Member Info for Mumbles2021

I said previously that I would step away from posting. I am posting once more solely to correct a factual inaccuracy that, if left unaddressed, could be misconstrued as fact.

Assertions have been made regarding Paul Atherley’s seniority and reporting line at HSBC which are incorrect.

Paul Atherley did not claim to be “the Executive Director” at HSBC — no such role exists in the way it has been described. During his time at HSBC Australia, he reported to senior executives within the group, including Jenny Seabrook (formerly Jenny Fear), whose credentials and seniority in Australian capital markets are a matter of public record and publicly available.

It is unfortunate that a well-respected industry figure has been drawn into a bulletin-board dispute. This clarification is posted solely to correct the record.

I have no intention of continuing this discussion and wish all shareholders a constructive year ahead.

Cyberbub, i guess i am classed in the same boat as that idiot. Theorist. i dont do this because i want to, i do it to correct deliberate misinformation. if that is how it is construed it was obviously a mistake. i will no longer be posting on any subject. So i guess Theo and SP won, it wasnt meant to come to this. Hope you all have a happy new year im done with this sh*t

Theo, not sure where you are coming from here, but i have it on good authority the Paul worked "worked as an Executive Director from 1998 to 1992 for HSBC working on Level 28 of the then R&I Tower 108 St George’s Terrace Perth reporting to Jenny Fear”. He also has a first class honours degree in Mining from Imperial College.... it is important to state the facts that can be verified.....not leave malicious untrue comments to stay unanswered eventually becoming "TRUTH"... Theo (Chris Eccleston) get a life.... or at least a new obsession!!! when you first started on the Anti pensana crusade as Hamilton Engineering at least your argument had some substance to them, but allowed for debate over the statements made, but since the beginning of this year, you are sounding totally unhinged....

Although i may owe you an apology @Twohits........

Really Twohits, and who are you? do you have any more credence than Theo (you might, you might not)..... at least PAs and now my own profile are open for public scrutiny.

Re your allegation "Is this statement by Atherley correct; I was the executive director of the investment banking arm of HSBC Australia. Not a director, not an executive director, not an employee, THE executive director? Go on Paul, answer that."

i asked him, and the answer direct from PA was that he was “Executive Director of HSBC Investment Bank ( previously Wardley James Chapel) in the Perth office”.

Let me put this back on a factual footing, because this discussion has drifted into semantics rather than substance.

“Executive Director” is a standard, formally defined job title in global investment banking, used by institutions such as HSBC to denote a specific senior role within an established organisational hierarchy. It sits below Managing Director and is neither a statutory board position nor an indication of sole executive authority over an institution or business.

That is not a subjective interpretation. It is how the title is used, understood, and applied across the industry by those with institutional experience.

Accordingly, stating that someone holds the title of Executive Director is factually correct where that designation has been assigned by the institution itself. Any suggestion that the title implies something beyond that — such as “running the show” — does not arise from the role as defined or used within global banking, but from an external misinterpretation of it.

Whether that misinterpretation is deliberate or inadvertent is beside the point. What matters is that it is incorrect.

More importantly, this line of argument has no bearing on the substantive matters under discussion. Titles neither validate nor invalidate analysis. If there is a belief that any specific statement relating to the company, its funding structure, or its disclosures is factually wrong, that should be identified clearly and supported with evidence. Repeated implication or semantic inference is not a substitute for analysis.

The record has now been corrected. I am not going to revisit a matter of external misinterpretation rather than substance.

Theorist might as well say it, you are full of sh*t………

I am not a “Pensana stooge.” I am a significant investor who has taken the time to understand the company and its funding, and I resent having to repeatedly rebut the same recycled assertions on this forum.

I am happy to be identified. My background, professional history, and views are publicly available via my LinkedIn profile (www.linkedin.com/in/ian-brown-energy) and my website (www.thebrownpaper.net).

Your identity is also known, and there have been numerous attempts by others to engage with you privately to understand what your underlying issues actually are. Those approaches have not been taken up.

I am deliberately avoiding speculation about counterparties or historical predictions and focusing instead on what you are asserting now.

On the HSBC point, “Executive Director” is a standard senior investment-banking title used by HSBC and other global banks. It is not a statutory board role, nor does it imply being “the” sole executive. Attempting to suggest otherwise is a semantic distraction, not a substantive argument.

As has already been explained to you, there are potential consequences to the continued repetition of unsupported and reputationally damaging assertions, and I note that this has not altered your approach.

If you believe any specific statement by the company or its management is factually incorrect, identify it clearly and support it with evidence. Failing that, readers can draw their own conclusions about the weight to attach to repeated assertion without substantiation. I am prepared to stand openly behind my views and my public credibility. For someone so vociferous in their condemnation, the unwillingness to do the same speaks for itself.

A line needs to be drawn here.

Repeated assertions attacking an individual’s honesty, professional reputation, and the integrity of a listed project — presented as fact and without evidence — go well beyond robust debate.

This is an investor forum. Statements of that nature are plainly capable of influencing investor decision-making and, when unsupported, carry obvious legal risk for the author. Similar fact patterns in recent case law have not ended well for posters relying on “opinion” or alleged industry sentiment where no evidence existed.

If there is credible evidence of failed due diligence, adverse technical findings, or withdrawn counterparties, it should be produced. Repeating unsubstantiated claims or “industry gossip” does not make them true.

I would strongly suggest that personal allegations cease unless they can be substantiated. Debate the strategy, the structure, or the valuation by all means — but stop attacking individuals without proof.

Theo,, ou have persistently asserted “suspicion and uncertainty” around this project for the last four years, without ever identifying a single adverse due-diligence finding to support it.

Over that same period, the project has undergone repeated, independent scrutiny across resource, metallurgy, costs, ESG, permitting and execution, each time resulting in capital commitment, not rejection.

Repeating the claim after those processes have validated the project is not scepticism. It is the continued promotion of a narrative knowingly disconnected from the factual record. At that point, the issue is no longer uncertainty — it is misrepresentation.

If you have project-specific evidence that contradicts those outcomes, produce it.

If not, the distinction between analysis and misinformation should be obvious.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this TBOW .

TBOW, Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you on the underlying principle. Discounted post-IPO issuance has historically been abused and pre-emption rights exist to protect minority shareholders.

You state that “discounted shares should not be issued without good reason.” I agree with that framing. Where we differ is in the assessment of whether good reason existed in this case.

The company has stated that it is dealing with multiple live processes and that the board is meeting weekly to take decisions. In that environment, speed and flexibility matter. Even an open offer that can be completed quickly still introduces additional process, cost and loss of agility.

For approximately $5m, the economic difference between issuing around 80p and the 94p market close is so small as to be irrelevant at company level. That needs to be weighed against the value of being able to act quickly within an existing shareholder mandate.

On pre-emption, I agree it is not intended to give management carte blanche. However, it is designed to allow boards to act within a defined envelope when circumstances require it. That envelope was approved by shareholders and, as far as I can see, has been respected. Incentives are aligned, with the chairman holding a meaningful equity stake.

I don’t dispute that an open offer could have been carried out. The question is whether it was the most appropriate option given timing and scale. In this instance, using the existing mandate appears to have been a pragmatic response to circumstances rather than a departure from principle.

@valii please read my last

The suggestion that retail shareholders would have funded an open offer of this scale at a higher price is unrealistic. Expressions of willingness after the event are not fundable capital. An open offer would have taken weeks, required underwriting, carried execution risk and delivered no strategic validation. M&G’s participation is entirely orthodox institutional behaviour.

I’m not confused about how the market works – your arguments being made here are commercially naïve.

Any issuance of new shares (IPO, placing, open offer, rights issue) is primary issuance. Secondary market activity is trading between shareholders. In a primary issue no value is transferred from existing shareholders to institutions – the cash goes to the company. Market price is not a property right; it is a marginal clearing price for small trades.

Discounts in primary issues are not “cheating shareholders”. They compensate for scale, lock-in, illiquidity and execution risk. Without them, large capital raises simply do not happen – which is exactly why the Companies Act allows shareholders to disapply pre-emption rights.

Shareholders did exactly that. At each AGM they authorise the board to issue up to one-third of the share capital on a non-pre-emptive basis. Once that authority is granted, the board’s duty is to act in the company’s best interests, not to preserve spot-price symmetry or retail optics.

The suggestion that retail shareholders would have funded an open offer of this scale at a higher price is unrealistic. Expressions of willingness after the event are not fundable capital. An open offer would have taken weeks, required underwriting, carried execution risk and delivered no strategic validation. M&G’s participation is entirely orthodox institutional behaviour.

This isn’t value being taken from shareholders – it’s capital being put into the company under authority shareholders themselves approved.

TBOW, one of us is definitely confused….. if a company’s best interests due to ongoing discussions and potential support needs to tidy up its balance sheet before a certain date. Due to it being in the best long term interest of ALL Shareholders then they have responsibility to take the steps they deem necessary. Neither you nor i know the details of what has been taking place, although we do know the aim and the strategy to get their and the potential support that is being offered. The price was set by the strategic, the prices paid for the additional share issues, reflect the SP with the current valuation, but with a know share issuance once the 95 million shares are issued. Your argument is to avoid unjustified pricing to the advantage of large investors to the detriment of the wider market. But this isn’t unjustified. You really need to move on….. you seem to be the only person wha has an issue with it

TBOW i don’t get your issues. There is the primary market and the capital market, the main reason being attached to the former to raise funding for company balance sheet purposes and company development. Then there is the secondary market. Providing liquidity and price discovery functions.

You seem to have forgotten the primary. You have had reasons spelled out to you. The PRE board are about long terms value creation for the company not the secondary markets shareholder shorter gain which provides no help for to the company balance sheet. The current activity has strengthened to company balance sheet for whatever reason they have deemed necessary. I have lost 10p in the short term and gain £2.00 in the very short term, I raally don’t give a toss.

Tbow, just red my previous

Appreciated StockGenius and for being given the opportunity to answer an excellent point. by divesting after the Saltend plan was publicly abandoned, then reinvesting after the US pivot is fully disclosed, suggests that they are fully onboard with the new strategy rather than being dragged along from the previous plan. They weee owed aboir 50p a share and could exit and make a good profit. Especially with the shares already sold taken into consideration. Instead they chose to re-invest, being fully onboard with the current direction.

M&G will have done there current price based on the same valuation as the strategic and the number of shares post issuance and are also confident it will come off, and also that the EXIM loan will be approved….. they do not risk their funds money.