Member Info for StarBright

@Rob1967, is there some reason that you can’t use this forum in the way it was intended? Conversation is organised in threads under subjects that indicate their content, posters use “reply” to add their thoughts or start new threads for new topics.

Hundreds of threads all titled “Info only” or “Bhargav/whoever” is a bizarre affectation that makes this board harder to follow than any other.

If you’re replying to an existing topic why not use the reply button rather than starting yet another new thread with a posters name in the Subject box?

If you have information or a view to impart that doesn’t fit well within an existing thread, then why not start a new thread with a subject that indicates the topic of discussion?

Did I miss the big announcement for ZIOC from Mining Indaba 2024..?

Some initial thoughts from me:

- This is a good step forwards for ANGS and its long-suffering holders. The management team should be afforded some credit for getting it done.

- Whilst the rates associated with the financing are high, the interest+repayment burden in £ looks ok given the existing production profile. Far better to owe £20m at 14% than £40m at 7% - pay attention to the £ as well as the rate.

- EV is still low for an actual producer getting paid actual pounds for actual gas. It'll take time for the market to re-price ANGS, especially because of the history of underwater holders and spivvy traders.

- Anticipate some swings and volatility whilst the re-pricing takes place, and enough of the frustrated shareholders exit into any strength. I wouldn't pay much attention to the immediate reaction, this is way too complex to be re-marked in a day.

- Ultimately ANGS management have managed to get Mercuria's knife away from their throat, and out of the picture. They have recovered room to breathe and access to upside from their commercial activities.

- Removing uncertainty is a big plus for any business. I plan to hold and watch this play out in expectation that value will eventually be reflected in the share price

There is no difference.

They have one view, so hold a short position. You (& I) have a different view, so hold a long position. That is how markets work.

Why should GSA Capital close out their short position? Evidently they think there WON'T be an offer at a premium, and the share price will fall when this is confirmed. They have taken a position that will generate a profit for them if their analysis of the situation turns out to be correct.

You've done exactly the same, only you are holding a long position because you believe that a premium offer WILL arrive. Your respective positions are two sides of the same coin, reflecting the reality that there are two possible outcomes.

It would be just as sensible to ask why you haven't closed out your long position when JD has only 7 days left until the deadline. I would assume its very risky to leave it right until the 11th hour to try and close out...

26/1 they declared a holding of 5,276,742 shares (5.32%)

12/2 that was down to 2,401,079 (2.42%)

21/2 (today) they’ve notified sales of 539,850

So they still have 1,861,229 according to their disclosures. Looks like they are/have been a willing seller at 40p or over

@Sm66 - I did cover the concert-party question earlier. Please take a look back.

@Toffers - no contradiction or lack of clarity in my post(s). But I can’t help you to understand the offside rule when you don’t know even the basics of football. I shouldn’t have tried. I think most here have realised you’re out of your depth, even if you don’t understand this yourself.

I hope there’s a bidding war here and that all of us who hold shares do well as a result.

The delayed reporting regime meant their trade wouldn’t be reported until after the close, so it didn’t affect intraday price formation. No need for any other mechanism.

@Toffers

If a potential buyer stays carefully BELOW 30% they avoid “acquiring control” too early in the process. This means they don’t have to make their offer under rule 9, they avoid the risks of the MANDATORY offer. So the last 12 months stipulation doesn’t apply.

Why do you think it is normal for potential offerors to stay under the 30% limit? Could it be to avoid the risks associated with a mandatory offer?

——————————————————

Your quote:

“Mandatory Offer:

A buyer who acquires “control” of a target company is required to make a mandatory cash offer to all shareholders.

The offer price must be at least the highest price paid for shares in the last 12 months.

Threshold for “Control”:

The Takeover Code deems a buyer to have acquired “control” when they hold 30% or more of the voting rights in the target company."

That’s the difference between professional knowledge and misunderstood google searches. Even when your googling gets you to the right info you’re incapable of reading and interpreting it properly.

@Toffers - nowhere did I say she can’ trade. Of course she can. But her trades are subject to the same disclosure requirements as his. Read my post - I have been very clear.

The other stuff on mandatory offers, minimum consideration etc you just don’t understand. Trying to explain it to you is like trying to explain the offside law to someone who has never played football or even watched a match. Or like trying to explain the details of open-heart surgery to someone whose only training/experience is as a bricklayer. You are incapable of understanding it because you just don’t have enough basic knowledge / context.

1350 trades today, 1075 of them were Off-book...!

Off-book just means dealt via market-maker rather than matched “on the book” between traders using DMA.

Your various googled links all pertain to the US market which has different terminology and structures.

The link I gave you for the trade is from its original source -London Stock Exchange. This is always the best/only place to look for trade data when there’s something interesting to examine.

In this case it’s just a delayed report (as permitted) of a large trade dealt via a market-maker.

Just an Off-book trade, which means one executed via a market-maker.

Not “OTC”, and absolutely traded through the exchange not any sort of dark pool.

Nothing unusual or underhand. Those interested can see it here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/SDRY/superdry-plc/trade-recap

Jade Holland Cooper is a PCA (“ person closely associated ”) with Julian Dunkerton so any share dealings she undertakes in SDRY are subject to the same reporting requirements as his. The notion that she might be acquiring shares undisclosed before transferring them to JD is nonsense, as it would be a direct breach of regulation with potentially huge personal costs for him.

Persons acting in concert are deemed to be a single person, so their aggregated interests are considered in determining whether (for example) the 30% trigger level for a mandatory rule 9 offer has been breached. The notion that JD and others (you persist in suggesting concert party candidates…) are in acting in undisclosed concert is nonsense, as it would be a direct breach of regulation with potentially huge personal costs for him.

JD, his advisers and any associates involved are not going to breach the 30% level and expose themselves to the very real risks of being forced to make a mandatory offer under rule 9. This would be a disaster for them. They are not going to breach the limit carelessly as their advisers will have established protocols for identifying all potential PCA and concert-party exposures. Neither are they going to breach the limit knowingly whilst trying to conceal it by not making required disclosures - to do so would be professional suicide for a high profile businessman and his advisers.

Why persist in offering commentary and opinion on topics where you clearly have no understanding?

At last, something to discuss. A couple of interesting developments in fact.

Who is Michael Farrell? Team google will be working on this - let’s see who/what they come up with.

Why the leak (via the traditional Mark Klein route)? Cui bono?

Textbook kitchen-sinking in progress here.

Cui bono..?

Yes - this is my core expectation too. Foreign trade buyers will pay up. Especially for businesses with established brands. Hotel Chocolat has shown the way.

I saw a table somewhere showing 20 or so acquisitions of UK companies in 2023. Average premium was close to 50%. The UK market is undervalued - as plenty of people have pointed out.

Last try..!

All of the shorts on IG’s platform added together might well represent less than 1% of the shares in issue, we just don’t know. But IG look to have a nicely balanced book and will be coining it on the spread ;>

[truncated, don’t know why]

All of the shorts on IG’s platform added together might well represent

@Rock8 - this is an interesting observation, thank you. Maybe there is little borrow available, or the margin required is prohibitive because of the volatility? I don’t know - I haven’t asked.

However it isn’t right to compare these two %’s in the way you have. One is a percentage of total shares in issue, the other is a % of the number of one platform’s holders NOT holdings. All of the shorts on IG’s platform added together might well represent