We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Good Evening,
Anyone else notice that the date of the AGM on the official RNS of 07 May 2020 (arguably written under the direction of DBay) is 29 May 2020, whereas on the official ESL Shareholder communication (4 page document) this is stated as 30 May 2020?
30 May 2020 is a Saturday incidentally.
Also, the RNS of 07 May 2020 is now no longer visible on investor's section of ESL website whereas the shareholder letter carrying the Saturday date of AGM still is.
I will be asking questions of this with both parties tomorrow. It certainly seems that DBay and ESL cant get the date of the AGM correct.
All views my own opinion.
Is it any wonder Steve Davies isn’t impressed with this latest turn of events at Sirius? He wouldn’t have been best pleased with them 4 months ago when he was already feeling the heat over the SP slump back then, made worse also by the TCG problem. I can only imagine how angry he is now given that things are considerably worse at Sirius than they were back then. This may end up causing problems for him too IMO.
https://citywire.co.uk/investment-trust-insider/news/fed-up-jupiter-uk-growth-trust-threatens-to-sack-jupiter/a1277718
Also, that even if the CFD holder (the investor) doesn’t then proceed to acquire the actual shares from the counterparty, in many cases the counterparty is likely to be holding a similar position in terms of actual shares as hedging anyway and then it would be them who would actually have the voting rights in any given circumstance. It stands to reason that they would probably then vote in the direction that their client would wish to do anyway, in order to protect all interests.
I think it is reasonably clear what is possibly happening with P’s acquisition of SM on a CFD basis. Voting rights are almost implied via the logistics of how these contracts operate in practice, hence the FCA ruling at that time on long positions only. And the direct correlation to takeover bids and offer situations which the article also refers to.
Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t as ‘over’ yet as most of us had perhaps thought since the advent of the first AA RNS.
All in my own opinion, though I do have substantial experience in the workings of financial derivatives and how the providers of these products function, and in turn limit their own own exposure whilst also making a profit.
Good Morning,
Regarding the ongoing discussion as to the potential intentions of Polygon and the acquisition of CFD’s in respect of SM, I would encourage everyone who is interested in CFD (long positions only) and the indirect link with voting rights in the attached article.
In particular, the section on why the FCA changed the rules on long positions over 10yrs ago.
Regards.
https://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Regulators-fsa.html
Yes, I understand in full the meaning of that paragraph in its most basic form i.e. that it brings closure to our current (un)certainty by potentially putting a price on our shares. And I stated that I am aware that if the proposed offer goes ahead then we are fully disposed of at that point. I just do not get that in the same sentence they go on to try and almost sell themselves to us on what comes across as an ongoing basis which could be read in some ways as including shareholders. Makes no sense.
Does anyone else find the wording of one of the paragraphs in the above RNS a little odd? I've read it several times now and it seems to imply some form of trying to reassure shareholders re. the possible offer ('certainty') before going on to talk about the benefits that AA would potentially bring to the project over time. Why would this be of any relevance to us during a cash takeover given that we would no longer be any part of the project etc?
Quote : 'Anglo American believes that the possible offer could provide certainty to Sirius' shareholders, whilst Anglo American brings the financial, technical and marketing resources and capabilities to progress the Project over time. This should also be in the interests of Sirius' broader stakeholders including employees and customers.'
Also, interesting to note from the conference call which then followed that AA views (our) project as a relatively simple build process with basically no significant difficulties envisaged. It all seems to be quite simple and straightforward in their eyes. Where then was the massive (perceived) risk when trying to sell the ST2 financing bonds? It doesn't make sense or add up to me.
Still holding and refusing to sell any shares. Best wishes to all other long term holders who are either hanging on, or have bought back in again after initially selling after recent events.
All in my opinion.
The events of tonight (thus far) can only be positive for all of us long term holders here. This may take a while yet, but I believe we can only move in the right direction starting tomorrow morning.
31 Jan 20 is significant for more than one reason this time around (not just Self-Assessment!). Let’s hope that works out too.
All my own thoughts, but best wishes to all LTH’s as always.
Business as usual I’d say. As others have correctly stated this was known about a week ago. The RNS is just a formality. Events over the course of the weekend probably caused more sentiment than this announcement will.
IMO.
23 Oct it is then.
I think we have to keep focus on the overall picture here. Not individual component elements or markets. If it was the case that the 2.67bt of Polyhalite had no place in the world market-place then we might as well give up any notion of getting it out of the ground now. These (major) players will look at components, blends and alternatives and will not discount the potential of the intended product (Poly4) against their own products and strategies.
If you were a (major) player involved in another product would you, or would you not want to be a part of what we have? Or would you just let SM and Polyhalite go whilst someone else realises it’s potential and benefits, and you’re own product, due to lack of components suffers? I know which I’d choose - I’d make sure I was at least in on what might happen.
And again, only my own thoughts.
Trinityman - Yes, once again I couldn’t agree more with you, and it is information like that which is contained in the post which you refer to that matters a lot more than (random) speculation and conjecture - to those of us who are watching our investment very carefully here, and no doubt using a number of different sources of information with which to help guide any decisions. I’ve added again in the last week and now have an average in single figures, with a holding very close to seven figures so the next two weeks are definitely going to be very interesting indeed.
I’ll refrain from commenting on all other matters in the last two weeks or so since there have been more than a few irrational comments and intimations from a number of sources.
All of course in my own opinion.
Good luck as always.
Considering the date of this meeting, and that it falls just two weeks from the end of September, I would tend to think that the BoD may not want their representatives at said meeting to be having to answer any difficult questions re. the consequences of any withdrawal of discretionary spending, and the resulting uncertainty that this could create amongst non-investor stakeholders? SM have clearly strived to maintain good working relationships with all parties and have devoted a considerable amount of time and resources into ensuring positive PR etc and there will naturally be many others (not just us who are invested in this) concerned about what might happen should things not go to plan.
This, IMO, is another reason why information, or some form of update from the company would be prudent either next week, or on Mon 16 Sep at the latest.
The drawback of course being that the US-Fed event doesn’t take place until 17-18 Sep which could make any decision before then a difficult one to call.
Either way, these LGF meetings are important both at present, and in the future for SM and any uncertainty with any given subject - particularly one as significant as at present - would be something I would imagine the BoD would be keen to avoid or reduce.
Stanley67 - As I understand it, from the minutes of the LGF held on 7 Feb 2019, the number of TBM’s was still officially quoted as three. I’ve not seen anything else to indicate otherwise. Also, IMO, if there was no intention to use a third TBM to bore from Lockwood Beck to Woodsmith then it would also mean that, in theory, the ongoing work at LB could be slowed down as the first TBM from Wilton would simply arrive there and stop, whilst the second one coming from Woodsmith would take significantly longer to arrive, implying again that there would be less urgency in completing operations at Lockwood Beck. This would not fit in with planning etc agreed with NYMNP which clearly states that the project will be completed as quickly as possible to minimise overall disruption to the park’s residents and visitors. It is my opinion, based on all of the above, that it is still three TBM’s.
I’ve quoted the answer given from the LGF.
‘Member of the public asked how many TBMs there would be and how would be assembled.
GC explained that there would be three TBMs – one would be assembled above ground and launched from Wilton. The others would be assembled in underground caverns at the Lockwood and Woodsmith sites’.
Again, this may have changed, but I have seen nothing to indicate that.
Trinityman - Again, I concur with everything you have stated in your reply.
As I said, I don’t think there is / was anything untoward or sinister going on at board level. We may never know what actually caused the withdrawal of the bond issuance so late in the day, but what we do know is that for individual fellow PI’s own reasons, some chose to sell immediately after the SP reached sub 10p. Nobody offered II’s reduced entry points or whatever, the respective market prices to buy or sell were simply dictated by the suspension of the senior debt issue and the resulting (perceived) shift of risk / reward sentiment.
I wasn’t able to attend last year’s AGM but I sincerely hope I can attend the 2020 one, though I am not remotely local to Yorkshire. If I am able to attend I would not be concerned if both CF and TS reiterated in person what we have discussed re. the natural shift from PI to II as a company matures. This in no way implies mandatory reduction or removal of PI’s from the share register, however, market forces may sometimes dictate that this occurs as an unintended consequence.
Over the weekend, and due to the number of shares I now hold - I’m not going to post figures as I know from recent posts that this does not bode well - I undertook what I would classify as extensive retrospective and belated due diligence (yes I know, a proper contradiction in terms) in respect of SM, including a thorough dissemination of the entire 2018 AR&A which was where, incidentally, I noticed a few other items of note, but I’ll leave these for the time being. I felt this was necessary since all going well with things in the next few weeks, and then over the longer term into production, I stand to be able to take 5-10yrs off my planner retirement age. It is not costing me anything like that in terms of capital investment at the current SP and therefore I have ultimately opted to remain committed to SM, and, I am 100% behind what has to be one of the most competent BoD’s that I have observed over many other investments.
Good luck with your own holding and let’s hope that we can all relax a little over the course of the next couple of weeks, then get on with realising the full potential of what has to be one of the most impressive construction projects this country has seen in recent times.
Trinityman - I have to agree in full with your last post. And just to reinforce what you have said re. CF publicly stating that the preferred way forward was a shift from PI to II equity, it is also clearly documented in the company's 2018 AR&A (page 67) that TS (Exec Director & CFO) received 15% of base salary (£49500) as a bonus within remuneration for fully achieving the objective of ‘increasing the percentage of share register held by institutional investors’. It is reasonable (IMO) to assume that this policy would continue at present.
Whilst there is nothing untoward with this, it does re-affirm the Executive Directors’ preference in respect of this subject.
I think it is somewhat unfortunate that some PI’s, and especially those who are or were also LTH’s, may have chosen to sell either in full or in part of late due to what appears to have taken place recently. All I would say on this - and this is entirely my own view - is that whilst the SP remains as it is, it may not be too late to try and regain some holding again. I have now bought on 6 occasions since 6 Aug and I am sitting this out, as was always my long term intention, the benefit being of course that I now have a more favourable average.
All IMO.
Yes, exactly. The focus has to remain on the overall proposition here. Nobody can mitigate against LTH / PI sentiment when we suddenly hit an arguably unexpected low of 7.8p, and the media leans towards worst case scenario reporting, not helped by reckless tweets and what amounts to muscle-flexing from elsewhere.
$500m of funding is undeniably a make or break situation to this project at present, but if it were to come down to $100m (the difference between 13% and 10% over the life of the senior debt, and bearing in mind this would not require to be dealt with nearly as urgently as at present) and the SP / MCAP would be proportionately higher with the bonds away, and construction (possibly) ahead of schedule, and overall de-risking further advanced, then $100m of dilution etc would seem a lot more attractive to some, than - potentially - significantly greater dilution at present.
Or indeed IPA assistance from UK Gov at that point given that the figure required would be much lower and there would be much less urgency at that time, and scope for extended negotiations etc.
There was much discussion on this board a few days ago re. how it might be feasible to raise the $500m from vested individuals in order to protect their overall investment. Whilst this could - I suppose - be workable, it would be complex and isn’t really an option, but I’m sure it would concern many people a lot less if the bonds were sold just now for a higher coupon than would be ideal, then sometime in the future perahaps, an RNS for $100m of dilution etc and the SP falls from say 18p to 16.5p, but the project continues, fully funded and heading towards ultimate success.
I would not bat an eyelid at that. If it actually ever did need to happen at all.
The funding will come, albeit at possibly higher rate/s than planned for, and any resulting much smaller shortfall in terms of cashflow can get dealt with later if need be when the SP is more stable and investor confidence has been restored.
A white elephant that will leave one hell of a footprint on the North East if you are correct.
Not forgetting the ‘human’ element of things.
I personally hope it succeeds, not only from an investment point of view, but also taking account of the much needed positive effect it is having on communities in the surrounding areas etc.
Time will tell.
All IMHO of course.
Link removed for obvious reasons.
Easily found by searching for ‘Financial Mail on Sunday 29 June 2019 Sirius’.
Morning guys,
Yes, I’m new to this board, but certainly not new to holding SXX, and the overall journey thus far etc.
These two items of ‘reporting’ mentioned above really are disgraceful, and frankly irresponsible. Is it any wonder fellow LTH’s / PI’s are making possibly irrational decisions to sell etc?
Attached is a link to a much more comprehensive review of Sirius (and CF), published in the Financial Mail On Sunday just 8wks ago, and to which I referred back to myself before twice buying significant more stock in SXX since the RNS of 6 Aug. My average is now relativeky comfortable and I see this as nothing other than an opportunity to indeed get in at 10p rather than 52p as has also been intimated this morning.
In particular, towards the end of said attached article, CF’s relationship with many parties in the wider surrounding area is mentioned, several times, and I find it remarkable thet anyone could contrast how far this project has come, with the nonsense I have just watched and read? Do any of these people do even the most basic of research? This is far from a conventional ‘risky new start mining venture’.
Apologies for the lengthy post, especially with being new to this board, but the balance is being unfairly shifted IMHO.
Also, apologies if the article I have linked was already posted etc.
Best wishes.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7195883/amp/Mining-boss-wants-dig-deep-Sirius-FTSE-100.html