Member Info for Pecten11

Who exactly were they trying to help ??
If anybody posts something reliable, factual and verifiable it would be welcomed

'Seems the fact you post about telegram are about as reliable as your posts in Vast.'

To be fair, no one posts anything reliable about VAST on here lol

So dvh, how much do you think it will be for, over how many years and at what rate of interest?.

Sorry - that should read absolutely no reason why the finance is not agreed

Sorta changes the meaning missing a word!!

Antharry, good point, since the term sheet was agreed and the raise fulfilled, their should be be absolutely no reason why the finance is agreed -

Max, looks like Beaumont Cornish wont answer your question, but will have your post taken down......

APD, fair point re the SARS, but that still doesn't mean that there is currently no reason why the three named gents, who are in a better position to know the position of the company, cant buy shares right now.
They aren't, which surely means there are still doubts to the investment case

And if the investment case is now so good and the BoD are obviously not in a closed period, why aren't Nick Hatch, Paul Fletcher and even Craig buying shares in a frenzy

Max - if, looking forward, everything is so positive and derisked, why agree to the discount to the placing - surely investors agreeing with that positive sentiment would know they would have to pay a premium to get their hands on so many shares?
Question should be, why with the information out in the public domain should the SP rise from where it is?

If everything is so rosy, why does the chairman, obviously now out of any closed period, who should know better than most the situation of the company, only buy £20k of shares?
Better he buys than not obviously, but hardly a resounding vote of confidence

MU345 - ' a concentrate price which is ripping.'

Please explain - copper metal price is nicely up over the year, but do you know if or by how much the price VAST receives for its concentrate has increased? Any links to prove it?
Or just assumptions cos PIs aren't worthy of the details?

The exact details will be covered by confidentiality but we dont know if it's a fixed price agreement or a % of the metal price(minus Mercuria comission) or anything in between

Rob, think you need a pair of tweezers......

Sarah, nothing personal because I believe you're heavily invested so need it to come good but -' he needs this to be .50 or 1.50 in a year.' ----- thats living in cloud cuckoo land

Thought - if the bank confirms yes then would you expect as a PLC that the full details of the finance would be posted either via RNS or on the company website, or would we just get a 'mushroom' summary?

Sarah, considering what APMG paid for Baita in the first place, AP is still well ahead of the game even at a lower SP, now shareholders have paid to get the mine running

Chris- I know you are a glass half full sort of guy, and 'it's just a matter of time' should be true, but 'regarding approval status once confirmed by the Bank."' doesn't mean guaranteed acceptance, just that the status yes/no will be confirmed

Seriously AP should have known that credit committees wouldn't give a decision on the day and should have communicated that - however, by quoting the 15th, the day the first tranche of the last placing shares admittance, suggests that he hoped the anticipation would help the churn.
A great example of why PIs don't trust him

One of the Twitter photos showed a lorry with drill pipe on - at the time I commented that it looked like it could suggest relatively shallow depths - whoopee! Right for once, the mapped anomaly only found down to 40-50 metres
If diamond grades are proven commercial- mining to those depths will be relatively cheap , thus far more likely to be profitable

Perro- yes, the second anomaly is promising indeed. Geologically makes sense and increases confidence

Robbo, then surely the RNS would have had to declare that part as conditional or provisional??

Sorry Max, wasn’t having a go at you - I’m also just trying to understand why
Robbo - normally when other companies split into two tranches is bacause the company needs to get shareholder approval through a GM for the extra headroom. That wasn’t the case here, so the question is still why?

Max, if that was true, it would normally be declared (though of course, not necessarily named) in the placing RNS - and I'm sure AP would have talked about it, if it was of any value
Unless, that 'investor' needed the shares to close a position ahead if the main tranche??