Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Just had a pleasing notificaton from Tabys giving me the AIX depositatry receipt for my holding :) It also includes a handy link to transfer the shares to an AIX registered broker in the event that i wish to sell.
Me too and mine haven't updated yet. hopefully should happen soon
BB- FFS give it a rest.
Neither Poly nor Poly shareholders are responsible for Russian atrocities in any way.
Investment projections that are somewhat optimistic don't always equal rampling.
Given all that has been thrown at him, Mr Nesis is performing heroically, and may just see us through to better days.
Also AIX and Tabys are just fine. Very happy so far.
Why they haven't banned you long ago is a mystery. I genuinely hope that you choke on your soup. You are pathetic and abusive. seek medical help
Many thanks, J-A-B. I only got round to asking for the code today. Glad that it's being finalised and isn't forgotten or scrapped
Hi Folks
Is anyone else waiting on a unique access code from Polymetal IR team, needed in order to register on Tabys app? or have any info relating to this, please?
Onbeyondzebra- thanks for your post. I am 100% allingned with your sentiments. Also waiting on II as my broker.
Honestly BB, as if an IFA is going to suggest putting money into Polymetal. Of course not. More likely a fund of funds. Moreover IFAs are guided by legal advice, and whether or not Poly traded on AIX may be held in an ISA is a question of law not one for an IFA.
To bb - Oh dear, I didn't mean to rattle your cage . Although I note that you haven't added anything pertinent to the specific topic being discussed. perhaps if you had been informed by an IFA or lawyer you should open your mouth.
Elguri- ok. will do. expect to be able to
Ha, Elguri, my dear friend, let me emphasise that I don't want to trade, I don't really care about liquidilty. I merely expect for a UK broker to hold what may be legally held in my wrapper, collect any divis that are mine, and - ideally- provide sell only exectution should that ever be required. I dont' expect them to provide seamless trading on AIX.
Elguiri. forive me if you are not familiar with UK matters- I'm pretty sure you have to be a UK national or UK taxpayer to open an ISA or SIPP. Poly situation has no bearing on this. I also note that your second sentence confirms my point in relation to those who already have an ISA and/or SIPP.
And for any ISA/SIPP holders who listened to the prestentation earlier (much as I genuinely don't want to do down Maxim), I'm not going to be relying on him for advice as to ISAs. the way he said I.S.A. (like the Americans say IRA) says it all. His comments were canned *~se covering stuff in an area outside of his expertise.
My understanding is that, from a legal point of view, as of 25.01.2019, AIX is a 'recognised stock exchange' for HMRC purposes. Therefore, a share in Poly on AIX is a qualifying investment for ISA purposes (see links below) . If your broker won't let you hold with them, that's an internal policy thing within broker, seperate from what is legally permisable in UK. Obvs, if a broker policy conflicts with your own interests, that may prompt you to think very seriously about which broker you are using.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/designated-recognised-stock-exchanges-section-1005-income-tax-act-2007/designated-recognised-stock-exchanges-section-1005-income-tax-act-2007-v3
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/stocks-and-shares-investments-for-isa-managers
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/JRS/result-of-general-meeting/15728218
Some of these features writers in the investment space are impartial to the point of being dull. And also patronising towards PIs.
All the more reason why I hope that we can pull our Board into line next week. Let there be no doubt amongst those not clouded by morally fuzzy, herd-like, short term thinking of IIs, that the resolutions would be materially harmful to our wealth. It's trully a no-brainer.
Fantasitic work dog and huge thanks for all the work that must have gone into helping to get the message out there.
I agree with you entirely, bourgie.
All in my opinion:
Shareholders must not stand for Sanderson's nonsense (nor that of the other directors). he is failing in his legal obligation as a director to look out for our intersests. he is looking after his own interests. Those are advancing his career as a serial non-exec (just check his records on Companies House). And guess how he gets those appoointments- it is by taking care of the hand that feeds him (namely JPMAM). If one wanted a illustration of the proximity of the relationship between Chair and JPMAM, one need only look at the video of the 2022 AGM. Behind the then Chairman is the 10 foot logo of JPMAM.
I am enraged to see an RNS as to the board's CURRENT intentions. Clearly, such a statement says nothing of intentions in the future. I have no current plans to take a nap. To spout this kind of weasel wording is grossly rispectful to the reader and we deserve better. Of course, we can't expect any cast iron guarantee as to the board future intentions, but to say nothing of this makes me very suspicious, especially when coming from the same board who are proposing the resolutions tabled for 23rd which are so clearly not in the long term best interests of the members as a whole (even if JPMAM would like these, and if City of London AM would happily aid and abet such a daylight robbery by funding a rights issue that PIs don't have the spare change to participate in).
https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/emea/gb/en/annual-general-meeting-and-general-class-meeting/annual-general-meeting/jrs-circular.pdf
Here is the circular, including our Chairman's explanation of the rationale. His explanation does not convince me in any way that we are being taken down the right path. There is simply no logic to his postitions. he complains about the trust not being able to deploy some £19m into equities, and yet it was this board who sold promising Kazak assets in May (realising this cash position) so as to 'de-risk' the trust.
It seems like a classic case of deciding what outcome is desired, and working backwords from there in attempting to come up with a narrative that justifies the outcome. (The 'desired outcome' being that desired by JPMAM who wish to distance themselves from Russian positions that it can't even fully charge investors for, and JPMAM then pulls a spineless and shameful Chairman's strings to this end)
Also, I totally agree with Katenip's sentitments. JRS has endured months of hell, but remains standing. Not a lot more for the trust to lose, lots and lots to possibly gain. Would be a monumentally terrible time to throw in the towel.
This situtation really does make me question the actions and intentions of the directors. Note that I only say 'question'. Perhaps the directors can demonstrate that they really are acting in the best interests of the members as a whole? But on the face of it, my suspicsion is that they are they being poked and proded by JP Morgan Assest Management who (perhaps understandly) don't love having 'Russian Securities' within its stable of funds. Incidentally, I wouldn't mind changing the name, as long as this is a fairly cosmetic thing and doesn't go hand in hand with a fundamental change in investment strategy
In other words, vote no! hell no!
extremely opposed to any change of invesment objective. best thing for JRS and its shareholders is just to ride out the storm. (perhaps this is not also the best thing for JP Morgan Group, as it's all too much of a smelly headache for them)
If prohibitions on trading of Russian assets were to be lifted, I shudder to think of the trust rushing for the exit to sell off Russian assets at fire sale prices, only to buy shares elsewhere in Africa etc. possibly needing a dilutive fund raise too in order to make the fund large enough (dilutive unless existing shareholders want to plough more in, and who would in these circumstances).
By the way JRS's custodian in Russia is in receipt of all the dividends this year from investee companies. All that has to happen for JRS to be able to access these many millions of GBP is for the prohibitons to be lifted. (No other third parties to naviagate around, just our friendly custodian to unlock the safe). For me it's more probable than not that the probitions will not be in place literally forever.
Just imagine the reported NAV change from one day to the next, the day that prohibitions are lifted and suddenly mega moex value and a big pile of dividends are inclduded in the calcualation.