Member Info for observer842

But presumably we'd see it in the accounts.

I suppose they could have been selling 5,000 euros worth of shares each, each year and not have to notify:

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/forms/pdmr-form-guide.pdf
===[
A Person Discharging Managerial Responsibilities (PDMR) of an
issuer or an emission allowance market participant (EAMP) and
those that are closely associated with them are required to:

Notify the FCA of every transaction that has been conducted
on their own account relating to the shares or debt
instruments, derivatives or other financial instruments linked
to that issuer or EAMP. This applies to transactions once the
total amount of EUR 5,000 has been reached within a calendar
year.
]===

You learn something new every days. :-)

First hit on google: https://help.stockopedia.com/technical-guide/insiders/directors-dealings-disclosure-rules

All dealings.

@mr.james: "Mer I would bet my bottom dollar they sold out. They would not need to disclose if they had."

If you are referring to our directors, UK rules oblige them to disclose details of their dealings.

And double wow. Futures back over $80/t (62% Fe) out until March 2021 according to CME Group. LoL. I think I need a lie down.

I should really have used the un-rounded values and rounded the answer... that's what a bit of excitement does to my calculator! :-)

(481 - 171) / 4.8 = $65/t

Now if we could arrive at a similar answer from a different angle that would make my day.

@tomcat. I wrote this on 20 Jan 20:

===[
It's a good thought @tomcat, although I'm now fairly convinced that in 2011 the Amapa project shipped 4.8Mt of iron ore grossing revenue from these sales of US$481m leading to an operating profit on the project of $171m, which implies their OpEx was of the order of $300m a little over twice our estimate and probably explicable by the USD:BRL changing very much in our favour from 1.67 to around 4.
]===

That's an OpEx of 300/4.8 = $62.5/t. wow. USD to BRL now at 4.39. Must. Contain. My. Excitement. :-)

Ob.

No.

@tomcat. Break down of the CapEx: http://ir.mmx.com.br/Download.aspx?Arquivo=Yy6WQhGRdqRTME1ZES02Sg==

Have you been able to find the old OpEx? I'm wondering how it might compare to our forecast life of mine OpEx of $21/t - which is very impressive if it's per tonne of shipped product, which for us, unlike some other low cost producers is currently attracting a hefty premium.

Reworded for clarity.

2. I think it's very unlikely we'll hear through RNS's about the details of the various court cases that @tomcat and I are tracking. IMHO it'll be one big RNS saying yea, we got to 20%, or nay we failed.

lol @Frankie

1. I don't know the reason for the pattern of today's trades, only the person who made them can know. However in my experience you might see multiple trades of a similar amount for various reasons. a) Don't want to spook the market (unlikely the reason here). b) Can't trade the full amount instantly, meaning you have to place an order/Negotiated Trade, so you might decide to split instead. c) Can get a better deal by splitting the trade up into smaller amounts, sometimes separated in time, even after trade fees.

2. I think it's very unlikely we'll hear about the details of the various court cases that @tomcat and I are tracking through RNS's. In fact I believe it's very unlikely we'll hear anything related to Amapa until the second, final pre-condition is met ("The second precondition is for us to reach a settlement agreement with the bank creditors in regards to the secured bank lending. Along with our partners, we continue to negotiate with the banks.") and we own 20%. This IMHO, could be quite imminent: it should have happened by the end of last year. Some say silence could be indicative of problems, I believe it could be indicative of a pending resolution - good or bad...

3. I did suspect you wouldn't be able to handle the answer to that question! Be careful what you ask for. lol!

Ob.

1. Don't know - I did say most! :-)
2. (search: cadence rns) Likely when get to 20% of ownership or when we decide this isn't going to happen and we walk away, with our $2.5m.
3. (search: jusbrasil zamin) https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/topicos/97912826/zamin-amapa-mineracao-saem-recuperacao-judicial/atualizacoes which leads you to: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/documentos/805848181/andamento-do-processo-n-0001123-2820155080206-rorsum-05-02-2020-do-trt-8?ref=feed (scroll to the very bottom)

lol: "I have a longish list, if you have more time....?". Most answers to most questions are just a google search away you know? The knack of course is knowing what to search for. You ask the questions, I'll tell you what to search for. :-)

"Cannibal theory for locust swarms" (12 May 2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7395356.stm
===[
Seen eating each other

No-one is sure exactly what makes locusts swarm in this way.

They are usually herbivores but scientists have observed them eating each other.

This is when they cannot get hold of enough food when normal supplies start to run short.

Young locusts, which cannot fly, have been seen eating other members of their group.

The new theory suggests that some other locusts start to panic.

Increasing numbers of locusts band together to try to get away from the hungry cannibals chasing behind.

They keep this momentum when they reach the adult phase of their life cycle and take to the air.
]===

Thanks for the weary wary expo! The point of a stop-loss is in the name. Say I buy £100k worth of shares today at 6p, I may be hoping for a 10x bagger to 60p, but I realise it's a long shot, and in fact I may conclude that the lower the share price goes the greater the chance there is of this never happening, or worse, the company going bust, and I decide that if the share price goes below 3p this possibility outweighs the benefits of the potential £1m reward. So I put in a stop-loss for 3p. The point being, I've invested £100k, but I'm only willing to risk £50k of it. I'm stopping my losses at £50k. If I didn't have a stop-loss in place, then my losses could potentially be £100k. Of course if you've ever placed a stop-loss you'll have read the small print which normally states that the stop-loss sell at 3p is not guaranteed to take place for various reasons and you could still lose more than £50k, potentially all of it.

All hypothetical of course...

There is nothing wrong in putting in stop losses as low as you want. I'd just be very weary of putting them in on a platform in a share that is notorious for large spreads, tree shakes, and what at times looks like blatant manipulation by those holding the reins. I've said before I don't blame them individually, their job is to make a market, and if that means moving the spread such that it "encourages" sells or buys to proceed then job done. It's just not always great for those on the receiving end.

Put it this way, if I put a stop loss in for all of my shares at 4p, the share price would very likely drop to fulfil that "order", especially if there was a large buy in above this price at the time. Sad but true. If you want to attempt to counteract you might want to consider doing the opposite, put some orders in to sell a little higher up, just don't kick yourself if they are filled and the share price continues to rise! :-) That was hypothetical by the way - I'm not suggesting you do anything of the sort, and besides, it's a much riskier play for those holding the reins than the other way round! Think about it.

@Frankie! I'm impressed. The sell at 5p was probably a stop loss being triggered. Any one want to own up to it? I personally don't use stop losses on AIM for this very reason...

or convert into :-)

News first imv @Ivybush. Plenty of directions it could come from. :-)