Member Info for StarBright

@chrishutch - There is a big difference between recurring and special dividends. A one-off (special) dividend wouldn't reward us as shareholders. It would just be a partial return of our capital, albeit with negative tax consequences for some holders. In simple terms, if the company paid a special dividend of 30p per share, the share price would fall by 30p. So a holder of one share valued today at 85p would have 30p in cash and a share valued at 55p.

In any case - as I observed earlier in the thread - dividend policy isn't a pressing concern for the Omega board right now. We need "real" earnings first, and thus greater visibility into future earnings potential.

To be fair, while posters here like to talk about the structural bull market in silver, the hard truth is that we are approaching traditionally-defined bear market territory at -18.4% since the (admittedly transient) February high. Silver has always seen volatile price action, and I expect this to continue. I hope so, because I have some May call options that are looking decidedly anaemic...

The link between the price of silver and Alien's SP is frequently overstated. If you look at the TP "valuation" from February, the silver assets represent only 4.6% - 10.6% of their total. It is thus possible that the decline in silver is over-represented in Alien's SP.

I suspect that the "pain trade" for silver may now be for it to catch a bid. Every cloud etc..!

It’s an interesting topic. But readers should be aware that there are major differences in regulation and market practice between the UK and the US. Retail investors here are afforded better protection than their US counterparts.

ZzTop1, I completely agree.

Thread reads as if the OP has been set upon by a pack of resource-guarding poodles.

Jerryspaniel - agreed. Perhaps someone forgot to re-assure VanEck that they’d get an invite to participate. It wouldn’t be the first time an ETF holder has ben overlooked in such circumstances.

Bongoblu - I don’t know. Send them an email asking perhaps?

JohnZ - a good example of where cheapest might not equal best. I stick to the major players because some of the protections afforded under their contracts are meaningful. To me these protections are more important than transaction costs (within reason) and user interfaces. The other pertinent questions are around execution. Some of the fintech brokers don’t always - for a whole variety of reasons - deliver the best prices. The benefits of lower per-trade fees can soon be eaten up by this.

Thanks. The 10% limit is the key constraint.

They will have something in mind though. No way they’ll incur the costs and risks of a GM without there being an objective. I wonder who brought sufficient pressure prior to cause them to drop the resolution last time round?

Yes. The three interesting questions are:

1. What is the money for?
2. How much are they looking to raise?
3. Who have they lined up to come on board?

jackthebear may well be correct. This (applying for the disapplication of pre-emption rights) is what companies do when they want to have a dilutive share issue, but don’t have the authority to allot sufficient shares. Looks like they tried to get resolution 5 - authority to issue new shares on a dilutive basis - through previously but had to drop it; this sometimes happens when there is enough shareholder pressure. They are bringing it back for another try. It will likely be accompanied by a closed explanation of why this is the only route the company can take to raise the capital it needs.

There is no need for users of the mainstream UK investing platforms to worry about their shares being lent to shorters. And there is absolutely no need to set sell orders in the way copperpot suggests.

Here’s why. None of the major/reputable UK retail platforms lend investors shares. This is clearly stated in their t&c’s. 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 that is helpful.

Well I originally wrote it as (f)utility, but decided that was a little too unkind.

That's a long shift Twatcher. First post at 2am, still at it 21 hours later...

Maybe time to reflect on the utility of this?

Thanks Jaylarc. Good stuff.

I read that post. Good insight into the pipeline etc. But what does “Duxorubicin $1 billion” mean? £1bn market size? £1bn of revenue? £1bn operating profit? Over what period?

PSB - no, just the one field on the report.

Btw it’s not a round-sum £2m trade. Actually £1,891,085....

He'll also talk his book....

Complex topic. Frequently - and understandably - misunderstood in general LSE conversation. Some background info...

Trade publication can be delayed in accordance with what LSE (not this one, the real one...) call their "parameters". Publication delay is at the request of the counterparties. In simple terms the larger the trade compared to normal volume, the longer the delay permitted. The parameters are complex, but driven principally by ADT - the average daily turnover. For individual trades greater than a certain %'s of ADT, publication may be delayed by varying amounts up to three days. One of the ADT thresholds is 730k so this order of 761k just clears that which probably secured a delay to the end of the next trading day.

So I think we know only that this trade took place on the 25th or 26th. Looking at the prices printed, it's more likely to have been a Thursday 25th trade. At 248p it could be either a buy or a sell. It's toward the bottom of the daily range so either a good buy or a poor sell... But it's well below the TR1 level, so we're unlikely to find out unless it is an existing holder crossing a threshold (in either direction).

[You can't compare the published price with the quoted spread at time of publication, because that spread is irrelevant. So anyone suggesting it's a buy on this basis is just wrong.]

Sorry it's not possible to be more definitive.

TLDR; it's a buy or a sell, probably on 25th. There isn't enough information available to conclude which.

Anyone unable to instantly interpret and dismiss naive fantasy like this should be nowhere near small-cap investing...

The MF piece is designed to attract clicks, nothing more. A flimsy article written initially by a minimum-wage staffer and then re-hashed every few weeks. MF isn’t a serious publication. They are not “connected” to evil share-trading geniuses. If you showed me an FT article where someone like Darren Dodds had been hoodwinked into writing a scare story I might take it more seriously.

Radiagreen the notion that someone wanting to “free up” 2m shares would select a Motley Fool article as their weapon of choice is ridiculous...

I read the interview. To get from what CK said to a thread entitled “Special dividend possible for ODX” is a bit of a silly leap. All he said was that he knows that orders translate into cashflow and eventually distributable earnings. It was a general point, a truism, not an expression of imminent intent. Anyway....