Member Info for StarBright

Cool your jets… This RNS doesn’t indicate that an offer announcement is imminent.

It is simply an update to the number of shares in issue, which have increased slightly - probably for some old option grant or similar (the reason doesn’t matter). The last para - copied below - explains that revisions must be published “as soon as possible” if information (in this case shares in issue) changes during the offer period.

“If the information included in an announcement made under this Rule changes during the offer period, a revised announcement must be made as soon as possible.”

As you were….

This has been a tough hold. I find it hard to understand why GSF is back to this SP level. At the weekend I went back over everything again. If the project(s) underway in the US is completed and energised, then cashflow generation will materially boosted. In the meantime the company has the cash reserves/flexibility to fund the dividend policy to which it has just recommitted. We’ve not seen anything to suggest that the US objectives won’t be hit.

I think we’ll look back on this period as golden opportunity.

It’s perfectly clear that this is all linked by “The Boy, The Mole, The Fox and The Horse” - an animated film released last year.

The Boy - played by Jude Nicoll, who’s from Edinburgh…!

The Mole - played by Tom Holland(er), related to Jade surely..?

The Fox - played by IDRIS ELBA…! Hiding in plain sight..?

But who is The Horse? Played by Gabriel Byrne in the film. If we can identify who The Horse is we’ll have cracked the code…

@Toffers - Michael Scott is the principal character in the US version of The Office. His boss in the series was played by none other than Idris Elba ;>

@MIKODX , let’s assume you bought 10000 SDRY at 40p on Friday, and set a stop loss at 30p. Tomorrow morning at 7am some bad news is released. On open at 8am the shares trade at 20p. What is your loss?

(a) 40p - 30p (your stop loss level) = 10p x 1000 = £1000

(b) 40p - 20p (the opening trading level) = 20p x 1000 = £2000

The answer is (b), your stop loss won’t protect you from the full fall if the market gaps down. Many investors seem to think they will get the stop loss price. As long as you understand that’s not how stops work, all is good.

That’s not what I mean at all MIKODX. I think you need to find out a little bit more about when/how stop losses work - and when/why they don’t - before advising readers here what to do.

And MM’s have very little (if any) control over the screen price of SDRY because it is a SETS share and traders with DMA are generally posting well within the composite spread quoted by MM’s.

Too much regurgitated LSE bulletin board nonsense on these topics…

If bad news arrives out of hours, your stop loss won’t protect from the gap down on open. You do know this, and understand why don’t you?

I have never interacted with anyone exhibiting such an instinctive and infallible ability to grab the wrong end of every stick.

They are odd. I’m not convinced that these purchases are by or for JD. An alternative reading of the disclosure filing is that Legal And General Investment Management (Holdings) Ltd. is ALSO making disclosures somewhere on behalf of JD.

It’s v hard to believe that JD is buying pocket money (for him) amounts via L&G whilst he’s a declared potential offeror. So many conflicts/pitfalls, so little to gain.

Also not credible that LGIM are warehousing for him and/or others. That would make them facilitators for a concert party, WAY outside the risk appetite of a major financial institution with a reputation to protect.

I find it very strange.

But not all offers are under Rule 9...

You don't have the necessary knowledge to engage on this topic. Please just drop it.

Starbright....lets play the yes/no game as I see you have strong and incorrect opinions in my view. Agree the 111p is irrelevant. However I firmly believe the offer will be £1+ given the brand and potential etc etc. *An offer >100p is possible, if that is the route chosen*

Is JD dancing around at the moment acquiring a couple of percent for the good of his health? Yes/No *No - it would be a largely pointless exercise for him*

Is JD acquiring a couple of percent more because it will be a lot cheaper than the bid price? Yes/No *Unlikely - see above. Also no material disclosures yet, £2k yesterday is irrelevant as is nonsense spouted here about concert parties etc. Panel will be all over this like a rash, believe me...*

In order to get a deal agreed for the other 70.1% for arguments sake, does he need to make an offer that is fair value (often with a mark up) to get a deal agreed with the transaction committee? Yes/No *The question will be value relative to what. If the alternative scenario is that JD walks and there's a liquidation of some sort, then "good (or fair) value" might be far lower than many expect. Ultimately the "transaction committee's" hand will be forced by Insto equity and debt holders.*

Has JD been triggered to do this because he has inside and public knowledge that bids are likely to be forthcoming from other parties? Yes/No *Possibly*

Will that support ensuring that the bid offer is good value for all shareholders? Yes/No *Not necessarily. The question will be value relative to what. If the alternative scenario is that JD walks and there's a liquidation of some sort, then "good value" might be far lower than many expect*

*The situation here is far more complex than is reflected in discussion on this board, in part because one posters inane/incessant nonsense inhibits the development of informed discussion*

No-one with any legal background would make such a basic mistake!

Yes - "Disclosure of dealings and positions IN THIS OFFEROR is not required". Not "disclosure of positions BY this offeror". Critical difference. Changes the meaning completely.

I pointed this out to you gently yesterday. I have set it out for you step-by-step this morning. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I'll leave it now.

@Toffers - read the panel determination again. Focus carefully on the meaningful difference between the disclosure of "....positions in the offerOR" and "...positions in the offerEE". You have completely misread / misunderstood the determination - because you lack the background knowledge required to interpret it.

JD absolutely has to disclose any changes to his position in SDRY.

@Tillywhiz, you should just drop all the seafaring bullsh*t. You made a complete fool of yourself with it on the EUA board. That and your incessant mindless ramping.

Hemogenyx is an interesting company that may yet deliver outsize returns for shareholders. Such returns will be generated by clinical and commercial success, not by unpaid IR volunteers looking to egg-on penny punters here.

Perhaps your nonsense is counterproductive?

@Toffers - you're swimming too far from the shore again. Hint - there's a big difference between offerOR and offerEE.

You keep telling this board that JD paid 111p to acquire some shares nearly a year ago, so any bid he makes will have to be at least 111p. I have pointed out that this is an incorrect assertion that shouldn't be relied upon. One piece of hastily googled text you posted yesterday said "...highest price paid in the last twelve months" and the next said "...highest price paid in the last three months". There is a simple but important reason for this difference - can you tell us what it is?

I doubt they'll go anywhere near this particular ego trip. They have enough exposure to the unpaid volunteer IR team already.

@alwayshoping - did you not read the link you posted? This is a Saudi effort to ATTRACT global investors to invest in projects in Saudi Arabia. It’s part of an effort to highlight Saudi Arabia’s rich mineral resources, investment incentives, and commitment to diversifying its economy beyond oil and gas. The Saudi Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources will showcase KSA’s rich mineral reserves, which include gold, phosphates, bauxite, copper, and others.

So no, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a potential iron ore project in the Republic of Congo.

So twelve months (as per your original assertion) or three months, as per your second go…?

This is a topic on which you have no knowledge. You should drop it.

You're on the dangerous part of the Dunning-Kruger curve @Toffers...

If a bidder stays below 30% before tendering an offer, the 12 months doesn't apply. This is precisely why potential bidders don't go above 30% pre -offer.