We interviewed GraniteShares' CEO Will Rhind from New York, soon after they launched a suite of ETP's which allow you to invest in three different baskets of giant US tech stocks. Watch the full video here.
"BHP and Newcrest were not the only SolGold shareholders with concerns about Mr Mather, with 44.7 per cent of the company's register voting against his re-election to the SolGold board shortly before Christmas."
This is factually incorrect. 44.7% of the 80% of the company's register who voted at the AGM voted against his re-election. It was essentially only BHP, NCM and NCM's lapdog CGP that voted against. It was not 44.7% of the whole register.
If there was no risk there should be no reward. That's what you get a return for, taking on risk.
Just to add to that fairly eclectic list of megastructures, what about the humble Scottish parliament building? 3 years late and 10 times over budget. Or on a larger scale, look at Crossrail... Also didn't the LHC break down rather spectacularly after it was fired up and took about 2 years to fix?
Yes or just holders managing position size and risk. If you bought 1m shares at an average of 20.5p maybe you'd want to lock in a 100% gain on half of that at 41p and take some risk off the table, who knows.
Why do you care? I think there's too much unnecessary about worrying about shorting. And I really don't think there's much short interest in Solg. Why short an explorer that's pumping out news every month and is widely viewed as a takeover target?
I tried drawing a trend line on the daily chart from the Porvenir gap up and annoyingly we seem to be be breaking down below the trend.
So I zoomed out a bit more and drew a trend from the March panic sell off low, and it actually looks like today's low is bouncing off that lovely rising trend line which we've already bounced off twice. Tells me this is going higher from here :-)
A stock that's up over 1,900% in a year just doesn't scream "buy" to me... Maybe this is why I'm just some schmuck in my home office posting on an internet message board, and not running my own hedge fund from a yacht in Monaco. But looks like there's a lot of good news and high expectations priced into that already.
Big Wazza never backs up his statements with examples... He makes comments about NM but when you press him for detail he always seems to say "if you worked with him, you'd know" or "I think it's obvious and that's all I can say" etc.
He's openly criticising NM and his "lame duck" board, then spell out why, and explain what he would have done differently.
It is not correct that all of those companies have "deserted" Britain because of Brexit. I work for one of the companies you have listed there and I can assure you that we remain very much in the UK. It is correct that some roles have re-located to Europe and our principal EU office has been expanded with several hundred staff. The model is that EU clients will face the EU entity based in Europe. All other global clients ex-US and ex-EU continue to face the UK entity.
Many other companies on that list have simply opened or beefed up their EU branches so as to cover both EU and non-EU business.
There are other glaring errors on that list as well. It is ridiculous to think that Lloyds of London would have deserted the UK, it's a global insurance market and remains located in London. Unilever was a dual UK and Dutch headquartered company and has just in the last couple of months completed its transition to a single domiciled entity in the UK, literally the opposite of what that list implies. Jaguar Land Rover continues to be based in the West Midlands... Etc etc.
RE: Franco - Another $50m please?20 Dec 2020 21:05
Depends what you mean by offers. If someone made an approach to the board with a view to a potential bid then it doesn't have to be disclosed. Once there is a firm intention to make a bid, an announcement is required.
Remember a formal bid is an offer to shareholders. The board can recommend that shareholders accept or reject it, but shareholders have to decide whether to accept it or not. Some can't make a formal bid to the board and the board reject it without us having a chance to consider it.
Maybe not worth wasting too much time on this but there's still a few things I can't quite square in my head.
If Solg knew that BHP might vote against NM, why did they leave the AGM til December? As iceberg (I think) has said several times, why not call it before the lock in expired if they were worried about BHP? Last year's was in September.
So does that mean they were fairly certain BHP would remain onside after the standstill ended? If so, why the concerted effort to drum up PI support, which was going on for weeks before the AGM. Suggests they knew then BHP might vote against NM.
But if BHP did want NM gone and more control over the company, why not exercise their options, as several have said already. Would give them that extra push over the line in the vote. And 37p is barely a premium to current share price, unlike 4 months ago when the SP was 10p power.
So were BHP just intending to put a shot across NM's bow but didn't really want him gone? If so they were close to holing him below the waterline... If it hadn't been for the outreach the vote could definitely have gone the other way.
Hard to square exactly what went on and who knew what and when.