Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Agreed. I'm all for some honest questions and debate but he was nothing more than a windup merchant. He will not be missed. Looks like every post he ever made was removed including those on NEX which is kind of karma I guess.
Purchase you claim to have this high powered job, perfect life, yet you spend more time on here than any actual investor. Literally has become your entire life. Look at your posting history its 99% on a share you don't even own. How messed up are you? No-one wants you here, no-one cares about you or values anything you say... probably a crushing similarity to your real life I imagine?
Have to say this is my most exciting hold it moves about so much! Feels like you can buy on any dip knowing you'll make money the same day, i don't have the balls to trade though so I'm just accumulating, thank you MM's!
With all due respect Peter I've only been here since August but since then every day has been "news tomorrow" pretty much. I don't think "before Christmas" is in any way a de-ramp or unfair, we're only 2 days off November after all!!
These things just take time and we just have to be patient until the end. As others have said logic suggests the longer it takes the better the deal... a "no deal" would be far quicker to arrange I am sure!
Not going to resort to insults but with all due respect if you've been investing 60 years, still haven't learned, and presumably not made enough money in that time to be happy in retirement (hence trolling here), taking your word/advice as gospel does seem a little ...risky shall we say.
What I still don't understand (and have accepted I may never will) is why these 8.5's on HGM are shorts "increasing position" yet everyone still reads these as shorts closing here? I do understand how a short works in a conventional sense (buy to close/decrease) but I am still not convinced these are closing based purely on AA and HGM 8.5's of the exact same nature. There they actually specify it's a short increasing when it's a "buy" with CFD short and decreasing when it's a sell.
I'll get accused of flapping/de-ramping of course but if anyone reads the 8.5's on AA/HGM they seem to spell out what they mean.
So before I get thrown overboard please read these 2 8.5's on HGM and see what they say there. I am only trying to see what is happening here and obviously would be much happier to think these are closing and I am not understanding this but have a look:
Example of short increasing:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/HGM/form-85-eptri-ynqi77oy0k9zobn.html
Example of short decreasing:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/HGM/form-85-eptri-sesqqphd1ecsm7m.html
Honestly, I don't see why they'd be instructing DLA if it wasn't becoming almost a certainty. Wouldn't make much sense. I'd agree with 85-90% because there will always be room for some doubt until the contract is signed, but DLA made the chances of this happening much higher IMHO.
Don't worry about the people filtering you, have a read of the RNS's etc. Important fact that PATT doesn't seem to appreciate is that multiple companies came to EUA to buy them/assets, EUA didn't put up a for sale sign. They didn't go out looking for buyers they came to them. Can multiple companies all be wrong about what they know EUA are sat on? Seems unlikely.
Ask yourself why UBS agreed to carry out the FSP on a no-win-no-fee basis.
Ask yourself why DLA Piper have now been employed recently.
Of course no one knows the final price but the market can't take in to account that a bidding war may ensue. Of course it may not but it's very hard to price. The price will only be truly reflected once a bid has been submitted.