Member Info for johnpwh

In total agreement Van. I'm not sure but would a move to a market more senior than AIM require additional board members?

That's fair GA.
I'm still here with what most would say was a reasonably large holding, but nothing like as large as I once did.
The drip drip is continuing, if I'm honest I wouldn't be surprised to see it approach 4p on the bid prior to being marked xd for the special dividend. Lack of news doesn't help and a few, including me, must be wondering what the impact of taxes and professional fees will be on the anticipated lump sum AAU is due to receive.

tread not read!

Just a word of caution, while HMRC won't get too upset at what they conclude is a small accidental mistake, if they think someone s being a smart **** they will hit you like a ton of bricks. And can revisit previous tax years, so if you have skeletons in the cupboard then read carefully

Ridlevski
I agree with you in so many ways. Many people with their backsides in their hands at the moment here. I think there is an overhang from the placing/ retail to clear then we should see confidence return. You wont get predictions from me though!

Minor point Foz but $8m wasn't raised from private investors. This is where the company was a bit naughty possibly, they closed the placing and the retail offer at the same time per the RNS' late Tuesday. The placing filled quickly so the retail offer closed prematurely. From yesterdays RNS:
'In conjunction with the Placing, retail and other investors have subscribed for 5,600,000 New Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company (the "Retail Offer Shares") pursuant to an offer made by the Company via the PrimaryBid platform ("Retail Offer"), raising additional gross proceeds of approximately US$3 million'
So $3m not $8m. I say naughty because the RNS came out after hours when PIs were probably down the pub (if only eh?). I think the company knew that few investors would therefore participate through lack of knowledge, but they can sit there with halos over their heads saying 'we didn't forget our ordinary shareholders'. I'm not sure if the retail issue was underwritten, so maybe only $3m raised

The reference to debt is just one of my foibles (heaven knows I have enough of them).
Debt in junior companies scares me. I have seen too many companies go ***s up because of it

Hi Foz, hope you are well.
Agree and disagree. I'm not sure it was poor negotiating to be honest. What were the alternatives? Its like trying to sell a car, you've got one one bloke on the phone interested. Who is in the driving seat when it comes to price ?(no pun intended. Well, maybe just a bit). You could say that they've done pretty well - if you want a partner in a Lithium mining operation who would you prefer - Ganfeng or a bunch of Wall Street private equity investors in sharp suits? With Ganfeng we not only have funding but invaluable experience as well, we shouldn't underestimate the value of the latter. Additionally, unless something goes horribly wrong with their operations, Ganfeng are a built in customer who will take either a large proportion or potentially all of the mines output. Ganfeng knew that they were in a strong position and used their muscle, should that be such a surprise?
I agree about newsflow, we do need regular (hopefully positive) releases to maintain interest.
Don't quite understand the ZNWD reference. The only interest Ganfeng has in ZNWD is as a shareholder in BCN? Same as you and me. I'm sure they will fulfil their obligations as BCN shareholders, but no specific commitment in isolation.

I have to agree with Nomad here. Ganfeng paid $28m for ( think) 27.5% of SLL. But, since at the end of the day they then owned 50% of SLL, they then 'owned' 50% of the money they had just paid, so actual cost to them $14m or £10m ish. Peanuts. Now that is good business, no matter how you look at it.
Were BCN walked over? Probably yes, but at the same time what choice did they have? Without Ganfeng (or someone similar) they would be faced with all of the development costs themselves. We could still be waiting for the mine in 10 years. Money talks, and as they said in one of the series of 'Peaky Blinders', 'Big ****s Small'. The alternative would have been even more protracted timescales, huge debt to service, probably a Sirrius situation where a massively promising and lucrative development failed and wiped out the original equity holders for the sole benefit of those picking up the pieces at 10 cents in the $ from the liquidators. As they say, nothing personal......its just business.
We have a decent part of something potentially huge, we have to put aside the feelings of it being unfair and look to the future

Agree Foz that painful as it is....its done. The raise was successful, the financing no longer looms over us. As long as Ganfeng drives this forward ( I saw some BCN interview stating production in 2019) then we should all be happy. So many projects like this fail through finance, or lack of. Ganfeng want the product as well as a successful business operation here.

Guess this is why solicitors are solicitors! I agree with bluegrass that possibly Ganfeng could have maintained their 25.7% in the placing and only need permission for the balance to take it to 29.9%. Of course we don't know if placing requests were fulfilled in full, so Ganfeng could have taken part in the placing and still are short of 25.7% of the new issue? I don't really know the ins and outs of placings!

'In addition to the Placing and Retail Offer, Ganfeng Lithium Co. Ltd. ("Ganfeng") has stated its intention to potentially exercise its pre-emptive right at the Placing Price and to increase its holding in the Company to up to a maximum of 29.99%'
In addition does imply further dilution to me tbh

Not sure Foz. Isn't there something about only being able to go to 29.9% with Chinese government
permission? Without that permission secured surely they couldn't participate in the placing , as if they did and permission was refused then BCNs fundraising would fall short? I don't know tbh

I don't think so. The institutional take up was so swift that imno (in my naïve opinion) there is a good support at 45p, which is only just beneath the price they are.
I heard that my allocation has been met in full (as expected since the Retail was ended before the shares available were applied for)

OK, will prepare to be shot down here
After placing and retail the total shares in issue will be 330811568 per RNS. Before the placing and retail the total share in issue was 223815683. Ganfeng had 25.7% of these which is 57520630.
So if Ganfeng want to end up with 29.9% at the end of this process let the shares eventually in issue be X
Then X = 29.9% x X +(3308 11568 -57520630). Solving for X the eventual shares in issue is
389858684. Which means a further (389858684 - 330811568) = 26571202 shares will be issued at 45p yielding £26571202 for BCN.

I agree Tivman, the RNS says at the placing price, which would be 45p.
Could be quite a lot of shares, as their 25.7% has sunk to a far less % due to yesterdays raise, so its not just 4.2% of the post placing sahres in issue. If they are going to exercise their pre-emptive right they will not only increase to 29.9% of current shares in issue but, because this would be another batch of new shares, I would assume their final holding would be 29.9% of the shares in issue including those issued by them, if you see what I mean. Sorry if that doesn't scan! I will do the maths if you want

Never mind 'r', we don't hold it against you!
Think all of us hope that with this raise the decks are clear for progress, though I guess that may be delayed until China gives Ganfeng the necessary permissions? A flow of news about the development of the mine coupled with continuing strength in the Lithium market (its got a long long way to go to get back to previous highs) will be very positive for the SP.
We all think that Ganfeng has pulled a blinder for its own shareholders, at least a bit at our expense. But at least something should come to fruition now in a reasonable time scale, so its good overall.

Hi Van, was being lazy I think. With all the run up to Christmas, you know all the lads nights out, the parties (if only!) I basically made the assumption that a Corporate Action would drop in my mailbox as I would normally expect. When I realised it hadn't and wasn't going to I contacted iWeb but couldn't sort it. As we have noted, my grumbles wouldn't have made any difference so as as a democratic person I'm totally happy with the result. I wont be storming the Capitol any time soon.
If there is a presentation in 2021 (which is doubtful in my opinion) I will probably come so we can have a pint and bury our differences!

Hi Van, hope you are well, In fact I hope everyone's well. Guess most posters are of an age when they get the jab soon. I'm sad about Captain Tom.
No I didn't vote against, truth was that, in my opinion at least, the date of the voting was kept surprising quiet considering the fundamental impact it has on the company structure. There was no 'corporate event' notice from iWeb, so basically despite 11th hour attempts I missed the boat. And yes, I would have voted against though it obviously wouldn't have changed the result.
Re: my continued holding. Its a good share in its current (ie restructured, its going to happen) form. It passes my criteria of 'if I didn't hold any shares in AAU at the moment would I now buy some?'. The answer would be yes, so I continue to hold. But at the same time its not the Company that excites me in the way that it did when I made several long train trips to attend presentations in London. I probably wouldn't feel inspired to make the effort now, but never say never, be nice to have a day out!
I can't invest in a company due to an individual. I've met Dr S as you know and like him very much. But he could leave tomorrow so then what? Several people on the Advfn regard him as the second coming.
This company could still be a multi bagger as clearly there must be outcrops such Hot Maden in NE Turkey waiting to be discovered. But its by no means certain that one will, so for me an investment decision should be based on the 'now'. In the meantime AAU SP is off over 25% from its peak and I don't see it recovering that in the near term.

Groucho
Is that from today or way back. You cant assume brokers targets are unchanged when there's been a dilutative cash raise