp rise, placing, sp drop, progress sp rise etc. These oscillations tend to give the company's various "persistent critics" (I'm being kind in my wording) undeserved traction. Steadying the helm should attract shareholders of a more long term nature especially given the expected (hoped for) good newsflow anticipated.

Well yes, with the benefit of hindsight, Bergen must do some fairly cautious risk assessments before accepting clients. Next best thing to owning shares in them is to take small punts on those who they service, (with a 6 month horizon, taking advantage of the inevitable dips that come with the overreactions to the predictable)

cheaper than Bergen, mind you, I've looked at all the AIM stocks they'd serviced until about the end of the year and the majority are doing better now than they were (in terms of SP), perhaps we should use them as "Buy indicators" ?

@ocelot have you seen the primary bid app / site by the way ?
Ive seen some quite low cap ventures raise funds there, its quite interesting.

I cant follow how you reach that conclusion, my figures show reasonably clearly that an open offer of a company at a similar stage of development can successfully raise funds from an open offer.

you assume the costs would be the same, which I doubt they would be, there would be some proportionality and some fixed cost element.

I'd point out I wasnt looking to raise £1.2M (which in hindsight was brilliantly timed by GF), but £3M (and admittedly, the present time is not the best time), but after proven rich lodes have been identified sentiment returned etc
The reason I'm adovacating the authority for the greater amount is to lower the overhead as a proportion of the capraise and provide sufficient funds to get to self sustainability. I think it would help decategorise the share as a pump and dump stock.

The advantage of shares being taken by existing shareholders is that they are more likely to hold those shares rather than churn them for a quick profit.

@ocelot
offer price 2.7p

27 Nov 2020 Results of AGM - SP 1.8p - (which is when it would have been apparent that quick and easy placings were out)
1 Mar 21 - Proposed launch of offer (announced after close of trading) - SP 2.9p
23 Mar 21 - Results of offer (before start of trading) - SP 3.4p

then traded at about 3.3p until rising to about 6.5p setting to 4.7p currently

@ocelot .. perhaps not, there'd be a fixed price element to it of course, but its not orders of magnitude away either
3p ish the next day, but the trend has been quite positive since then though theres been a bit of a retrace lately due to a delay by a third party.

https://www.theaic.co.uk/availability-on-platforms/shareholder-voting-consumer-platforms

Some useful links on voting when holding through nominee

This is from Quadrises' open offer :-
"The Company has conditionally raised total gross proceeds of £ 6.0 million pursuant to the Placing of 222,222,222 Placing Shares at the Placing Price of 2.7 pence per Ordinary Share. The net proceeds of the Placing of approximately £5.5 million are expected to be supplemented by additional proceeds of up to £1.0 million to be raised pursuant to the Open Offer."

So the entire exercise cost (of raising £6.5M) in terms of fees admin expeses etc £ 500k
divide that accross the total number of shares at the time in Quadrise and the cost per share was 0.035 p per share

Their fundraise (2nd of March) was at an sp of 2.7p and as of close of play today it is 4.6p to sell a 70% rise in three months

So, if we translated this to an ALBA cash net raise of £3M then there's roughly £250k in admin fees etc which translates to 0.004 p per share .... is that too high a price ?

@Hotfinance ... oh yes thanks, I read it properly now

no I meant in terms of fees. The reason I ask is to get some sort of comparison between that and an placing for another company I am invested in , as I'm trying to set out the case for restoring shareholders preemption rights at least in as far as to enable open offers as opposed to placings. The company I'm talking about has also had a Bergen experience, so you can see my enthusiasm for the restoration of shareholders participation in fund raises.