Member Info for slowlyslowly

3 months from end-of-year falls on Monday, so they did have to publish half-yearly figures. But they've therefore done it earlier than necessary, so I think there is an element of reassurance behind it

On Monday, we'll hear the results of the GM.

But there's one other thing incoming. People have been concerned that we haven't heard any figures from the oil liftings since the one in March. That's actually no concern - the company has only notified the details of two liftings in the past couple of years, and those were both when there was something else significant going on at the same time. But, all the same, I agree: It would be nice to know what's going on.

Well, we're about to find out what's going on. Remember our financial year runs to 31st December each year. So 30th June was the end of the half-year.

AIM, Rules for Companies, Rule 18:

"An AIM company must prepare a half-yearly report in respect of the six month period from the end of the financial period for which financial information has been disclosed in its admission document and at least every subsequent six months thereafter (apart from the final period of six months preceding its accounting reference date for its annual audited accounts). All such reports must be notified without delay and in any event not later than three months after the end of the relevant period."

Not until after the GM on Monday. After that is anyone's guess.

Two more good lines

"a number of business areas including the health sector, as per previous announcements."
"Cash balances H1 2019 £843,000 (H1 2018: £47,000)"

Quite like this line too: "Fresh capital has been raised in the period and the Group is now moving forward with confidence, unencumbered from any ongoing liability for its past loss making, and cash consuming, activities."

"The Group is in a good position to achieve its long term investment plans. Discussions are progressing towards reaching a decision soon on the investment and we will keep shareholders updated."

Doesn't mention Rainbow as such, but it's a slightly more detailed look at the sector as a whole and what's required looking forward.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/26/global-cooperation-needed-on-rare-earths/

Cummon, mcadder, let's give Lazarus the balanced figures.
Today so far:

Sells = 5 trades, 185,763 shares
Buys = 8 trades, 375,245 shares

So let me get this right. The sheikh sold his shares to Peel Hunt at a heavy discount to the price prevailing at the time, namely 10p a share, so that he could buy them back from Peel Hunt at a later date. Would he hope to buy them back from Peel Hunt at a higher price than he sold for (so making a loss himself), or at a lower price (so expecting Peel Hunt to make the loss). What exactly are you suggesting? And where do Zark Capital fit into this?

It wasn't dragged down at all.
At the close last night, the bid was 0.018 and the ask was 0.022.
That small trade was a sell, at 0.018.
The bid remains 0.018 and 0.022.

Some websites (e.g., Google) show it as the share price falling because the most recent trade was 0.018, which is 10% below the mid-price at yesterday's close. But in fact, everything is flat, and £70 didn't move anything.

Actually, forget it. Sorry I joined in the conversation. I'd forgotten that you're the poster here who is assuming everything you read about the company is a lie, and you cannot trust any of the data you have. Given that, for all you know, Peel Hunt are claiming to have increased to 19.x% when actually they've reduced to 10% but reported the wrong figures. I'd decided there was no point discussing the company with you if we're not allowed to trust any information the company releases, and if you believe the company, its directors and shareholders are so stuck breaking the law that they don't even obey the most fundamental rules of the London Stock Exchange.

Sorry to get drawn in; I'd forgotten it was you I'd talked to on here earlier.

Could you justify that by giving an alternative narrative to the medium and longer answers I gave.

So, with regard to my medium answer, how do you know if you haven't spoken to them?
With regard to my longer answer, how do you explain them topping up by 34.5%?

@gilo

Short answer: No
Medium answer: Without someone speaking to them to find out their intentions, we cannot know their plans, but it doesn't look like it.
Long answer: On the day the Sheikh sold, they were left with 7,417,972 shares. Your hypothesis is that they were stuck with those, and trying to find a way to pump the price in order to offload. Today's RNS says they hold 9,975,117. Since they relieved HH of his shares, their holding has increased by 34.5%. We all know that buying more to generate a price rise so as to get out normally fails badly. In their case their plan would be going very badly, so badly I cannot believe it. You don't try to sell your holding by buying 34.5% more shares. You just don't.

Indeed. Market makers are generally good enough at their job to avoid being left holding the baby unless they want to. Certainly not to the tune of nearly 20% of the company.

The other thing to remember, as I've pointed out before, is that they've been the largest shareholder over at TRP for some time. That's not been a stock in gentle decline, so the same reasoning wouldn't work over there. In fact, the TRP management speak highly of them as a significant shareholder. I posted a while back how PH had sold down some of their TRP at the same time as they topped up here. They actually sold more (in consideration) than they bought here, but after the latest TR1 they're probably about even. So they've transferred a small amount of the capital they had tied up in TRP over to here. But the word is small. In ADME and TRP they've held a broadly level position - in TRP for quite some time.

As you say, we can speculate all we like as to why they're doing this. We'd be guessing. But it seems clear enough to me that their holding is deliberate, not an example of market maker incompetence where they've got stuck with shares by mistake, and can't avoid increasing their holding further. I haven't got L2 access, perhaps you have, but there's almost always more than one active market maker. If they were trying to reduce, they'd make sure that their bid is never top, so that they don't pick up the shares people try to sell. Instead, it seems they're actively stepping forwards to take them - when the price is right.

They're doing two things at once, but because we only get TR1s for their total position it's easy to confuse them.
1. They're maintaining a holding of about 19%.
2. They're one of the market makers for ADME, which means they (like others) buy and sell to keep the market liquid.
Role 2 means that their total position fluctuates in the range 18.5% to 19.5%, and every time they cross the threshold of 19% they have to notify. But 1 is steady as a rock, and their target holding seems to have been a steady 19% since HH sold.

Could not compete, ... or just wanted the investment back for something else.

As I say, he's sold. But I also think Shafi Ahmed is probably a different person from Mr C Shafi.

Welcome to the BB, Rtomonster
Do you mean Mr C M R Shafi? If so, he sold on 14th May: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BOU/bould-opportunities-holdings-in-company-9dfxvi8lxhipck7.html
All leads are welcome: Are you sure it's the same person?

InvestingGenius - what have you found on Zark's O&G connections? I looked, but didn't find anything, so please share.

Big buys too. That's 362k shares in the past 4 trades alone.