Member Info for PerArduaAdAstra

“raison d'être“
——-
PMSL. Tu es hilarant!

per ardua ad astra

Following the tumbleweed... in blows an empty packet of quavers.

per ardua ad astra

We know JPM and Highbridge are affiliated. We also know of their involvement in ST1. However, there is a distinct, and legal, separation of the parts of any business (such as JPM) that offers services such as banking, brokerage and market making etc. As such, your assertion that Market Makers are shorting is erroneous.

per ardua ad astra

Spot on, avocet. But then, anything with a two letter acronym is considered dubious on these boards.

Cheers,

per ardua ad astra

Ahem... yes, well... that too. Probably.

Lol.

per ardua ad astra

At least Britney has other redeeming features though.

Cheers,

per ardua ad astra

With a name like that I reckon you should probably recognise Parliament has more pressing issues to attend to, mesen.

Where do I sign to ban you?

per ardua ad astra

Alan, you really need to get a grip, mate. How many times can one person publicly shoot the messenger simply because they refuse read thoroughly?

No wonder the Germans are always on the receiving end. One read of ‘Commando’ and they were tarred for life!

per ardua ad astra

“I am talking about the 400-600 will not be debt. That was said on the RNS in Sept.”
——-
With respect, rrrRRRrrr, between your assertion above, and Alan’s long-standing belief that funding will be all debt, we have a middle ground. And the company, as stated, are considering a number of routes to funding.

From the Sept. 6th RNS:

“The Company will review the most appropriate form of financing for the increased capital funding requirement including:

strategic partner financing to provide capital at either the asset or Project level;

completion support from potential stakeholders or financial investors to provide contingent funding for the purposes of mitigating cost overrun risk;

alternative sources of structured capital including subordinated debt and leasing providers;

accessing the capital markets through convertible notes or new equity where the value proposition is appropriate for all capital providers (existing and new).”

So, as you can see from the above, a variety of options are still very much on the table. And - as in many situations - maintaining an all in/ all out binary stance is imprudent until greater clarity becomes available. Roll on that news, I say.

Cheers,

per ardua ad astra

Sounds like a useful appointment to me. It certainly won’t do Sirius’ prospects any harm that’s for sure. Robert Goodwill has been a staunch and longstanding supporter of the company right from the start. He strikes me as an eminently decent and capable politician. It would be good for the country if the Tory party had a few more like him. It was him who recently brought up Sirius in PMQ’s.

“Scarborough and Whitby MP Robert Goodwill appointed as Agriculture Minister.

Defra Secretary of State Michael Gove said: "Delighted to welcome Robert Goodwill to the Defra team. Robert’s hands on knowledge of farming at the sharp end, experience in European politics, great ministerial record and shrewd judgment are an asset to Government."

Responsibilities include: better regulation, fisheries, food and farming, including CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), apprenticeships, exports, and bovine TB (tuberculosis) policy, science and innovation.”

http://www.robertgoodwill.co.uk/news/scarborough-and-whitby-mp-robert-goodwill-appointed-agriculture-minister

Cheers,

per ardua ad astra

Cranleigh is quite correct as the compulsory purchase of the remaining 10% is provided for in the Companies Act. Worth noting also is that if a shareholder continues to refuse the acquisition offer then once the takeover has finalised and their shares have transferred to the bidder, the consideration they are entitled to (same terms as everybody else) will be held in trust for them.

Regards,

per ardua ad astra

“I feel an ordinary jo blog investor to better a pension will loose there money as there are to many professionals wiz kids city boys and insider dealers taking profits while us ordinary working investors hope to break even”
——-
You might not have the skills, the experience, the tools and the resources of the city boys, however, you should have the courage to back up your convictions. And if you haven’t, you’re in the wrong game, my friend - and you’ll undoubtedly prove the proverbial lamb? The odds may well be stacked against us, but, we do have our own abilities to draw upon; our intelligence; our research; our resilience and our courage. Nothing’s easy in this game and there’s nothing handed to you on a plate. It is unfortunate, but, perhaps unsurprisingy you’ve not been successful thus far, if I were in your shoes I wouldn’t compound that by jumping ship now from the one stellar investment you have listed.

Good luck anyway.

per ardua ad astra

And you probably should be for sharing such duplicitous spin and propaganda with some of the unthinking! No need to worry though — the kid with the red crayon seems to endorse that side of the argument, so I’m sure you’ll be fine, Roulette.

per ardua ad astra

“For some unknown reason this share is being held in a very tight band and in no way reflects the market”
——-
How does it not reflect the market? At 20.5 there’s more sellers than buyers, and at 19.5 there’s more buyers than sellers. So here we are. In a tight band. Awaiting likely dilution at what looks like something circa 20p.

No surprise it’s not going anywhere.

per ardua ad astra

Something else that’s tedious, repetitive and frequently mistaken.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Invested+or+vested+as+a+metaphor

per ardua ad astra

Good morning, Jimbo/ffc. Do you think there’s a chance you might be being a tad harsh? Whilst we can pretty much agree that at every stage of this project there has been, are, or will be doom mongers and naysayers (and they should be called out), there is nothing in Jfallonirl’s history that would suggest that they are deliberately denigrating Sirius or putting forward alternative ‘investment’ suggestions. On the contrary, only yesterday they were actually seeking input from other contributors here - which would appear to me to be entirely commensurate with someone who has money to invest as a consequence of taking just the sort of action they have told us they have.

Plenty of troublemakers do arrive with their invective, however, it would seem to be that Jfallonirl holds an entirely reasonable viewpoint. And without different points of view there wouldn’t be much of a market.

Regards,

per ardua ad astra

Good morning, Cherokee. Perhaps I’m assuming too much, however, on the basis that my post (immediately below yours) mentions both ‘regulatory news’ and ‘piecemeal’, I’d just like to reassure you that I am pretty secure in my understanding of the regulations and am therefore quite appreciative of them. I just happen to hold the view - perhaps differently to you - that should the company have any views as to how much money they seek, they are not obliged as a matter of regulation to release that information at this stage, or before negotiations which may be subject to realignment are concluded.

per ardua ad astra

“So they still don't know if it's $400m or $600m of dilution? Makes a fair bit of difference.”
——-
Good morning, verde. I should imagine that they are pretty clear by now what their position is, but, apart from the fact that any update may inadvertently contain any regulatory news, what would they stand to gain by releasing detail on a piecemeal basis when news of the entire package would undoubtedly amount to something so much more significant?

Regards,

per ardua ad astra

Good morning, Milo. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to get back to you earlier. I was out for the day just after posting and didn’t get back till late. Hopefully the same again today too - ‘cause if you’re lucky enough to do so, you really have gotta make use of summer’s benevolence when she appears to bless a few days in winter.

Having said that, it would seem both Cranleigh and Myo appear to have pretty much addressed your query anyway. The only thing I will add is that, when the 5% threshold is crossed, it is my understanding that the beneficial owner must make their beneficial ownership submission within 10 days of the transaction date. As such although they could have offloaded in a series of transactions, it is only the transaction that triggers the threshold that would then require beneficial ownership submission.

Regards,

per ardua ad astra

Because they can’t guarantee getting their hands on enough to replace their entire holding?

per ardua ad astra