The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
*180,000,000 not "180,000"
ASI: understood. But there's also the interesting aspect that Paul Britton has >75% holding in Capstone, and was mentioned in that connection in the first of the two TR-1s on 16 June, so I believe that might activate the requirement for individual percentage updates. I could be wrong but I believe that might apply.
ASI: "The amount held by capstone as of 25th July was 249,967,120 or 7.32%."
It's interesting that the Vast website holdings information was updated at least twice on 25th. When the poster rockfordd and I first looked at it that day, it said 180,000, and the direct holding was thus 5.27%. It looks like the direct holding changed in real time on 25th on the website, possibly because of a further move from Barclays as nominee to Capstone as direct holder.
Lostsoul, ASI: I believe, in this instance, the reporting requirement is by individual percentage thresholds, not 5% thresholds. Happy to stand corrected but that is my current understanding. Hence why the jump from 6.15% to 8.04% was reported. (The >7% threshold was skipped as it was superseded.)
Reg: yes, sure, happy to explain. Capstone's clients are investors looking for companies, not companies looking for investors. Vast will not have "hired" Capstone to find investors; Capstone's clients pay for a wealth management service that involves Capstone picking winners as best they can. As for the office in Harare, I think Capstone's had that since 2009; it's nothing to do with Vast but just part of Capstone's existing global reach.
Having said that, companies do of course court investment advisory firms all the time, so it's possible (as I said at the time, I think) that Andrew Hall might have been in discussions with Capstone. But that would have been by way of pitching, not hiring.
IMO.
Hope that helps. Sorry I was a bit abrupt before. I was messaging in haste while being told by my wife to do something else 😉
Reg: you've answered your own question, so you don't need my answer. But it doesn't seem to me that you understand Capstone's business model at all.
Steward: I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
IMO:
1. They're having a "punt" because they're taking a gamble on Vast pulling through, i.e., especially, on progress at BPPM towards profitability. They don't have a crystal ball or inside information; they have educated guesswork. So does any other sensible investor.
2. It's a "cautious" thumbs up because nothing more is possible with Vast, for now. The money is trivial for them. But okay, if you don't like "cautious", perhaps you'd rather say they're being "adventurous", or "reckless" even. I was giving Capstone the benefit of being level headed by probably recognizing internally that it is high risk. Level headed with Vast = "cautious", currently.
3. Capstone hold 8.04% as per TR-1, at last report. They are the only "existing" institutional shareholder to have a "prior" holding of 6.15%, so the TR-1 refers to them, and any further rise in holding would need to be reported.
Oofy: I agree with your point that there's less to the Capstone situation than meets the eye. It's a big slice of Vast, so everyone gets excited about that. But it's a tiny drop in a big bucket as far as Capstone is concerned. They're having a punt, like everyone else. I have found it interesting in a technical sense to puzzle around the transaction and the numbers; but I don't think one should really read anything much into it. Their analysts obviously gave Vast a cautious thumbs up, which is nice. (I already got there myself on 9 Jan.) And markets tend to like it as it's considered to be a respectable enough vote of confidence. But that doesn't give them a crystal ball.
Oofy: was all discussed in detail at the time. Plus research always helps, doesn't it? Perhaps put in at least a little effort before imposing on people. No?
Vixen: you're missing the point that ASI has previously made, and which I think is plausible, i.e. that his current holding is on a free carry because he's already retrieved by sale the value of his original investment. So, even if Vast went bust and folded, the actual loss to ASI would now be nil.
It's the nice thing about a free carry situation, which anyone can try to work to if they want. A win is a win but a loss actually isn't a loss. (Except in terms of an opportunity cost vs putting the money somewhere else - but that's not an actual loss. Only a conceptual one.)
It's a very good reason, IMO, for the mantra of always taking a profit when you reasonably can. Particularly on AIM.
As for the strategy of shorting, the market continues to attribute great risk to Vast. Sure, the price might slash to a third on some abysmal news. But it's low already for a producer, so could treble on something exhilarating - and the bar for what's exhilarating isn't all that high right now.
To me, though, upward or downward spikes aren't really where it's at. IMO it's just best to look at the overall trajectory and then manage one's risk. I do this by thinking mainly about the operational issues. But I appreciate that that's not a trader's approach, so strategies will vary - and that's fine.
Horses for courses. Q2 BPPM report should be interesting.
Vixen: shorting this strikes me as a pure gamble. BPPM is reported to have broken even in June, so there's a sliver of evidence of a material upward trajectory of production and sales. That bodes well for Q3 and substantially limits the field of manoeuvre for creditors. (Even without Zimbabwe 'historic parcel' or Tajikistan 'participation'.)
To my mind, sensibly risk managing a long position is the better overall call.
But that's just IMO. Certainly not advice.
Steward: I'm personally sticking with the view that it's Capstone. I don't see a workable alternative. I'm not aware of any other party previously on 6.15%. Just IMO. But it's not an issue I have any stake in. I was just interested to puzzle it out while procrastinating about other things 🤦
Steward: "could be Capstone, could be someone else?"
Only Capstone. No other party had a prior holding of 6.15%. That figure in itself is an effective disclosure.
ASI: 🤣
Rockfordd: thanks. Yes, I see that now from today's website update vs the holdings RNSs of 16 June.
So Capstone have not sold any of their original stake but have almost certainly bought cheaper since then, with that part held via Barclays on a nominee basis, and included within the Barclays figure on the website but aggregated as one holding in the TR-1 of 19 July.
Steward: "It does look like they could hold 5.27% direct plus a load with Barclays."
I incline to agree.
Steward: yes, good point. So it's 6.15% of the old number vs 5.27% of the new number (as regards direct holding). Can anyone do the maths? I'm on the hoof. Could be dilution effect only or a combination of dilution and selling.
PS. Also possible that the Barclays TR-1 of 19 July was correct about 8.04%, depending on the overall split between Capstone's direct holding and nominee holding at the time.
Parting theory before I go and attend to real life....
1. Capstone sold down their direct holding from 6.15% to 5.27%, which was held at a higher SP.
2. Capstone bought in the secondary market via Barclays at a lower SP, hence why Barclays has gone up from 6.43% to 7.03%.
3. Barclays possibly did a TR-1 for >8% without having factored in the fact that Capstone sold some direct holding.
Nutshell: Capstone have possibly averaged down and their holding might be split reported on the Vast website between direct holding (5.27%) and nominee holding (subset of Barclays 7.03%).
So on reflection, I think this is probably still about Capstone but more complicated than first thought.
Hypothesis only.
Still, having said that, it's not Dr David Jones (3.14%). Capstone listed as 5.27%. Barclays Wealth (i.e. nominee) as 7.03%.
I'm too busy today to figure out how you get a rise from 6.15% to >8% out of that mash-up.