Member Info for lootgaloot

Struggling to see what's been announced today; financing still not in place, government approval still not in place. Other than somebody signed a piece of paper, it's as you were.

I think the market was hoping for mineralisation 2% or above, which would have been within the range of the initial drilling programme. Personally I'm a bit disappointed with the latest results; the 'best' intercepts ranging from 0.4% to 2.2% (OK, one assay at 4.14%).

The important thing to keep in mind is that this is the result from just 4 holes. There's still another 28 holes to drill. The RNS states it's a solid start to the drilling campaign. I'd agree, solid but clearly not as great as the market had hoped. Fingers crossed we will get better results as this initial phase progresses.

I find today's drop a little concerning given that copper prices are generally rising. It suggests something specific to the company? Or specific to Australian miners?

Hopefully the sentiment towards 5G has improved since August. At the time, the extent and longevity of the Covid virus was a big unknown. Today, the vaccine provides some hope for a more favourable business environment and a corresponding greater demand for connectivity next year.

Another big factor is the recognition that faster internet speeds will be required for 'home working'. Even back in August, I don't think we fully realised the extent to which people would want to work from home. I'm sure the demand for Zoom conference calls as well as Netflix will create demand for 5G.

I think you're right to be concerned hoper. I sold out last week. It could be a terrible decision but something doesn't quite stack up with SpotOn. Linn comes across as honest enough but the pressure to do a deal may have clouded his judgment on this one.

Bought back in today.

I believe the C-Band auction starts 8th Dec in US. Also we have the OFCOM auction in UK coming up in January.

https://advanced-television.com/2020/11/04/ofcom-progresses-5g-spectrum-auction/

In August we saw a 30% increase in share price in the weeks leading up to CBRS auctions. Not sure if we will see the same again but it's worth taking a position to see how things pan out.

Yes, I think a lot of us would like to know any background/track record on SpotOn. So far, nothing it's a worry for me.

Well, you guys are either retired or have very understanding bosses; but thanks to your exchange of views it looks like I've got a lot of reading to do over the weekend. I just bought in this week so I need to get up to speed.

Agree, interesting anecdotal from Craig. I also agree the IC article was a bit of a puff piece to be honest.

I'm not sure but does that mean Alliance Bros (the Concert Party?) will not take their allocation but will act as underwriter. In which case Alliance would reduce their holding if the institutionals took up their full entitlement.

One thing is certain; a move from the main market to AIM would have to be discussed first with the institutional investors as all kinds of regulatory issues would have to be worked through. This says to me that the whole process including OO has been approved and signed off by the institutions.

Given the above, then its reasonable to assume the institutional investors will take up their full allocation and as a consequence, the Alliance Bros. overall share in the company is goes down, not up. A strong uptake by the institutions is also a clear signal of confidence to the market.

It is my view that the wish of the Alliance Bros. is to reduce their holding and this is a very effective way of doing that. I also agree with another poster who said that private investors selling at above 57p are putting a ceiling on price movement.

If the institutions wanted to get out they'd be getting out now; and we're not seeing that.

not true, he/she can sell current holding and still retain entitlement to open offer.

I’m new to this share too so I greatly appreciate the quality of this discussion so far. This article from Investor Chronicle may answer some of the concerns raised here…

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/tips-ideas/2019/12/19/self-made-manolete/

I accept that the business of funding insolvency litigation is inherently risky and the extent to which the article addresses those fears will depend on an investor’s appetite for risk. However, I am assured by the fact that Manolete have a decade long track record prior to public listing. I expect they operate on a margin that accommodates a certain level of non-payment.

Past performance is no guarantee of future success and the nature of insolvencies post Covid-19 may not be as before, but therein lies the risk/reward. Not one for widows and orphans but worth taking a position as a small percentage of your portfolio.

Thanks Daveri, makes sense.

Does anyone know why results are not audited? This is on the main market. How is it allowed?

Both vaccines are based on the controversial mRNA technology. A lot of people I'm talking to are seriously concerned about taking a new (experimental?) vaccine. These are not your typical anti-vaxxers either.

Another lamb to the slaughter.

Same again next week, please.

I think the placing has more to do with moving to AIM than with paying off debt or majority shareholding. I think they wanted to move to AIM to align with peers/rivals BOO and ASOS. Had they just announced 'we're moving to AIM' then share price would have fallen through the floor. The purpose of the placing was to anchor the price around its current level.

If I'm correct (I may not be) then Alliance Brothers have acted in good faith. It's a tricky manoeuvre to move to a more junior market without sending out the wrong signals to the market. It would appear the Alliance Brothers have made a significant financial commitment to ensure the move goes smoothly. I may be naïve but that's my take.

The consequence of the move is that we are debt free (good), some institutions will be forced to sell (bad), we have a majority shareholder (neutral).

@bucklerfern I agree with all five of your two points. I’ve said it before but apparently it needs repeating that most posters on this forum completely failed to grasp the gravity of the Moz Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year. I’m not an expert on the Mozambique constitution but I would be very surprised if Mozambique is an exception to the following…

A Supreme Court is the highest court in the land; if it rules that a mining licence belongs to the General then it belongs to the General PERIOD. Nobody is above the law AND THAT INCLUDES THE GOVERNMENT. The Supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction and no other court, especially not a junior court in a foreign jurisdiction (example UK High Court), can overrule the Supreme Court.

For PFP to regain the licence, it would require an Act of Parliament to rewrite the law concerning the point on which the Supreme Court made its decision. This new law would then enter the statute books and apply to all future legal matters. Furthermore, the Mozambique government would then have to retrospectively apply the new law to overrule the decision made by the Supreme Court back in May.

If people cannot see how cloud cuckoo the above scenario is then you really shouldn’t be gambling on what bucklerfern rightly describes as a ‘litigation claim’ rather than a mining investment. In the interest of moving this discussion along, people really need to give up on the fantasy of the mining licence being returned to PFP and start to consider what realistic options are open to PFP.

As of today, PFP’s dispute is no longer with the General or even about the mining licence. In my opinion, they are better advised is to seek compensation from the Mozambique government on the basis of having been misled by the Ministry of Mines who originally assigned the licence to PFP and therefore PFP had reasonable expectation of continued ownership.

Had PFP known from the beginning that they were not the legal owners then they would not have spent money investing in the mine and in the legal fees that followed. PFP therefore need to be compensated for time and expense. To my mind, this strategy would have a very high chance of some degree of success. However, it appears from today’s statement that PFP are still hell bent on the return of ownership of the licence.

I simply cannot see how the Mozambique government can give them back the licence without either breaking the law or else passing an act of parliament. Neither option seems realistic.

Well, well; looks like NT strategy was the correct one all along. Go through the legal process, tick all the boxes, be seen to do the right thing. NT knew there was no point in engaging with the General; it would only result in delays and false narratives.

Align were instrumental in removing NT (with the support of many posters on this forum) and trying to negotiate with the General. Well look where we are now; back to the original NT strategy, only that they have wasted the last two years running round in circles created by the General.

Nick Trew was always honest, a transparent communicator and had a very clear strategy. Align have been a massive distraction (as they have been in other companies they are involved in). Still the Align fan boys will continue to lap it all up.