Member Info for IncomeInvestor

Did anybody see what the warrant exercise price was for the bookrunner ? Also, does anybody understand what Daemeneng are getting for all their exposure ?

I wonder why Ironveld bothers putting out untrustworthy RNS ?

Failure to meet the interims deadline just results in an additional suspension from AIM. If this company cannot do something as routine as publishing accounts within 6 months of the end of the fiscal year, then I doubt they will bother with the interims because publishing those does not help the suspension from trading, nor affects the date when registration will be cancelled. At the very least, they have twice informed the shareholders with RNS announcements that have been untrustworthy. Must suspect that the auditors think the Company has misinformed them, too.

There went Friday 13th. Must we consider the possibility that somebody, somewhere is actively blocking these accounts from being filed / published ? What might be easier to accomplish with a company whose listing is cancelled, or at least suspended, than one that is trading on AIM ?

AIM:- no accounts within 6 months = suspension. Suspension x 6 months = cancellation.

Mentions a general meeting where a decision is to be made 27 Jan 2026. No proxy received here.

1. FYI:- Charles Stanley put the cash straight back into my ISA today.

2. One way to summarise this complicated process is that, albeit it took place slowly, if one reinvested the cash wholly back into the stock, then it is a 5% dividend overall of the total holding (i.e., the redeemed 46% plus the remaining 53% held), paid in stock, without much change in the stock price.

3. The overall plan to greatly reduce debt, reduce fleet size, and the large return of cash to the shareholders seems to have been completed. My expectation is that this is what a majority of shareholders (including insiders) wanted; I don't recall a vote on the matter probably because the majority were easily contacted and unanimous. Nonetheless, this has been an unusual corporate action. Could there be further plans being discussed ?

What does Daememeng get for their 21 million ?

Dear Ironveld:

Since the highly unsatisfactory disclosure in June, and the evidently vague, but as it turns out bogus financing announcement in April, the following seems to be material information that is not being disclosed:

1.  Is there actually an electricity supply at the smelter ?  If not, then what happened to it ?  Moreover what is its replacement not being announced ?

2.  What is the true financial situation ?  Transactions of £25 - 125k are clearly immaterial to the future of the company as an ongoing business.

3.  What is management position on selling unsmelted ore ?  If it cannot be sold for any reasonable sum, then it is has been grossly over-valued by various company statements.  

4.  I would draw your attention to AIM rules on disclosure.  The following are just some in Schedule 2, Annex 1, to which Ironveld seems vulnerable for failure to disclose in a timely fashion: 5.15, 5.2.2, 6.1.2, 6.5, 8.2, 9.2.1, 20.1, 20.9, 22.

Your response is appreciated.

Tony Fox (a shareholder)

Anybody have any idea what the point might be of so many micro-transactions ? The transaction costs must be approaching the amounts being paid for RGL itself.

To me, evidently, and given half the chance, Bridgemere would buy RGL for 10p (hence the underwriting). We can probably all agree that Bridgemere has a better management than RGL, has done calculations such as those below, and with a 10p offer they are at the lower / lowest end of the latter. The dim consciousness of the RGL board could have been able to see that such a tender offer would run into shareholder resistance, not least from the insiders. Net, as a retail shareholder, 'picking up pennies from in front of bulldozers', getting RGL at 10p is a fair bet. Admittedly, Bridgemere did not have the unhappy requirement to buy RGL in the past in order to qualify for the 10p deal; but there's nothing that can be done about that. Exercising in full maintains the equity position, and the dividend received (in pounds and pence, remembering it is still a REIT) at the cost of a further investment of 10p per share. That is (2.125 x 10p) x your share holding). Your personal cost basis must then be factored. Right now, if you sold up in favour of re-buying at 10p, you cannot fully exercise. For example, 10,000 x 14p = 140000p = 14,000 new shares at 10p, whereas you could have bought (15/7) x 10,000 = 21,428 new shares x 10 p for £2142.80; it is a 1/3 dilution and a 1/3 loss of dividend.

Bottom line: Brightmere reckon they will make money by paying 10p per share for up to two thirds of RGL. The market is maintaining the SP at 15 - 16 p, so Brightmere is probably correct (and Brightmere is run by people who seem far more competent than those running RGL). Retail investors either exercise at an average post-deal cost of, say about 12.5p per share or, if they don't, they now hold at 15p compared to whatever they paid (longer = greater loss). Overall, Brightmere happiness increases for every retail investor that does not take part. Then, last of all, do the 10:1 consolidation which is basically irrelevant.