Member Info for StarBright

A strange RNS. Last update was “FEED study is well advanced with Veolia and Wave International having provided initial process route design based on existing proven technology. The study is expected to be completed and final investment decision ("FID") in Q1 2026.”

So why announce today (Jan 14th) that the FEED Study is 90% done, and will be completed by the end of January? Why not just finish the study and announce the results in line with the timetable previously laid out?

What pressure is the company responding to? Can someone explain the purpose and timing of the RNS today please?

Although it is an LSE-cliche, my guess is that this is a sell order being worked. The other LSE-cliche would be a “tree shake”…

Either way, I’ve taken advantage and added a few. This is a well-run fund in a sector that is going to continue to be propelled by defence-related spending, https://www.ft.com/content/d1ed595d-b7c6-40d2-b99d-d1dbe17b213e

A major move since November, that may not be finished yet.

Good news from underlying portfolio companies, an increasingly positive market context and a material discount are combining to drive the share price higher.

No surprise.

Good that its happened so early in the year. Company can move on now.

The original post in this thread is nothing but cut & paste silver-Twitter script, dressed up with dramatic language and invented scale. It should be disregarded.

There is no evidence of an imminent COMEX force majeure. Cash settlement is already permitted under futures rules and does not imply default. Low registered inventory is not the same thing as exchange insolvency. Confusing the two is basic error number one.

The “60m oz call option COMEX cannot deliver” claim betrays a misunderstanding of how options work. Exercised calls become futures positions, not immediate demands for warehouse bars. Only a small fraction of contracts ever stand for delivery, and delivery occurs over time.

Claims that COMEX “only has 24m oz available” cherry-pick registered inventory while ignoring eligible stocks, Exchange-for-Physical, OTC markets, leasing, and arbitrage. Registered inventory is opt-in deliverable metal, not total supply. Treating it as such is amateur hour.

The headline claim that BofA and Citi are short 4.4 billion ounces is pure fiction. No CFTC data, balance-sheet disclosure, or regulatory filing supports anything remotely like this. It almost certainly confuses gross notional exposure with net risk; a mistake no one with real capital market experience would make. The so-called “Bullion banks” run largely matched books as market-makers.

Comparing futures positions to annual mine supply is another category error. Futures are flow markets, not warehouse receipts. By this logic, half the derivatives markets on the planet would be impossible.

Yes, industrial demand is a large share of supply, and no - that does not mean COMEX bars are about to be melted down for solar panels. That leap requires imagination, not analysis.

Unallocated metal is a credit claim, clearly disclosed as such. Calling it fraud because you don’t understand it is not insight.

Silver ETFs hold allocated metal, publish bar lists, are audited, and reprice with the metal. Brokers do not “close accounts” because someone on X thinks physics has been violated.

Short-term dislocations can happen as a result of wider spreads, higher lease rates, regional premiums. The idea of a permanent paper/physical detachment and settlement at “yesterday’s price” is apocalypse cosplay.

In short: the post isn’t revealing hidden macro truths. It’s excitable gullibility, recycled silver mythology, and a confident misunderstanding of how futures markets actually work, capped off - inevitably - with “I’ve spent two decades in macro”…

Be careful with your sources.

Interesting structure and accompanying narrative.

If - as stated - operational cashflows continue to cover day-to-day running costs and the CLN will cover CapEx needs for the next 12m, this should remove some of the pressures and speculation that the company has found so difficult to contend with.

It’s novel for such an instrument to be made available to qualified investors in this manner. An opportunity to acquire shares at 3p merits consideration. Who’s in?

Probably not. But further confirmation that ABG Sundal Collier can raise substantial capital for startup projects:

“ ABG Sundal Collier, a leading independent Nordic investment bank, has acted as Pensana's financial advisor and intermediary in the Strategic Investor transaction.”

Thank you for that link @Clive205. Excellent speech by Vikki Jeckell.

The notion that there won’t be any dilution to get TVL up and running is only correct in a narrow technical sense. It relies upon a subtle presentational artifice.

Whilst no new shares in ALK will be issued if everything goes to plan, new shares in TVL certainly will be! According to Hatherley ALK will end up owning ~55% of TVL vs 100% today. Thus the dilution occurs at the TVL level rather than the ALK level, but its impact is the same as far as an ALK investor is concerned. An alternative route would be for ALK itself to issue new shares, but to retain 100% of TVL. Either way the (potentially fantastic!) outcome is essentially the same for ALK’s minority shareholders in terms of their ECONOMIC exposure to TVL. 100% of 55% is the same as 55% of 100%…

But parroting Hatherly’s “no dilution” line is somewhat misleading or naive. At best it is a (subtle) mis-representation of the underlying economics.

Some good posts on this BB. I agree that the upside potential here is very real.

Are you sure about that @Ak247 ?

I can’t see any mention of timing in previous RNS.

Did I miss something?

“… we are hopeful of receiving a decision on this application soon.”

Have the company previously/elsewhere indicated their expectations regarding the timescale for this approval? “soon” is a very casual answer for what appears to be an obvious and important question.

Precisely. Your £10 per share relies upon:

1. Funding provider(s) agreeing that the 222m (some cccy confusion in posts to this thread?) is the appropriate valuation

2. Funding provider(s) agreeing that they are prepared to front-up 100m for a minority stake

The “terms attached to any funding” that I referenced in my earlier post include these two points. It is entirely possible that funding provider(s) will look for a lower valuation and a higher % of equity. That is what funding providers do!

Existing ALK shareholders (like myself) must hope that Messrs Atherley and co will have more than one offer on the table. Absent the pressure of competitive tension it is very hard to realise (let alone maximise) value.

I appreciate your positivity here @BerettaDT11BLACK, and I agree that outsize returns are possible if the company converts its vision and plans into reality. But “£100m funding equals………. £10” is not how financing and share valuations work. The terms attached to any funding, and return expectations will have a massive impact upon the share price. No-one is providing £100m without expecting a huge slice of the pie one way or another. It’s unreasonable to imply that the announcement of funding will 3.3x the share price by itself. We’re not going to be “gifted” the £70m of equity it would take to get to £10 are we? There’s more to it than that.

We should be clear - this project is an escape route for Milliband, Starmer and Reeves. From one of the policy cul-de-sacs they’ve created at least. It speaks to energy security, energy costs, employment and innovation; all within the context of energy transition. Watch this space.

I’m a buyer below 4p for sure. This could continue to drift, but it’s easy to see how sentiment might turn.

@Temple_of_Doom - you’ve provided the explanation yourself when you point out that every trade is both a buy and a sell. There is no “closely guarded secret”, that’s total nonsense.

I can explain this.

BlackRock Throgmorton’s performance discussion (from which Team Google have extracted a context-free comment…) is articulated relative to the funds reference index. If an index component generates positive performance but the fund doesn’t own it, it’s a “detractor”.

“The Company returned 2.9% in September, performing in-line with its benchmark, the Deutsche Numis Smaller Companies +AIM (excluding Investment Companies) Index, which also returned 2.9%.

…

Turning to detractors, the largest came from not owning Greatland Resources , which performed well due to a combination of solid operational results and positive performance of the mining sector more broadly.”

So GGP is a component of the Deutsche Nums Smaller Companies +AIM (excluding Investment Companies) Index, but the BlackRock Throgmorton Trust doesn’t own any GGP. As the fund has “missed out” on the returns generated by GGP, the (lack of a) GGP position is a detractor to performance.

HTH.

Interesting report in the FT for those obsessed with shorting conspiracy theories…

https://www.ft.com/content/67e9f4f9-a48c-4bc0-be66-bf22f8e2ee40

@FT says: “Short sellers betting on a fall in a UK company’s share price will no longer have their identities disclosed in public, under rules set to be announced by the financial watchdog on Tuesday. The Financial Conduct Authority is expected to shift to publishing the total short positions of investors betting against a company’s share price on an anonymised and aggregated basis, according to two people briefed on the decision.

…”

AVCT has crossed “the rubicon” several - actual many! - times. We’ll see if this particular crossing has durability…