Member Info for StarBright

Porche911: CFD’s and spread bets are different. In particular, CGT is payable on CFD profits.

Johno124: No, you can’t do that (or else everyone would...). Trading hours are the same as underlying.

Good summary. Two downsides for completeness:

1. Expect the prices at which your trades are executed to be worse (higher offer, lower bid) than in the underlying market.
2. Expect greater limitations on trading especially during volatile periods. You may not be able to trade your position(s) when you choose to, especially if your positions are materially sized.

Has anyone ever seen Mr Tan and JAdam in the same room..?

@DaProphet - do we know that any of the variants are different enough that efficacy- in terms of S&S stats - is compromised?

This is where Colin King and his colleagues appear to have boxed clever. I think they have understood that their production capabilities are valuable. They were careful not to over-commit capacity to the government, and careful to keep their options open in terms of which tests Omega will be manufacturing. In doing so they have managed Omega's exposure to (for example) the clinical approval processes. They have also retained some pricing power.

This will all prove more more important in the long run than writing RNS's featuring the word Boom as appears to be expected here...

Another wonderful example of unconscious incompetence.

I’m surprised and (frankly) disappointed by recent price action here. I expected a recovery and a base nearer to 30p. It looks like the rampfest attracted more opportunistic money than I appreciated, and the SP has suffered as the chasers have only grudgingly accepted their losses and moved on. If so that process won’t take much longer. I hope it is not repeated.

It is not necessary to subscribe to the stretchier valuations proposed here during late February to be confident that this share has the potential for material gains. Buying in in the low 20’s is a great proposition for investors with sensible timeframes.

You won’t get a true picture of depth through market orders. Try a limit order in the size you’re after - you may be surprised.

"This share is totally de-risked now..."

When there is no risk, all of the returns will have been made and I will have sold up.

Significant downside risks here include (inter alia):

- Volumes might be lower than anticipated
- Margins might be lower than anticipated
- Political process might intervene adversely
- Regulatory approval might be given first to competitor products
- The need for testing may diminish materially
...

On the other hand:

- Volumes might be higher than anticipated
- Margins might be higher than anticipated
- Political process might intervene favourably
- Regulatory approval might be withheld for competitor products
- The need for testing may have greater longevity than is presently understood
...

All of the risks are potential sources of return. Different posters have different views (as we see every day) but those seeking returns from price appreciation should be comforted by the fact that significant risks remain.

Not usually a participant in these threads, but I have been adding today. At 20p +/- the balance of risk and reward is (favourably) asymmetric.

Thank you for this insightful analysis.

Hmmmm......

Plenty of comments about support from shareholders.

"The Company has consulted with the holders of the vast majority of its shares and has been greatly encouraged by the high level of support expressed. The Company believes that there is widespread acceptance among its shareholders that the Board's decision to defer the development plan and avoid committing the bulk of the Company's available liquidity during a period of such high uncertainty, was the correct one."

This part looks ok to me, although it appears to flag a capital rather than debt-based solution:

"With respect to the review of the Nalunaq development plan, the Company has engaged the global mining consulting firm Ausenco to conduct a thorough, independent, review of all technical aspects of the mine development. This third-party review will assist the Company in determining what, if any, amendments are needed to the plan and schedule, and allow the Board to present a revised plan to shareholders that reflects such amendments as we consider appropriate. This revised plan will clearly also address costs and any potential further capital requirements, with an assessment of how the Company intends to meet them. The review is currently ongoing, and the Company will report its revised plan to shareholders as soon as reasonably practicable."

I don't see an obvious reason for this though:

"Furthermore, and in line with the above update, the 2020 Full Year Results, which were due to be announced on 25 March, will now be deferred until 29 April 2021. The Board expects the results for the year ended 31 December 2020, to be in line with management expectations."

Whilst the 2020FS are probably uninteresting, the decision to delay publication doesn't inspire confidence.

TP attributed just 4.6% of their "downside valuation" to UFO's silver projects. I think they have undercooked this, but that's a discussion for another day.

My view is that rising industrial demand (particularly for green industries + automotive) will drive the price of silver up during the next few years. All of the "fiat-collapse-will-launch-silver-to-the-moon" nonsense can be safely disregarded. It belongs alongside "Bill Gates is using 5G to activate nano-chips in covid vaccine" stories. Mildly entertaining but not to be taken at all seriously.

For some reason silver attracts crackpots with the thinnest veneer of understanding. The endless stream of PM-bug youtube videos linked here should - frankly - be seen for the nonsense they are. The hypotheses advanced in them are often laughable, and would be dismissed by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of capital markets. No-one with professional investing or trading experience pays any attention to this drivel. It's aimed at the gun-toting, truck-driving "patriots" that filled stadiums for Trump. This is a low-educational achievement group that are easily to manipulate - and that is exactly what the US retail precious metals "industry" does.

I am constantly surprised that so much airtime is accorded to such content here.

Whose tests would you like them to be using right now? Remember the tests need to have been approved.

Yep. Crossroads is a Dublin based company. This particular fund (one of many supported by Crossroads) is registered in Luxembourg.

The US retail investment market is structured very differently, with - in many ways - fewer protections than those afforded to investors in the UK. If you are transacting through one of the reputable UK investment platforms (HL, Halifax, Fid etc) then you really don't need to worry about this stuff. It's just irrelevant scaremongering and should be disregarded.

It's a complex topic, but if you have specific questions then please post them here and I will do my best to answer/explain.

Crossroads is a Dublin based AIFM. For those unfamiliar with the arcane structures beloved of the fund management world, an AIFM is a company providing services to fund managers; an outsourced back office if you like. They are not the people raising the capital or making the investment decisions; they are a service provider to small fund management businesses. I haven't yet found any info on the fund or fund manager behind the holding (this info may not be available) but I will share here if this changes.

We appear to have a new investor with a 3.25% holding. Looks like a Lux fund of some sort. I will investigate today....

EWT98 - I agree with your summary.