Member Info for slowlyslowly

But the TR1 I really want to see is not the one showing me that Peel Hunt picked up lots of shares on Wednesday. That was expected.
I want to know who sold the million shares that they bought.

>> Given where the SP is currently I expect that the 7p placing investor's are wondering what is going on just like us.

Yes, although remember Zark agreed to take more at 7p, just last week, knowing full well that the price is at these levels. They clearly had a reason to be confident.

1m shares just bought at full ask of 3.8 before the market even opened.

I know think Peel Hunt are just opportunists. They think this will come good eventually and are happy to hold a fair wack to sell later. Average probably somewhere in the 6-8p range, so they'll be underwater if I've worked that out correctly, but not badly so. They'd have made a fair bit selling at 12p plus on the day they bought the sheikh's stock at 10p, probably enough to more than cover any losses if this doesn't come good.

Hello. Someone call?

Yes, I did see. Spot on. Just seems to be a seller to clear, then it's away.

I'm sure they would use the proceeds to buy something else. The broker they've just appointed is a specialist at raising funds for oil and gas projects. You don't appoint them only so you can complete the negotiations to sell your one asset.

This is not a broker that raises cash by diluting AIM shareholders. This is a specialist for the O&G sector with contacts who specifically fund those kinds of assets.

IMO, we learnt yesterday that Osa now has the funds he needs for the retainers he's planning to put down on the deals he's been working. The new broker is going to administer fund-raising the actual purchases. The day after the subscription completed, they're lining things up for the main story.

... actually, it's bigger than 10p. Because they were a MM for this stock before HH pulled out, so the chances are they've bought some at somewhere near the year's highs.

Which is why I can't see them letting that happen. They're more in control of how much they own than some folk seem to think.

They'd be required to make a takeover offer for the remaining shares at least at the highest price they've paid in the past 12 months.
Which is probably 10p.

He did a lot a lot

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, Thrash.

They're also quite good at what they do. And market makers don't normally get left holding the baby. They won't buy what they can't sell on. So they try to gauge the price at which people would want to buy. They then drop the bid price low enough that they'll be able to pick up shares from those looking to sell at a price where they can offload at the ask price they set. That way they flip most of what they buy within a day or two, and hold minimal stocks themselves. Market makers do occasionally accumulate small positions, but normally only if they expect news imminently that would force the demand up, because they know they'll be able to sell at a premium. That way, they can meet demand on news without having to spike the price, and they make a tidy profit.

I'm sure, occasionally, they misjudge the market, and get left holding a few % of a company that they are stuck holding.

But, to misquote Oscar Wilde, to get left holding 10% would be foolish; to get left holding 21% would be careless.

They're good enough at what they do to set the bid and ask appropriately not to accumulate this kind of position. I don't know what's going on, but I know this is unusual and so it can't be explained as simply as saying that "they are a MM".

The minimum takeover rule price is often misquoted. It's if someone holds 30% or more of the shares of a company, then they are obliged to offer to buy the remaining shares. The minimum price at which they may make an offer is the highest price they have paid in the last 12 months. The takeover panel can authorise a >30% holding without triggering this.

But note: This is only for the situation where someone builds over 30%, and is the minimum they are required to offer. So if a potential buyer hasn't bought in the past 6 months, then the prices in H1 2019 aren't relevant for this calculation. And crucially none of this stops someone offering more than that in order to make a competitive bid.

The other thing not mentioned yet is the possibility of another offer coming in. At present, Alphacomm have offered 1.5p per share. What's to stop another company coming along and offering a higher price? As I see it, 1.5p is the minimum valuation here. There are other ways this could play out that would see it realise a greater value than that.

2.85 paid in fact

Note also that George's recent interview with Proactive said that all they'd paid were the fees for the licenses. This has so far cost them next to nothing to snap up.

Thanks for that. The second one specifically shows us how radically Zimbabwe have shaken up their regulation. Before the changes, the government would have retained a 51% interest. So by doing it at this time, RBW retains 100% of the profits, not 49%.

No, I think is means it _all_ goes back to the parent company.
This is standard practice, to set up a subsidiary that is incorporated in the country they operate in, and that is fully owned by the parent. It means they have a local company for taxation, where local laws apply, and that can employ people. But the profits are then entirely owned by the parent.

I wouldn't have a clue what the Zim equivalent of Companies House is, or how fast it gets updated.

But the significance is huge. Traditionally, African states have required foreign owned companies to have a certain percentage of their domestic subsidiaries owned by the state. Zimbabwe is trying to attract foreign investment, so has reformed their mining codes to allow RBW Zim to be 100% owned by RBW Plc. So all profits incoming.

Compare Burundi, where Burundi owns 10% of Rainbow Mining Burundi Ltd.

Standard list. Main market.
Guernsey

George has given Proactive another interview: https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/907754/rainbow-rare-earths-ceo-talks-kiyenzi-drilling-results-and-new-zimbabwe-licenses-907754.html