Member Info for fatherelmer

Even if the three members of the Eyi family have sold out completly that still leaves Odey acquiring another ca 1.6bn shares from someone / somewhere else....

Yes prior to the Loan note Conversion back in June 2017 they held ca 5.8% (500m shares), 9.4% (800m shares) and 18.5% (1.575bn shares) after that the percentages dropped to ca 2.5%, 4.0% and 8.0% though there were no notifications then either.

No idea. I'll ask again I wonder where Odey acquired their extra shares from - who sold (though as everyone else is below 3% we may never find out)?? Also means Emin, for one, didn't take up any / all of his Basic Entitlement under the OO as he is now clearly below 3% (and conveniently no longer being a Director means we don't get to find out that way either).

In fact I've just checked the TSTR website again and it would appear that I unfairly maligned them as they do give a listing showing Odey as the ONLY holder above 3%......as for why any RNS announcements haven't been made, I don't know, though as I appear to be correct perhaps my theory was not rubbish after all! http://tri-starresources.com/investors/aim-rule-26/

Wassatt, may be rubbish to you, but I'm sure there a plenty of folks, like me, who would like an updated list of significant holders, as the TSTR website didn't have one last time I looked, and the list you put out last week was from January 2017.

PJM, indeed, and as the originally stated 6 month window for their deployment has now passed let's hope something happens soon!!

A further thought - wouldn't it be up to the NOMAD to check in with the previous significant holders to check their positions following the Loan Conversion and then the OO??

pbody, okay I can accept that my interpretation of the rules is probably wrong, hiowever I think my point stands and that given the huge dilution since June 2017 what I suspect has happened is that previous significant holders (ie those with 3% or more) are now sitting thinking that they are now well under this threshold and so don't need to report - as from what you are saying they have to inform TSTR who then inturn have to inform the market via RNS. So again, my take is that Odey are probably the only holder now who have in excess of 3%.

pbody, you and I - and I suspect very many posters on here - are missing a subtlety of AIM Rule 17 in respect of Reporting (Changes in Holdings).... ...the rule only applies once you cross the 3% holding threshold (either when you decrease below it or go above it) this is the bit we all understand, however, now this is where subtlety comes in.... ...you only then have to report if the quantity of your holding (ie actual number of shares held) changes not whether or not you breach any further % levels of holding. Therefore, given the significant dilution / increase in total number of shares on the TSTR register since June 2017 (ca 8x - from 8.5bn to 63.8bn) who the reporting requirement applies to may well have changed dramatically, and if they have not changed the actual number of shares they hold (or have done only to a level that keeps them below the 3% threshold) then no reporting of changes are required. So whilst you would think there are (potentially) lots of holding RNS 'missing' this is not necessarily the case. For instance: - Emin Eyi, the single largest holder in May 2017 with 1,575,000,000 shares had a ca 18.6% holding, following the initial Odey Loan Conversion in June 2017, the number of shares he held didn't change but the % fell to ca.8.0% (as the total share count increased from ca. 8.5bn to ca 19.6bn) no report of this change was made (or required) following the OO as there was no report of a holding this means that his holding must now be below the 3% threshold (if he had maintained his holding above 3% a report would've been required showing the new total of shares that he holds). Therefore, we do not know whether it stayed the same, increased slightly (ie he only took up part of his Basic Entitlement to keep the total held below 3%) or it reduced - if he didn't take up any of his Basic Entitlement the % held falls to ca 2.5% At the same time Odey went from a holding of 0% in May 2017 to ca 54% in June 2017, and then again to ca 65% in January 2018 following the OO, both of these being reported. As per a response, from Wassatt, to me last week (Tuesday at 1810) there were a number of other large, declared, holders (ie those above 3%) in January 2017 eg Spreadex, however, as their holdings were no more than half that held by Emin Eyi above any % they hold now must also still be below the 3% reporting threshold (following the major dilutions that have taken place since), so no reports are / have been 'missing / missed'. This does, however show (to me at least) that, at present Odey, are the ONLY holder of TSTR shares who have a holding greater than 3%. As I've said before when the Finals are published (anytime before 30th June) they usually contain a table of holders above 3% and sop we will know more for certain then.

I should also say, before I get accused of false information, the other possibility of course is any others who do hold more than 3% have basically maintained there holding (through the OO) to within the +/- 1% tolerance and so will also not have had to report anything. When the Finals are published we should get a clearer picture as they usually include a table of major holders (ie those with 3% or more).

Pbody, I suspect that since the original Odey Loan Note conversion of summer 2017 (see 20th June 2017 RNS) there are very few, if any holders, apart from Odey, who now hold 3% or more of the shares and so no disclosures are necessary.

Pbody, whilst my post did contain a number of calculated figures, these and other figures all came from RNSs covering either the OO or Holdings. As SirGB (i think it was) posted yesterday the 75% threshold comes from the rules of AIM available from the London Stock Exchange website. I hope that clarifies things for you.

I think this is a given (look at the issues in respect of Kigoma). I think the prevailing mood in most countries that FJET operate in (except for Mozambique and South Africa) is to slant everything in favour of National Airlines, and make life really difficult for everyone else (regardless of the negative effects this may have upon the Consumer [passenger] and wider economy)....

The missing word in my last post was s n o w f l a k e s (ie those in constant need of reassurance / positve affirmation) before anyone suggests otherwise (surprised it got blocked)

Yogsogath, welcome but be careful not to stray from the everything is up / only positive orthodoxy otherwise the *********s will get upset and start the abuse! All I did was post an opinion, a legitimate concern and a question and look at the abuse I got for my trouble (all because the answers / opinion may challenge the norm here).

Odey shareholdings.... As basic maths seems beyond capability.... - prior to the OO they held 10,577,466,582 shares - the OO gave them a Basic Entitlement of 23,800,421,021 shares - however, only 9,409,823,635 of the Basic Entitlement were not taken up allowing those who wanted to, to obtain an Excess Allocation - this Excess Allocation was 7.9x over subscribed meaning that applicants only received 12.68% of their requested amount - even if Odey had requested the maximum amount of Excess available (ie the difference between there Basic Entitlement and the Total Number of Shares Available 21,703,821,262) at the above allocation rate they should've got an additional 2,752,421,011 shares - this would give Odey 37,130,311,614 shares (original holding + Basic Entitlement + Excess Allocation) - however, they ended up with 41,604,912,988 sharers or 4,474,601,374 more than they should've. To do this would've required them to obtain ca 77% of the available Excess shares So either the 11th January 2018 RNS is incorrect, not all shareholders are equal or Odey acquired these additional shares from someone else - I would be interested to know which applies (and if they bought them who from).

Unfortunately in the closed world some seem to inhabit on here - imagine having an opinion the differs from the herd (shocker) - the obvious answer is easily missed.....you don't have to have an account to read these boards only to post upon them.....so carry on making 6 if you must!

This is good to hear - though we want actions rather than just nice words!

The rant doesn't match the subject line - who is pbody then (I'll help you out, a little, it's NOT me)???

No (and I couldn't care less) though |I seem to recall they used to wind you up regularly and you were always seeking to have them banned. I may be wrong but I think you also refer to them as he/she....