Member Info for StarBright

I think we have - with this thread title - just hit peak irony...

Vicjain - unless these results had been RNS'd, Brad wouldn't have been able to discuss them in the webinar. This is 100% normal.

For the full PDF version of the announcement with Figures 1-5 included, please refer to: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2388E_1-2021-7-5.pdf

Looks very good on first read-through…

How would a consolidation cause dilution?

How would a consolidation help pay wages?

Looking forward to your answers….

Nearly, it's actually 3 months not 12:

6.1 ACQUISITIONS BEFORE A FIRM OFFER ANNOUNCEMENT
Except with the consent of the Panel in cases falling under (a) or (b), when an offeror or any person acting in concert with it has acquired an interest in shares in the offeree company:
(a) within the three month period prior to the commencement of the offer period; or
(b) during the period, if any, between the commencement of the offer period and an announcement made by the offeror in accordance with Rule 2.7; or
(c) prior to the three month period referred to in (a), if in the view of the Panel there are circumstances which render such a course necessary in order to give effect to General Principle 1, the offer to the holders of shares of the same class shall not be on less favourable terms.

@hydrogen - there's a reason that potential offerors are unlikely to build positions in a company during the period before an offer is made. Do you know what that reason is?

Good business model when that happens....!

….apart from the 5.4bn new shares now available at 0.18p, you are/were 100% correct..!

It’s Mologic. Not Moligic.

No matter how many times you write Moligic, it will always be Mologic…

It’s better to view the market makers as price-takers than as price-setters. Their interests lie in finding the pricing level where both buyers and sellers are prepared to transact, because their revenues and profitability are driven by flow/volume. The whole LSE bulletin board narrative (repeated across all shares with high involvement from inexperienced PIs) that market makers “want your shares”, are “hunting stop losses”, “shaking out weak hands”, “holding the price down for their mates” etc is largely self-serving drivel presented by amateur rampers. As such it can be safely ignored…

If an SP slides over several days/weeks then sellers have the upper-hand.

@Porky9 - I so want to agree with you regarding the P/E figure vs Dx peers, but it is necessary to acknowledge that:

1. There is significant doubt about E going forward. NCYT is in a dispute with its major customer, which may not be resolved in a manner that preserves volume or margin of the associated earnings.

2. It’s not clear that P/E ratios are that useful in valuing businesses distorted (either positively or negatively) by the pandemic. We just don’t know how long the Covid-19 testing “opportunity” will be sustained.

The first of these is NCYT specific, the second is sector applicable, Only when there is greater certainty regarding both will the SP move significantly.

:)

Porky9 - I appreciate your contribution here, but you do sound a little like Dr Hoffman of Stuttgart..!

Thank you EWT. When were the tailings sub-leased to Wombat?

Arkonite:

1. & 2. Yes re the tailings. And if there is a related party transaction, the NOMAD is ultimately required to give an opinion on its fairness etc. A harder question is whether the original acquisition should have prompted such disclosure and oversight. I don't know the answer to this.
3. Agreed. He is a director though, and therefore owes the same duties to the company as a paid director with respect to CoI etc.
4. Public filings (ASIC - Aus version of Companies House) in Australia

Interesting reactions. As ever, few if any focusing on the salient points. Let me lay this out clearly.

- On Dec 4th 2019, Alien announced the acquisition of what it described as “…a 100% interest in the former producing Elizabeth Hill Silver Project…”

- For this, Alien paid the equivalent of £280k (200m shares were issued at a deemed price of £0.0014, let’s ignore the warrants+loan for now).

- The RNS released today says the tailings were “..excluded from the original Elizabeth Hill Silver Project acquisition announced on 4 December 2019.”

- Alien now proposes to acquire the tailings from a company (Wombat) which is wholly owned by another company (Sorrento).

- Filings indicate that Alien’s Chairman Daniel Smith was a director of Alien, Wombat and Sorrento at the point that Alien acquired the “EH Project minus the tailings”.

- We don’t yet know the proposed consideration, but (for illustration) posters here suggest that the tailings might generate £4.5m (208k silver oz at $30/oz) minus extraction costs. A substantial value, perhaps multiples of that paid originally for “..a 100% interest..”.

So, the pertinent questions are:

1. Why were the valuable tailings excluded from the original acquisition, and why was this not disclosed at the time?
2. When did Wombat/Sorrento acquire the tailings, and what was paid for them at that point?
3. If Wombat now sells the tailings to Alien, who benefits from any consideration?

Why does this matter?

The valuable tailings were (without disclosure) excluded from the original acquisition, somehow ending up in a private company then run by Alien’s directors instead. Alien now proposes to pay that very company for the tailings.

Does that sound ok to you?

It's interesting that you suggest contacting the company directly or via its advisers. My experience of this has been poor. Twice I have put questions to the company and its advisers that could have been answered without risk in terms of disclosure obligations. Twice I have been unable to secure a constructive/thoughtful response despite chasing.

In the second instance I asked questions about the potential related party transactions that have been discussed on this board and elsewhere. Alien is engaged in material transactions with entities (Wombat/Sorrento/Windfield etc) with strong historic linkages to its current directors via ownership and/or employment. When Alien acquired the rights to EH, how/why/were the potentially valuable rights to the tailings acquired instead by companies apparently then owned by Alien's current chairman? Why (and on what terms?) were Windfield's UFO shares transferred to Bennelong, a company that shares infrastructure with Sorrento Resources for whom BBG worked as Technical Director and Mark Culbert is listed as a director? Whilst it is entirely possible that there are legitimate explanations for these linkages, no such explanations have been offered. As an investor I have zero tolerance for opacity or defensiveness where potential conflicts of interest are concerned. I sold out of my accumulated UFO position a couple of weeks ago as a result. The trade(s) through which I exited were commented upon on this board.

The concept of UFO as a "multi-asset explorer" is strong. I hope that the company can deliver on one or more of its initiatives. I may yet regret my decision to exit.

Some examples:

Halifax 10.10: “We will not lend or deposit by way of collateral any investments in your account to a third party”

Hargreaves A25: “Investments will not be lent to a third party and we will not borrow money against your investments.”

Barclays 13.1: “ We will not engage in stock lending for any Asset in your Account.”

I hope this is helpful.

Yep. This is another tatty old piece of LSE bulletin board nonsense. It’s up there alongside “Any bid must be at or above the highest SP in the last 12 months” etc etc.

All of the major retail platforms have explicit confirmations in their T&C’s that they don’t lend shares belonging to clients.

So the idea that you should place a limit order to prevent your shares from being lent is complete nonsense, and can be safely ignored.

Thank you for an excellent post try2buylow. I agree with your analysis and conclusions.