Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Vast has updated its webpage today to reflect major shareholdings:
https://www.vastplc.com/investor-information/shareholder-information/
It isn't Capstone after all unless they've been selling meanwhile.
ASI: our messages crossed. I see you've also posted the second RNS link as I just have too.
ASI:
1. You said you've only just woken up. Apparently not entirely. I referred to there having been two RNSs on 16 June, one saying 6.14% and the related Barclays one saying 6.15% - a rounding error somewhere that clearly didn't need correcting. You've linked to one, saying 6.14% and skipped the other. So here's the link to the one saying 6.15%:
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/VAST/holding-s-in-company/16003510
2. "Once a TR-1 has been issued any increase or decrease in shareholding over any period of trading within 4 working days of the end of the trading period has to be reported to the FCA and a new TR-1 issued to reflect the change in number of shares held."
That's reliant on crossing thresholds. If they stayed at 6% + but below 7%, they'd not report.
Rick: "IT IS CAPSTONE, now move on. Jeez!"
Indeed.
ASI:
1. "Capstone had a previous shareholding of 6.14% not 6.15% in their name rather than that of Barclays after the swap had matured"
Actually there were two RNSs about this on 16 June and the one issued by Barclays said 6.15%, not 6.14%. The figures were inconsistent in the second decimal place, probably due to a rounding error that was deemed too trivial to need correction.
2. "this figure was before the recent dilution so on the day the TR-1 was issued their holding would have been lower due to dilution from the first tranche of the placing hitting the market."
That depends on their buying pattern and/or reporting efficiency. They might have opted to maintain a 6.15% holding (or thereabouts) in real time, prior to going over thresholds.
3. "there was an individual investor who did have a similar sized holding and who be holding their shares in a nominee account."
Really? Who? Barclays held 6.43% as of 13 July in a nominee capacity, so I doubt they were holding 6.15% on behalf of one individual. Plus the RNS says nothing about an individual shareholder.
Further point, the transfer of Capstone's holding of 6.15% to themselves directly doesn't exclude Barclays from acting for them in the secondary market since then. However, Barclays would report the aggregate Capstone holding, not only their nominee fraction of it.
Builder: to be more precise, though, they do raise TR-1s (as we can see) but not for their aggregate holdings as nominees.
Builder: another very good point. Indeed.
TopGun: although you're right that Barclays is a nominee account, Capstone also acted through Barclays recently.
Additionally, Vast's website (at https://www.vastplc.com/investor-information/shareholder-information/) indicates that shortly before the TR-1, Barclays had a 6.43% holding, not 6.15%.
In contrast, 6.15% is the exact level associated with Capstone as of the RNSs of 16 June about their holding.
It's plain as day that the 6.15% prior institutional holding referred to on 19 July is the same 6.15% referred to on 16 June.
Top gun: no, you're mistaken. An individual would not be an Institutional Shareholder. In any case, no individual had a prior 6.15% holding.
The phrase I quoted is explicit: ""an increased shareholding from an existing Institutional Shareholder".
Lostsoul: yes, exactly. The RNS phrase is: "an increased shareholding from an existing Institutional Shareholder".
The only "existing" candidate with a prior 6.15% holding is Capstone.
Pecten: much better, thanks. Hope you're keeping well.
Stockportedd, ASI: I disagree.
RNS of 31 March states:
"A further announcement concerning the physical receipt of the diamonds will be made on finalisation."
That reads to me that the company will confirm physical receipt when it happens. Other processes (cleaning etc, sale) will follow.
IMO.
Blades38: yes, quite. It's Capstone increasing. Capstone is the II here.
Hi Radika: no. Best to give it time. There'll be a lot on their plate.
Nice to see the drilling campaign underway.
Anyone who's been watching Vast for several years might well know - but more recent arrivals might well not - that Vast inherited a great deal of historical drilling data that went back many years and was carried out under the 'Russian' reporting system. So the company has known for years that the asset is huge.
The problem was that the drill cores no longer survived. So in order to turn old reports into JORC-compliant reports, they've had to generate new data with new drilling to produce new cores for analysis.
But in doing all the new drilling, the company is obviously working with the historical data it has to tailor its approach. So the drilling is much better informed and purposeful than a lot of exploratory drilling campaigns would be in normal circumstances.
If the company can demonstrate commercial viability at BPPM over H2 2023 *plus* enhance how well proven up the asset is by today's market standards over 2023/24, then I think there's very strong and stable upside potential that can last for the longer term.
It would also put the company in a position to secure a more beneficial funding package to bring Manaila off care and maintenance, back into production and profit. That's a big project but could probably pan out well over the course of 2024-27.
Just IMO.
Firewood: nope. But again, it's you that comes here to pick a fight.
Respecting the dead does not mean you don't ask questions. It means you do. That's what the police are doing now. As a ramper, your preference is to sweep the fatality under the carpet by saying it's off limits.
As I said then, YOU are the disgrace.
The thread was deleted yet you can't resist stoking up a fight again. A damaged personality, as I've said before.
Taking up Redhammy's suggestion about donations to the family, I have emailed the company to say that there is interest and to invite them to advise whether the company will set up a means to do so, or knows of any means, or has any suggestions.
Redhammy: yes, an arrangement for donations would be good.
Local and national news coverage of the accident. These pages can all be translated to English:
https://www.glsa.ro/tragedie-in-micul-cernobil-din-bihor-un-miner-si-a-pierdut-viata-in-timp-ce-repara-un-lift-in-mina/
https://www.antena3.ro/amp/muncitor-a-amurit-prins-sub-un-lift-mina-baita-judetul-bihor-680272.html
https://m.ebihoreanul.ro/stiri/accident-grav-la-mina-vast-baita-plai-un-miner-aflat-in-subteran-a-murit-strivit-sub-lift-180060.html
Nevergonnaretire: "the rns does suggest that a multiple shift pattern exists".
Agreed. If they've resolved that, then that might be a major (and previously, for the most part, well hidden) obstacle removed.
Hopefully the accident is not indicative of any underlying issues that would come to light through the authorities' investigations - though that remains to be seen.