Member Info for StarBright

FT editorial rules will have required two independent credible sources for a claim of this nature.

Bloomberg story is just a re-report of the FT story. No new info or sources.

It doesn’t quite work like that Tony. Their obligation is to disclose non-public information that would have a material impact on the sp. They won’t make an announcement to negate a claim they haven’t made previously. While some market participants believe that AVCT has a reliable and marketable test (that has yet to be announced/confirmed) there are clearly many who hold a different view. Occasionally you see announcements from companies whose share price has inflated on shareholder speculation. These normally take the format of a statement that “...the company is unaware of any reason for the recent rise in its share price”. I don’t see that happening here, certainly not as a result of developments elsewhere. Whilst AVCT have been v quiet in recent months, I’m sure they haven’t made any assertions (either implicit or explicit) that require correction in the manner you envisage.

I hope this makes sense.

OP is confusing “need” with “want”...

I think it’s a mistake to view good news for one diagnostics company as bad news for the others. This neither a zero-sum or winner-takes-it-all game.

I own several of the diagnostics companies. If there is weakness in AVCT’s sp tomorrow morning I’ll be taking advantage by adding.

Have we previously announced that we do have a marketable or reliable test? If not, I disagree with TonyFawcett’s first assertion; companies don’t announce what they don’t have unless it is to correct an earlier statement.

I agree with the second idea though. An NDA could be restricting positive disclosures.

More patience required.

Thank you EWT. That’s a really informative post.

I haven’t really explained it properly/well, but I hope you get the idea. This article covers some of the same ground: https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/81/idiots-guide-to-the-london-stock-exchanges-setsmm-0379.html

Online market orders (“... an electronic instruction to a broker to execute a trade immediately at the best available price...”) really are only one part of the picture where share trading is concerned. Unfortunately it’s the only part that most small-scale private investors experience, so they try constantly to fit/explain everything to that framework. This leads to the endless drivel posted all day on LSE about the activities of market makers etc.

A classic example of the persuasive power of misinterpreted experience and poor contextual knowledge is the poster here who claims repeatedly that he has found a way to get a heads-up on tomorrow’s opening price through Halifax. He is “unconsciously incompetent” because he doesn’t realise how incomplete his knowledge is.

Anyway...

Good stuff Max. It would be great if these are buys. I can’t claim one this time... ;>

As I have explained before you can’t determine whether LRGS-flagged trades are buys or sells by looking at the quoted spread at the time-stamp. What has happened here in the background is that a market-maker has agreed a price with a broker and then worked the trade. The parcels making up the trade will have been dealt at different points over whatever period was taken for the fill to be completed. Under the LRGS process, these individual parcels aren’t disclosed at the time they are executed, but the whole 5m is declared (later) as a single trade. Obviously the MM is looking to fill the whole trade at a VWAP better than the 1.15p they committed to, as they will pocket the difference. We’ll never know whether they were successful or not, only that the end client dealt at 1.15p for 5m.

Over the last two days the price range has been from 1.05p to 1.275p, so these trades could be buys or sells or even a mixture. We can’t know for sure.

As an aside, this also explains why I keep saying that you don’t learn anything about market depth by dummy “market orders” online. Assuming for a moment that these three were buys, I am 100% confident you’d have got an NT if you’d tried them as dummy purchases. But the truth is it was perfectly possible to trade decent volume (10 x EMS) over the last couple of days.

This bound to be a leaky ship with so many contractors etc involved. We’ll first see indications of news in trade volumes. Perhaps that is happening here..?

JohnZ.

You pay £5 for £500 worth of shares at 1.2p, that’s 41,667 shares. You pay another £5 to sell them at 1.25p, realising ££520.84.

After fees you’ve made £10.84. The £10 you’ve paid isn’t insignificant. It has reduced your return by nearly 48%.

The firms you’ve dealt with have made £10 (fees) + £8.69 (from the spread) = £18.69

They have made more than you, despite it being your money at risk.

It’s a sign...!

https://youtu.be/Ka9mfZbTFbk

You are right TAF. It's too hard to follow on publicly available documents. It looks as if the Angel subsidiaries owning the relevant mining rights were transferred to a private equity fund managed by Cyrus as part of Angel's liquidation. Cyrus look to have worked hard on this, gaining their eventual exit through the flotation of Alopex back in 2017.

If the information on the value attributed to Nanulaq is in the administration or flotation documentation, I can't find it.

Whatever.... It is the very definition of a sunk cost, so not relevant going forward.

Agreed. The Reddit "short-squeeze" narrative - in truth more a flimsy meme - isn't the one to watch here. Don't get distracted by the noise from speculators. The story of increased industrial usage for silver is far more meaningful. UFO is positioned to benefit if silver prices pick up from this, but it will have to progress its silver projects along what BBG calls the value-curve in order to take advantage. I like investing in companies where there are durable tail-winds...

Happy holder since last summer, Rob1967. Just because I don’t post “NT to buy” every ten minutes like you and degsy, doesn’t make me a de-ramper. It is childlike - and slightly sad/pathetic - of you to try to police discussion as you have here. Grow up.

HL = UK-based private investors. Same as Interactive Investors, Barclays, Lloyds and Halifax.

That’s 40%+ PI money from those 5 alone. Unlikely to be helpful...

philke60 - there are always sellers, in every share.

From the funds world, source Morningstar:

Konwave AG https://www.konwave.ch/about-us/?lang=en
Zeus Asset Management S.A. https://www.zeuscapitalsicav.com/en/index.aspx#secondPage
GAM (Luxembourg) SA https://www.gam.com/en/our-company

Konwave has about 4m shares. Looks like a typical small Swiss outfit. Probably very dull...
Zeus has 1.5m. Supposedly a Sicav, but website is v light on expected information. Italian, probably Swiss flavoured.
GAM have 0.75m. Relatively well known / established / sensible

There may be others. Morningstar data is notoriously incomplete in this area, but that’s not their fault.

Is there anyone here who knows what Alopex paid Angel Mining (or its liquidators) for the Nanulaq mine?

I have been trying to find this information for a couple of weeks, but must be suffering from weak google-fu or something...

If someone could point me in the right direction I'd be really grateful.

I'll be here. I only add three or four new names to my portfolio each year, and am happy to wait whilst value is being created.

This was the presentation that first caught my interest late last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdxavWsgMYI

I like the fact that Amati and Chelverton are on board, alongside Vaekstfonden (the Danish sovereign wealth fund). So many of the junior miners have registers overly dominated by PI's. The composition of the shareholder base here is a distinct plus.

0752neil - £3/trade but you were complaining about your platforms spread/prices earlier in the week. The visible costs per trade might not be the most meaningful...