Member Info for Fozdog

Selling isn’t the answer imo despite how disappointing this is. Now quietly getting a lovely hedge fund to build a stake here up to 10% ish would be lovely....

wildtiger I dont disagree with your statement on being stuck here for a few months and yes hard to argue with you on money being used elsewhere....hence people will sell & I wont.

However I don't agree it makes it more risky - They had approval from POC already hence the original bid spec and approval for further stock placing.
The shareholder approval process is the one they are now waiting on which means they are submitting it to shareholders - ie they have agreed they want to pay 67.5p. That should be a formality with ganfeng shareholders & one we needed to go through regardless.

Therefore to me the deal is more firm than it was a month ago, but as bonkers & bampster written - the board are not acting in all shareholders best interests imo.

wildtiger I see it differently to you - Imo they just confirmed they are making the current offer but need shareholder approval on 28th July. So they are basically confirming the current price bid so how is it more risky?

it's such rubbish isn't it, 'need to be approved by ganfeng shareholders on the 28th July' - if that was the case it was KNOWN pre this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't there be a statement as to why it's been extended?

wildtiger pump the price to sell?
I know its AIM it's not the wildwest!!! They aren't doing that they lose control someone else with snap this up. plus UK laws are great here!!!

Iv stopped reading too much into it, I sit back that the offer will be the current offer and we go from there. I am much more intrigued in the statements that follow it.

Bonkers @ 85p if they done this appropriately for shareholders and correctly is the 50% premium we should be at. Then its a matter of bisecting from there. I do not like those prices either but that to me was the actual 'fair' initial price based on market trading price nothing else.
Doesn't mean I want that but that would at least have been fair within the market and created a proper discussion/negotiation. I cannot fault those that bought at 45p and would sell for 85p + for eg

We are in what appears to be a commodity super cycle, I actually think BCN would have been at 50-55p without the bid.
I was reading today how the current oil price makes EV that more economically drops it by a whole % point.

Everything is point positive to the EV world and the core asset being taken at below cost imo.

nomad I still don't think you go and pay higher without trying first...they have to get the firm offer on table to be able to discuss with shareholders.

Steve its also announced this morning before our deadline with Gangfeng. The announcement on bid spec came around 12 (opening US time, Asia all done etc) so expecting them.
The fact they've called it before that announcement and said won't answer any questions on it is pretty bad.
If they had announced an AGM after the deadline with gangfeng surely they are then open to answer any questions and have to? That's my read and why i think they've done it like this.

Call me cynical and sure if wrong here please say...but calling an agm before the result of ganfeng or even today’s deadline announcement....then saying can’t answers questions on it seems a ploy?
They know if call an agm you can’t call one for 12 months unless get 10% of the voting capital to do so for special one.

This seems a complete play by the board ...

Xtw2 do you know the boards financial incentives for completing a deal?
You can make whatever statement you like but saying shareholders can’t state that they think about the board isn’t good enough and happens all the time. Go look at the case of Exxon a Small activist shareholder got 2 almost 3 new board members that were focused on climate change - I don’t see a group of small pis being any different.
I am a shareholder, I Do not think this deal is good. I do not think secker and co have done well at all with all capital raises, timing, valuations. All those capital raises caused us to underperform other lithium miners. We have been a BIG UNDERPERFORMER. That’s the board responsibility. In any performance related job you can be replaced if shareholders feel that they haven’t done their job well or worked to our benefit.
That’s the case here for me, I’m a shareholder you are also. Do what you want but don’t say other shareholders can’t call for replacements if they hold them to higher and better standards.
Yes terminology isn’t appropriate and should be kept professional but calling for a change or saying they’ve done a very poor job for many a year is completely acceptable.

Bampster totally agree, I do feel we have been let down by management.
We do need to separate our personal desire/view with this share and m&g.
M&g’s fund is a long term recovery fund and given it’s been around for a long time so they can sit on this for a long time also. That’s a positive to me as a savvy investor no way should the cut this here at this level. However this isn’t the sole drag on their performance over the last few years so on a fund basis they have to weigh this up v their larger holdings. I can’t see them wanting to be tied up for 8 months here for 67.5p. My personal view is they are going to reject this and we will subsequently see it fail and and an higher offer follow. However right now I’m hopeful so prob a little less balanced!

I am waiting to hear what’s said tomorrow, what’s encouraging is Dee has got to around 6% of holders. I really think a special agm could be called, could that be about the removal of the board if they come out fully recommend this deal as expected? Or even to discuss changing their compensation profile on this deal to incentivise them to actually unlocking the value as they said they would?
Regardless of it all, it’s been a ride!

Is that not because they are a Market maker Kluck, they have to report every transaction?

Not missing the point Malik, Iv always stated the upside case BUT the point you are missing is idle asset and refusal to jv with Emh isn’t good. There is a negative scenario, I’m merely stating contrary to you I don’t want ganfeng anywhere near znwd. I’d much rather they sold the stake straight into Emh.

Malik totally agreed on this article, think the supply chain in imperative for auto companies and controlling a degree of raw materials is fundamental for them. It’s a good article.

Wow what a childish retort and another completely in researched comment. Have you seen he’s quoted in the national newspapers or do you not bother reading the articles? I will leave it at that, think what you want but at least read the newspaper articles and his quotes in there.

This M&G chat come on surely you know with investing that when they cross a threshold of each % down or up they have to release a rns? Plus their 8.3 is outs and Yes they got diluted on last round.
Do I think the board might have tried to engage m&g very possibly but they have huge compliance controls and during a takeover where they are material they will not be saying ANYTHING until required to. No deal on table yet, we find out more tomorrow.
Could be wrong but I’d be hugely surprised the board has spoken with M&G. If they have done previously they could then be considered a linked person pre this takeover and there’s an argument to tie them as working with ganfeng.
If they have done without a deal on table unlikely m&g can say anything with their internal compliance.
M&G are savvy - they are in the driving seat here, my view remains that we will find out more after we actually know the situation tomorrow.
If as most expect a formal deal is announced in current format, the stock should jump into the 60s - what will be interesting is if there is negotiation post this with likes of m&g on price.

Boarderbob you literally have no clue so I’m not going to waste my time and expertise in educating you.
Post what’s you like, bang on about the cartels, bang on about production or whatever you.
If you actually had a clue on Mexico you would have posted re amlo and mid terms which John and I have disagreed as to reason of bcn underperformance prior.
You keep going on about credit ag like no one battered an eyelid when got 2% - you don’t even have a clue as to why buying I asked you outright and you said “no idea”. So why do you keep bringing it up?
You are disingenuous, for me as a proper investor you are total waste of space and not a single one of your posts matters or even has any concern to me.
Keep posting, keep making out that everyone against you because you are pasting negative to gain sympathy support. Post what you like I couldn’t care less it’s just boring.

Itsoutthere he’s no “rat” and you would do he’s to educate yourself on what he’s been trying to do here. There’s press articles out there and he’s fighting a takeover.
Maybe take some time to read and educate yourself before targeting Dee.
Kudos to Dee and it’s his investment as it is everyone else’s.

It’soutthere grow up, he’s not “deramping” doing absolutely the opposite. It’s been written here many times re ganfeng and Malik and I have been back and forth on it. We eventually both agreed the best course here and most likely is emh.
As a shareholder in both I do not think that ganfeng involvement is good.
I do not believe it helps and development time line. The positive was always they spin it off to emh but better be at a good price not a large discount.
Let me put it another way would you rather a tie up with Emh or ganfeng? I’m 100% Emh as a shareholder and would prefer bcn to have that control NOT ganfeng.