Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I wouldn't read too much into that video and what is just a "brand refresh" (to use ITM's own words).
ITM is not a mass consumer business but a heavy industrial B2B one, which is driven by sales rather than marketing. This type of video is more seen by investors than actual customers. And it largely reiterates what it has claimed to have been doing over the past 12-18 months.
Simply because the board (or at least some the main shareholders) are asking for way much more than Elliott, and maybe JD.com, are prepared to pay. In which case it would be time to move on for both.
None of us knows even knows whether it was just a semi-punt from JD.com and it may not even have spent any time on the matter, especially after the response to Elliott.
Source:
https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf
Swanley - your partial quoting is (presumably accidentally) misleading. You are missing this key paragraph at the end of both Rules 2.7 and 2.8:
“Failure to comply with this Rule may lead to the period of six months referred to above being extended.”
That means that JD.com is not FORCED to say it is walking away if it’s not interested anymore. If it remains silent, it may be only be penalised by possibly having to wait for longer than 6 months to make a formal bid. Not much of a punishment, wouldn’t you say?…
It also now looks unlikely that JD.com will buy Curry’s: the latter was explicit about how much money it wanted, and it refused to give full access to the data room to whomever did not provide an offer of that scale according to the suitor who walked away. So it makes unlikely for anyone to be officially open to splash out at the level requested, especially as it’s much higher than £67 per share.
Good luck to all holders nonetheless.
Https://x.com/apikur_oil/status/1764028638620463386?s=20
Can’t help but wonder if it’s a ploy by IOCs to put more pressure on Iraq.
Actually you have a point. And the article (displayed in English now) even refers to Thursday and Friday, which supports the idea there have been developments since the 26 Feb version. Roll-on Monday!
Very belated response....
...one entity sold all its shares, the other bought shares (not quite the same amount as those sold) to increase its existing stake.
Unfortunately, such RNSs are always very hard to read - presumably this is deliberate so people cannot easily follow what's going on.
Sometimes, other obscure financial instruments are acquired / sold along side the disposal / purchase of shares, which muddies the waters eve m ore.
So unless there is some very very clear pattern (e.g. several directors buying a very large number of shares, in a way that is clearly not part of their normal remuneration), it's best not trying to pay attention to those. That will mislead you more often than not.
This writer is always out of date. I recall that she has always been wrong on the direction of gas prices throughout 2023 for example, quoting views that had been discredited / contradicted by the time she had issued her articles.
Thunder2040
Your question seems genuine and stands out from the ramblings and heavy distortions of (minor or major) news updates on this board so I'm replying to you and ignoring all other comments posted since then.
First, if you read the article in question thoroughly to the end, you'll see that the KRG was also deemed complicit in the matter so it's not clear if it's due to receive any money - the only explicit "victim" is the Iraqi central government (the KRG largely operates autonomously, or at least is treated as such in the report of the decision).
Second, there have been several "the KRG / Iraq are on their way to come to an agreement with the oil producers operating in the KRG" statements since last autumn, leading to several false starts in the SP as you can see on any candlestick chart. While I have no doubt that an agreement will be reached, how "soon" is anyone's guess.
Third, it's nigh on impossible to assess the extent of a short-selling interest on a given share. Shorttracker.co.uk is the most commonly used source but all positions below 0.5% are not reported, so there could be lots of small positions from a multitude of funds from the same given II at 0.49% and nobody would know. Or there could be no other positions than what's shown. Thus, unless we are talking about top 5-10 most shorted shares based on shorttracker.co.uk, it's not worth making any guesses as you are most likely going to be wrong about it. Anyone making such claims is almost certainly somebody living on hope (or trying to influence others who live on hope).
FYI, as you can see, there are only few short positions above 0.5% for GKP - https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/BMG4209G2077/
Conclusion:
Most people on this board are clueless but act as if they know the inside story.
Only the clearest /unambiguous news (or a pattern of such news) TOGETHER WITH clear business data / fundamentals TOGETHER WITH the most obvious signals in terms of technical analysis (i.e. charts - but I do mean the most obvious signals. Most charts shared (or quoted without even any accompanying image) are absolute rubbish.)
It's all about finding a system that works for you within those broad criteria, and not let yourself be influenced away from it by people various claims and shiny trinkets - which is very very hard!
Good luck and stray strong.
The person who posted the MSCI Micro Cap index update also conveniently failed to mention that GKP is actually be demoted from the Small Cap index (onto the micro cap index).
https://app2.msci.com/eqb/gimi/smallcap/MSCI_Feb24_SCPublicList.pdf
(Page 5)
For the record (not that I can share any proof of it on a public board), I am still heavily (as a proportion of what I own) in ITM, and will be for the next few months and years (barring any massive macroeconomic or business news changing enormously the situation).
Everyone who keeps spewing lies and misinformation on this board and beyond: I am sorry for how tainted your souls are.
Everyone else: best wishes, whatever you do.