Member Info for okenia

Oh I see SCDM is a holding company of the Bouygues family (big French telecoms). Well they were buying UKOG recently at very elevated prices so they'd be a good touch for offloading some more HHDL shares.

I said they'd have to rns share issuance. If they don't issue they don't have to RNS issuance that hasn't occurred (!). The related point you raise is whether withdrawal from the deal is PSI. Since the agreement was, the argument would be that pulling out would be too, ukog can't really have it both ways. That being said, a spivvier aim company would RNS the good news and stay quiet on the bad. Who are these SCDM Energy lot who've gone 5% in ukog? Google is somewhat uninformative. Do you know?

Re SS, there is the point that SS is conflicted by his dual role (that being said, the other two directors of HHDL are too - one is a Doriemus director, the others from Alba) I wonder if RGM will seek to sell the remaining HHDL shares if the flowtests come back positive? Ukog can't take any more as they're now at 49.9% of HHDL. But there could be other buyers (e.g. wasn't there some big French money that has come into UKOG? They might want a direct stake too).

I've now got a retina-bleach vision of Andrew limbo dancing ...

It's not however in UKOG's interests for them to say HHDL shares are over-valued, given how many they hold. Paying a large amount for a few shares sets "the last market transaction" price for them. Ukog would shoot themselves in the foot if they pulled out citing value!

Well UKOG will need to RNS the new share issuance and updated TVR as the first step. Who needs to grant these 'approvals' for the deal to complete? SS (ukog) is SS (chair hhdl) so one assumes that will help lubricate matters.

There's a steady stream of big Buys going thru these last few days - £10k - £20k at a time, which is a lot given the mcap of IRON. Given that buying it's not moving that fast, which suggests there are placing shares being fed into that. It may be that the broker didn't place all the stock out initially and so has got some themselves that they are feeding into the market (which gives them their 5% fee of course, as well as a nice bit of profit now the market price is north of 2p). If that's true then that will come to a stop eventually and then these big buyers will have to take shares from elsewhere, i.e. the proper secondary market. It won't take long for that sort of buy action to get this re-rating. First stop for me is 4p (the pre-placing level) and since the company seems to have turned a vital point I'd want to then see it continue upwards at a nice tick.

Joebop. Regency is on a recognised investment exchange not a regulated one. The disclose requirements are simply that one must notify the company of a change in discosable holding. You don't formally needs to send a tr1 to the fca like you do for the standard list. An email to the company is enough. The company knew about his initial holding so that fine. The company also has to tell the market in a timely fashion - which they did via the initial RNS. That's ok. So ... If SM sells down and crosses a threshold as a result of selling (as opposed to dilution) then he has to tell Regency. They then need to inform the market. Regency can't disclose if they've not been told by him. The responsibility is solely with SM to make the disclosure - irrespective of whether his shares are held as certs, in nominee accounts or whatever. Bell cannot hold off disclosing if he's been told. But equally it's not his job to check - it's the legal duty of the holder not the issuer. If mscick has sold and not disclosed, book absolutely 100% stops with him.

Ah but you're not getting the back story MrM. Wind back a few months and engage zee little grey cell. Why did Moscicki let RGM in? If the assets were perfectly run and throwing off £500k pa in distribution back to shareholders, how much would RGM have to pay for those assets? Regency got in only because there was something missing. If Moscicki had the cash and management capability, he'd have gone it alone. It's not been clear what the gap was regency were filling - capital, access to markets, a route to exit, management capacity etc. But it was clearly there. If you pay fair price for a good asset, there's very little room to add value and grow it. Finally this elephant in the room has been stated in an RNS today - probably the most interesting sentence. "Gaps in our partner's capabilities have allowed Regency to gain access to these opportunities in the first place" Now that statement won't have been written lightly as it is public criticism of SM and his team. That's a very sensitive matter given the BIA Resources IPO. So what do we make of this? To me, it's public gloves coming off. Where's the beer and popcorn?!?

Just popped up. Date stamped two days ago, two minutes after the £27,500 buy that day. Looking at the bid/offer at that time (plus what I was able to hoover up around that time), and it looks to be a Buy at 2.25p full ask. £90,000 buy at full ask, that's nearly 1% of the company. Any likely candidates?

I think it's because the placing shares aren't offered to the public, but rather to 'sophisticated' (ha ha) investors, and so that placing falls foul of the ISA rules. Although weirdly the shares themselves can be bought and held within an ISA - go figure! Rights issues (shares offered to all existing shareholders) can be subscribed to within an ISA, you get a corporate action to do so. It's sometimes harder to work out the rules of investing than it is to research the actual companies...

Yes the fundraise is still open and additional direct subscription is possible (speak to Andy Thacker at SI capital if anyone is interested)

Funding going forward - I expect to see debt used (that's already been talked about) and project-level investing via SPVs (again already mentioned in the investor presentation, the co-investment rights thing). The latter is particularly intriguing as it would act to minimise plc-level dilution (which we'dl all smile about). Again this is in a picture in the investor presentation, but imagine they want to take a stake in some asset. They set up a SPV into which is squirted some ownership of the asset (in return for the vendor getting SPV shares), some cash from PERE (perhaps partly debt-funded), and some third-party direct investment (in return for those investors getting shares in the private SPV company). That puts enough money into the SPV pot to do what is needed, without the need for PERE to pick up 100% of the tab. That was all in the investor presentation but what I hadn't twigged was an important consequence - which is that it reduces the need for PERE itself to do a placing to raise the case for an acquisition. No CEO will ever say "no more placings" for obvious reasons, but PERE do seem to be working hard to get funding streams for the acquisitions (debt, SPV-co-investment) that are non-dilutive at the plc level. After all, they are on the Standard List which limits their ability to issue shares anyway to 10% per annum. That's one advantage to us shareholders of a standard listing compared to confetti-central that is AIM. As for the placing price, well I hold a decent chunk of shares from before the placing so yes I wasn't a totally happy bunny with 1.6p, but at the end of the day the SP in nine months time will be purely and simply determined by the company's performance and the assets in the time in between. By that time no-one will be remembering what the placing price was, the focus will be on the assets and the opportunities to add value. They've got a chunk of money and a plan, they now need to deliver. Even Cynical Bear at SP thinks there's good money to be made at this level (provided you give it enough time to let the company actually do something - turnarounds of assets aren't instant after all).

Yes I'm predicting about £2.1m, probably around 2p, with an RNS about 21st June ...

OK I've cleared up the RTO thin (I think!). - the first acquisition, *irrespective of size*, is defined as an RTO by UKLA. If PERE go out there and pay £1m (e.g. out of the placing cash) to get part of some copper mine somewhere, it's a RTO, even though its not as big as the mothership company. It's a quirk of the UKLA rules about transitioning from being a cash shell to something else. And it's just for the first acquisition that this quirk kicks in. - for subsequent acquisitions, normal RTO rules of engagement apply. That is, if acquisition is greater than 100% of the company's assets, then it's an RTO. If not, then it isn't. That's why the prospectus talks about subsequent acquisitions *may* (or may not) be a RTO - basically they're stating the obvious, that if they did do something really massive then of course it would be a RTO. However such follow-on acquisitions aren't automatically RTOs like the first one, so whether it is one will be determined by the usual RTO rules. Once you realise that UKLA quirk (which until just now I didn't) the prospectus is a lot easy to understand I think. That was my main bit of confusion from the prospectus. From now on it is a case of letting them get on with stuff, do some DD on some assets, and choose one for the first acquisition. As we know they have a pipeline of potential ones (see the investor presentation).

lol I am chatting to the company later today to put some flesh on the bones and clarify some bits. The whole RTO framework (with/without suspension etc etc) is obviously of interest, although it may simply be laying out what they *could* do as opposed to what will actually happen. There are clearly ways to get acquisitions etc that don't trigger a RTO. Any last-minute questions scream now and I will ask. I will be expecting DL to provide a deeper overview of the plans once the transfer to the standard list and GM is complete, although at the current point in time there will be a natural sensitivity not to over-disclose in case that accidentally "does a Dave Whitby" on a Justin podcast lol

Followed by a £27,500 buy. And a flurry of decent other chunky ones. Ditto yesterday Someone with deep pockets seems to be hoovering the stock up. Very interesting...

On a tech point, you can't use cash in an isa to fund a placing. It has to be done all outside. Once bought, you can then do a bed and isa if so wished. Bizarrely you can however fund placings from cash in a sipp and the stock is then held in a sipp. Go figure!

25% not 50% HK ECE are the Chinese investors from CAF days. They have apparently disappeared (they've got their CAF Namibia shares, that's all they were bothered about). They had 18% (now 6.3%) but I doubt we'll see those shares go into circulation. 7% (now 2.42%) was held by WTI. Given that WTI's Chair and CEO hold board positions at PERE, that shareholder's views will have been known!

If the 3.2p warrants are exercised it will bring in an additional £5m cash into the balance sheet, which is a healthy chunk. So provided they can execute and get the SP moving, there won't be pressure for additional capital raises (certainly not for general working capital requirements). Used sensibly, warrants allow investors to deploy capital in a staged fashion ... in this cash 1/3rd now, and the remaining 2/3rds via warrant exercises down the line. That's currently working well to keep the GGP coffers topped up, for anyone who follows that story.