Member Info for flundra

Looks OK imo. Still no management fee and now a nice but fair NAV related back end 15% performance fee. So proper incentives there. Fair to charge for fundraising efforts too, as long as this doesn't just mean a repeat of getting Jim and his mates to cough up. Imo

JM on BlueNalu here from 23'.

https://www.businessforgoodpodcast.com/jim-mellon-the-billionaire-out-to-end-factory-farming

(1 May Shapiro interview - thanks to GVH for posting this).

Other thoughts on how/when/why/at what price Blue Nalu will list? What event/circumstance will trigger it? Sales/production volumes will be low to start with.
Merger with a NY listed SPAC in 6 months time perhaps?

Deucejaxon and the agronauts...

I'll get my coat...

Great if BlueNalu does IPO this year. It'll need to be handled well, get the timing and pricing right.

JM's said it a few times, I heard it most recently here, towards the end of the 11/3 interview/transcript.

https://www.futurefoodfinance.com/article/0001_an-interview-with-jim-mellon

"It’s about $100,000,000 in size at the moment and our objective is to make it $500,000,000 by the end of this year, which I think we can do through a process of NAV accretion, and also money that is sitting on the sidelines, but once it’s come into this area, is enormous."

Yes indeed, and the bod (particularly Timmons), management and Anderson need to get their act together fast, shape up or ship out. It's ridiculous that so much time and resource was put into ROC, only for it to fall flat on its face because Anderson's co-operation couldn't be secured. Wtf was Timmons doing as Anderson's nominee on the bod? Look at copper futures, up 10% just in the last few weeks since the deal aborted ffs. This share should be flying on the back of a quality done deal. Grrrr.

No idea off the top of my head, but the element of SP reflecting an Award settlement would have to be what the bod (and me) would consider reasonable. Given it's pretty much zero now, at least double the current SP perhaps.
I thought your suggestion was an offer for CNE by GOI as a way to side step the Award somehow, which I can't see succeeding at all, as it would be rejected by bod and shareholders alike.

Presumably because the bod would tell them to **** off, and if it became hostile, the shareholders would tell them to **** off. I would.

Yes, NAV should be fairly low down on the list of things to consider when investing here imo. The investees are basically unquoted pioneers in a pioneering sector, where real value is still largely a matter of opinion imo. NAV/SP relationship could be anything. NAV exists and should be taken into account of course, but there's not too much to be read into it atm imo - ANIC isn't CTY.

Well worth a listen, thoughtful balanced programme.
Each and every argument for Cell ag has strength on its own, and makes it investable imo. So even if cell ag's green credentials remain to be fully proven, there is no doubt eg about reduced land use and animal cruelty, and elimination of antibiotics use. We hear a lot nowadays about a potential bacterial (as opposed to viral) pandemic, and the fact that routine overuse of antibiotics on animals leads to many antibiotics becoming ineffective.

Compounded by the fact a certain shareholder doesn't care about the bod... All a bit of a shambles atm

The government response to the Kalifa report is likely this week. Fintech industry leaders support it strongly eg the proposals for creating a £1bn growth fund and forming an innovation support task force.

Uk Fintech start ups raised £4.3bn in Q1 2021 alone!!!! More than for the whole of 2020!

UK has 10% share of global fintech market generating £11bn of sales pa.

Strong government backing (very likely imo) would help propel the sector even further forward. It really is the future.

AR shortly too hopefully

ANIC undertook not to delist for 3 years (1 July RNS). And anyway the rationale for going private set out in the 19 June RNS doesn't really apply now and moreover was firmly rejected. I reckon funding from public equity markets should be readily achievable now and I'm sure Jim and chums will stump up any further bridging finance needed anyway.

Copper price flying :(
Shame we're not in a decent copper project...

Not by share issues alone, for sure.
He put forward this $500m by end 2021 figure late last year and repeated it last month, so I guess we must take him seriously.
To achieve that, my hunch is that he's banking on at least one pumped up IPO (most obviously BlueNalu), and to raise cash from at least one big new II. The time seems right.

IMO there's scope/need for a new big independent cornerstone investor or two now, to take say 20% of an enlarged ANIC, take it to the next level, particularly now that we seem to be re-established as a publicly traded listed company. If I were Jim (with my aspiration of a $500m mcap by December), I'd be courting a progressive ethical fund or two. The money from the last raise (mainly from Jim and his mates) is pretty much fully invested, yet there are several more investable companies out there, as well as the ongoing funding needs of the existing investees. After Jim and his mates, the other significant shareholders seem to be mainly nominees (someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe these are basically only the platforms PIs hold under for example). The 2020 AR significant shareholdings figs are:

Number of
ordinary shares
Percentage of total
issued capital
Jim Mellon(1) 65,092,909 19.63%
HSBC Global Custody Nominee (UK) 41,586,146 12.54%
Hargreaves Lansdown (Nominees) 18,053,311 5.44%
Platform Securities Nominees 14,744,771 4.45%
Morgan Stanley Client Securities 10,574,290 3.19%

I don't doubt BKY will stay entirely focussed doing just that (including lawsuits if necessary), despite the efforts of some within government and the CSN to drag their heels and mire the process in indecision.

Someone's telling porkies. Who do you trust?

The ideological anti-nuclear factions in the coalition (Ribera/Podemos etc) driving this policy, and who are no strangers to controversy? CSN commissioners like the grossly conflicted Francisco Castejon who has campaigned against nuclear energy generation, and specifically against Berkeley's mine? A government on record via Reuters saying no whatever the facts and law?

Or BKY?

I agree ***
Perhaps the market also fears refusal, delay, adverse conditions and limitations on the permit, more legislation or legal challenges etc. The current coalition isn't keen on anything radioactive, and seems set on making the same mistakes as Germany. It's a fraud on the people, as policy promises to reduce emissions, whilst in practice increasing them. It's old ideological aspiration not achievable policy. Dangerous and destructive. Imo.