Member Info for kevin0541

Won’t make the slightest difference. Will open up and with an ask of 9p as it was when it closed. Those sells (if they were sells) were probably on the books when the buys went through and hence why there was no movement.

Major resistance at 9p though and shorters batter it down as soon as it looks like breaking out. Fingers crossed

No change to live price. At least let’s hope (probably in vain) that the big buy was the short closing

https://www.newcrest.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/220920_Newcrest%20-%20Denver%20Gold%20Forum%20-%20Presentation.pdf

Just posted their presentation with hardly a mention of Havieron! Strange

Dip all correct bar the hurdle rate which was NOT MET ie they wanted a higher return for the borrowing needed to pay the $60m

When investing at the moment consider the specifics of the RNS carefully. It said it was great news in the medium and long term - by definition not in the short term. This is why the shorts are still here as they are convinced a fundraise will follow and they probably even had an inside track on whether NCM would take the 5%. It’s a crooked market and the fact that they upped their cumulative position tells it’s own story. If it gets upped again - beware!

Now a great drilling results on our tenements or Juri could change all that.

Shaun is chuffed because it is great news for the ‘medium to long term’. It isn’t good news for the short term as we now have to raise funds to pay for the drilling programme

They offered $85m for 5% ie to go to 35% not $85m for nothing ie if you don’t want this 5% we would love to go the other way and buy back 5% of what you already have

T212 does

Tom I agree, but you just told me emphatically that Bamps’ version is correct ie it is with the borrower. Now after I share the Google search you told me to do, you use the words within it. At least we now agree :))

Guess what Tom, I have and that’s why there is confusion

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortsalevotingrights.asp

SAS yes exactly and that why Investopedia says the vote stays with the legal owner and not the borrower, contrary to what Bamps has said. It is the name on the voting register. Is Bamps right or Investopedia - I genuinely don’t know, but I do know that if I lend you my car to drive, it doesn’t change the fact that I am still the legal owner of said vehicle

Sandgrounded - Investopedia says the borrowed shares don’t have voting rights whereas Wall St Journal says they do

Thanks SaS. Borrowing them doesn’t mean they have deployed them, so it could be cover whilst slowly buying back what they have deployed or they could be ready to drop a huge sell in again. Barstewards either way

SaS is that figure from Ortex? The only reason I can see for a short position now is if they believe there will be a major fundraise.

Anyone know latest position on Ortex

IMO they are already closing and doing a great job. Remember they can’t afford for it to blow so they will buy and let the share rise but not too fast. Each time in last few days that we have seen a big rise it has come down by about 50% and I believe that’s because they will sell a few again to dampen it

A lot of large trades at 11.90 but they could have been sells as I was being offered that price on dummy sell of 200k. If so, then the shorters may have been trying their best but in vain. Either way, another good day ??

Redirons you are correct about NCM shareholders and that’s why I put a 1 year timescale on it as that’s roughly when the purchase would be earning accretive ie they are mining. Jam immediately.

B4zh - juniors hope for a buy-out and that’s why people like Sprott invest in them