Member Info for StarBright

Nah - LSE’s motley crew of ambulance-chasing pumpers haven’t shown up here yet, but that could be about to change. The appearance of the Earl (or Ria or Degsy) usually confirms the observation… ;>

Looking more closely at the RNS, it says:

“The total consideration for these transactions was settled via the issuance of 9,700,000 new Ordinary Shares in the capital of the Company (the "Ordinary Shares") issued at 111.0 pence per Ordinary Share[1], PLUS CASH consideration.”

How much cash? Why hasn’t the actual purchase price been disclosed? I will ask IR…

@DrRemington, @PortfolioPower

Nothing more to pay for the 51% is NOT the same as no requirement to pay anything until production. Who is going to pay for all of the further exploration and development costs. The $2m OMI has will be earmarked for L&B as you well know.

There are massive cash costs to fund ahead of any production, as you well know… To suggest otherwise, “No requirement to pay anything until into production” is just cynical ramping, as you well know…

When will the minute-by-minute updates on Rob1967 and Bhargav’s “top-ups” recommence?

@Garydav2 - how do you know that the board aren’t considering a bid (even multiple bids!) right now?

TC Rule 3.1 says that “…the board of the offeree company must obtain competent independent advice as to whether the financial terms of any offer (including any alternative offer) are fair and reasonable and the substance of such advice must be made known to its shareholders.”

Perhaps that advice process is underway right now?

Tick tock, as you might say…

“No requirement to pay anything until into production.”

That is a shamefully baseless misrepresentation @PortfolioPower…

RNS today confirms that @breaktwister was 100% wrong (back in January) about Newmont/MMA not owning 51%. Evidently OMI had relinquished the 51%. And has had to agree to pay $15m + 1.5% NSR to get it back.

From my post from Jan 23rd:

“OMI are going to have to ask for their ball back. There is a negotiation as to the price for this.

Your assertion that MMA have only an option over the 51% contingent upon them spending an additional USD22m is unevidenced, and materially different to what shareholders have been told in multiple RNS and annual report(s).

If you have a copy of an actual contract that substantiates your assertion then please post a link or the relevant excerpt(s) here so those interested can read it for themselves. In the absence of this your assertion should be disregarded, and readers should operate on the basis that OMI has relinquished the 51%.”

Zero cost?

RNS says $15m + 1.5% NSR

10m new shares, so just 2% added which means this is essentially immaterial to holders in terms of raw dilution. 3 step lock-in means they won’t all come to market at once which is also good.

That they’ve been issued at such a premium makes me feel slightly uneasy though. I wonder what the market clearing price would have been for cash? Presumably £6.5m (based on 10m @65p) rather than the £11.1m paid? Or is that too cynical an interpretation..?

“… at the first opportunity - you’d secure 100% of Havieron and Telfer? I expect this is most probably done or close. As it’s been in his sights from the beginning.

Then - what a week after securing 100% drop a whopping SLOS DFS and whip up the market with a dripping roast of a 6mt DFS.

Next - Get GDX on board and get major fund managers on board.

Then, within 12 months, do a $1bn raise on the ASX…”

Two questions from me:

1. How will the 70% + Telfer + 100% of the remaining costs to production be paid for, 12 months BEFORE doing the $1bn raise on the ASX?

2. If a 6mt DFS can be released just a week after acquiring the 70% (to whip up the market and drive an immediate re-pricing of the 100%) why would NEM not do that now ahead of selling it?

Thanks for that. Interesting to see Stiffel add their voice to those calling for a change in dividend policy. The current model - where dividends are determined as a % of “NAV” (quotation marks are deliberate…) - makes very little sense for shareholders. I would like the GSF board to feel pressure from investors over this. And subsequent pressure to deliver operational cashflow such that dividends are properly covered. At the moment they are too focussed on the “NAV”, I believe principally because that is the managers eye view as it drives the managers compensation. It’s time for a change to a methodology that is more focussed on returns for shareholders.

I view the big picture here as quite simple. The current dividend yield - still close to 9% - won’t be sustained. Either the divi will be cut (significantly less likely after the results today) or the share price will rise. I expect the latter so am happy to hold, and to add on any weakness.

Now to waste a couple of hours trying to understand the results including “Heritage”. How/why they are permitted to indulge this particular fantasy is beyond me…

Https://www.current-news.co.uk/battery-storage-unit-dispatch-rate-rises-by-47/

"Energy consultant Modo Energy has released data confirming a 47% increase in weekly battery storage dispatched volume compared to eight weeks prior.

In January 2024, National Grid ESO (ESO) relaunched bulk dispatch for battery energy storage units in the Balancing Mechanism (BM) following its closure in December 2023 due to technical issues.

The bulk dispatch functionality allows for more battery instructions to be issued simultaneously.

According to ESO data, approximately half of the battery unit dispatch volume is now being instructed through the Open Balancing Platform (OBP).

The impact of this re-introduction was felt across the battery storage marketplace, both in the increase of weekly dispatches and a newfound lack of correlation between unit size and dispatch rate."

A classic example of market irrationality. If you thought JD might make a bid for SDRY because the market cap had collapsed to a “cheap as chips” level, then your investment rationale is entirely unchanged by the news regarding Ted Baker. If anything the speculative case is stronger now because you have a pricing dip to lean into.

I am tempted to add below 25p.

@Rock8 is most likely correct. This will have been BR cap-weighted funds mechanistically reflecting the index deletion. Usually they will place trades into the closing auction in order to get the last price of the day, because replicating the daily index movement is their main concern rather than achieving the best price for their investors. One of the dirty secrets of the index fund world, where “tracking error” is deemed to be more important than investor returns…

An (further) extension would have to be agreed by the Panel, who generally take a dim view. Not impossible though, will depend on circumstances etc.

The code requires the bidder to announce a fully financed binding offer within 28 days or announce it will not be making an offer in which event it is subject to a 6 month standstill (although can make a single approach to the target to see if the target is receptive to an offer after 3 months have elapsed).

@Sm66’s understanding of, and comments on the premise of minimum consideration are mistaken. For the sake of clarity:

- there are NO circumstances under which JD might be required to offer at the highest price paid by anyone else

- the circumstances in which he may be required to make an offer at the highest price HE has paid are very narrowly defined, easy to avoid and unlikely to occur as a result

Shareholders and other interested parties should work on the basis that JD and his advisers will look to manage the process to ensure that he won’t have to make a mandatory offer; and if he chooses to make a voluntary offer it will not be subject to minimum consideration.

He’s hardly going to buy shares with his own money when he can get the company (more accurately its shareholders) to give them to him for free via the ruse of calling it “compensation”. In his mind he’ll view this only as fair recompense for his efforts…

This forum is a slightly extreme version of the LSE ‘boards in general. Some frequent posters with little/no understanding of market structures and dynamics trying to sound knowledgeable. Examples here this week include calls for the Nomad (it’s a main segment listing so no Nomads) to intervene, endless drivel about after-market trades, the balance of buys and sells evidencing “market manipulation” etc etc etc. These posters are operating from the dangerous portion of the Dunning-Kruger curve - that is to say they are unconsciously incompetent, they don’t know how much they don’t know.

In amidst the noise some useful snippets of information can be found. It is what it is, I’m afraid…

Earl - here’s a free gift for you, ZIOC. Big announcement(s) due by the end of q1, so a couple of weeks away. Still time to join in. Thank me later…