Member Info for StarBright

Quite a drop today (>13% at this point) for no obvious reason that I can see.

Would anyone like to offer an explanation?

I’m not overthinking anything. Just being critical of a tragically poor piece of content. Just because it’s a positive doesn’t mean it’s useful. Sharing it here as you have (without any assessment) makes you look like yet another empty ramper, while some of your other posts suggest you are better than that. …

Here’s what the guy on video says. He - literally - offers nothing at all in terms of insight or interpretation. Just an entirely unsupported statement “…12.45p as a minimum.”

“EPP is my next one and this is an interesting chart you know has a great call from us down here at 1.92 correct call again uh you know we we've had a bounce up and it's gone four, five sellers as expected. You know, you're always going to get sellers in this game. Uh it's fallen down, you know, 40%. But, you know, I think we're going to see new highs on that. I don't see how we don't uh see another high on that one. I think we're going to get another leg. And where do I think that's heading? I think we're going to go to 12.45p as a minimum. Uh and then probably 15.3. And who knows, we could be tagging this 18.95. But, you know, for me, I think that's nailed on for another leg up. So, uh we're doing research on that one.“

There’s no value in this.

Can you explain how the chart you’ve linked indicates that >12.45p is coming..?

No! SABA are working with a prime broker (possibly more than one!) to acquire a stake in GSF. SABA are the “actual acquirer” to use your phrase. It’s most likely that the prime brokers will have been buying in the open market for a period. The shares will be registered to them. At some point in the future, the swap will be unwound and the shares delivered to SABA. This is all very normal!

What’s unusual is that SABA have filed a TR1, apparently before taking delivery of the shares.

To be fair, @TheTrotsky does have an interesting point here. TRS mechanisms are usually used by the likes of SABA to acquire exposure WITHOUT triggering disclosure requirements. This because the prime broker(s) they use will appear on the register rather than SABA themselves. Normal practice is for them to “go physical” (ie take ownership of the underlying securities) and only then to file a TR1. In this instance they (SABA) appear to have filed a TR1 whilst holding the swap, which is unusual because the swaps don’t generally confer voting rights. In other recent instances SABA have held similar swaps without disclosing voting rights, and have had to be flushed out by IT boards using something called a s793 procedure through which the prime brokers are compelled to reveal the identity of their clients. Perhaps the structure of this swap is different and it does - somehow - carry voting rights. Or perhaps SABA were in a hurry to declare a position for whatever reason? Perhaps GSF should have done more to satisfy itself that SABA does genuinely hold the voting rights before releasing the TR1…? It’s not possible to answer these questions based on what we know.

So there are some interesting uncertainties here, and this is definitely a situation for holders and other interested parties to monitor closely.

TLDR: SABA are frequent users of TRS, but usually as a mechanism to avoid (or at least defer) disclosure obligations. This one looks a little different and we don’t know why.

Some well-intended misdirection in the discussion on this thread, fuelled by google and AI as usual…

SABA (and others) frequently use TRS’s to acquire positions without leaving footprints in the market. The swap will be unwound when the other party has finished acquiring the underlying shares. It’s like a limit order, but papered so SABA benefits from immediate economic exposure.

Just part of growing up. RBC are one of the more credible full-service insto brokers in Aus, Cannacord have nothing like their domestic presence and reach.

That’s interesting!

The SABA guys are much less reasonable and nice to deal with than Pietro from RM…

But if you want a WAG, I’d go for a 20-25% uplift in NAV (say 24pps). It would be reasonable to expect some discount closure, say from 21% to 15% as SSIT’s credibility will be affirmed. So a new NAV ~125p with a 15% (19p) discount might leave the SP at 100-105p…?

With so many implicit assumptions and guesses embedded in this, I wouldn’t take it too seriously…! DYOR, YMMV etc etc etc

Among the many big questions/variables are the extent of SSIT’s participation in any such raise by ICEYE - (they might not as it is a huge chunk of the portfolio already) and the natural dilution impact of any such raise by ICEYE.

No, we don’t - as ICEYE is a private company. But SSIT has been involved in multiple funding rounds, at least once as the lead investor. FT today carries a story suggesting that ICEYE are looking at a further funding round, valuing the company at USD2.5bn. The company needs further capital to scale up manufacturing.

The FT article says: “A $2.5bn valuation would mark significant growth for Iceye, which has raised $550mn so far in transactions that chief executive Rafał Modrzewski said earlier this year had left it valued at “significantly higher” than $1bn.”

The nonsense posted here - particularly the usual suspects on the topic of short positions - continues to accumulate… I spoke with a proper broker early afternoon and asked him about GGP. 6 buy recommendations out there, 2 holds. He looked across the adverts/IoI’s showing on IB and floated a few flies towards market-makers (not just the RSPs). Twelve market makers apparently - a lot for GPP’s market cap & volume. At the point we spoke there was nothing on the book, but four market makers were open to trade 100k parcels both ways between 390-400p. None of them axed either way. Cannacord had an order they were working. Others were quoting on 25k either way. Summary - good liquidity available for retail trades through the panel and plenty of IoI’s for larger sizes.

Better to look at is as a buy AND a sell, for that is likely the reality. Too much time wasted on LSE forums trying to decide the direction of transactions, when the truth is that all buys need a seller and vice-versa! I don’t think there’s anything to be gained from pondering this for too long.

If EPP can continue to progress as they have, then material gains will accrue to shareholders. I have a few million shares now, and am settled in for the ride. If companies like ALRT (which appears to me to have nothing…) can get to £75m MCap, then the sky is the limit for EPP. Holders need only hold….

Yes ;>

This is the Nasdaq IPO you were telling us about a year ago? The one where the book was already 3/4 filled etc…

The individual share discussion boards of the LSE forum are like villages. Each a small community. If you took all the idiots from all the villages and brought them all to the Avacta board, you’d still be the village idiot @Hurst10.

But thank you for the LOLs!

No. Sorry to be direct, but that really is nonsense. EPP is already a listed company, so there won’t be a “SPAC merger”. The warrant exercise indicates nothing of the sort.

As always, Occam’s razor applies. The most likely explanation for the drop is simply that the shares from the warrant exercise are being dumped, and the RSP’s didn’t want to warehouse them. So they marked the price down to tempt buyers to engage. A good day to be a buyer rather than a seller…..

“Geez...with every large sell theres a large buy or lots of small buys and visa versa.”

🤦‍♂️

Likewise.

@apps - your post regarding expected content for the interview today is one of the funniest I’ve ever read on the LSE forums.

Thank you @The Trotsky. I fully accept that I misinterpreted the Delphic statements from GSF regarding dividend policy…

This isn’t about what was or wasn’t discussed in this forum. Rather it is about the ambiguous manner in which GSF have communicated changes to their dividend policy. My view - having reviewed all that they have said, see my earlier post - is that they chose NOT to say clearly that the long-established quarterly dividend payable in October was being skipped. Rather they relied on a careful omission by saying that the “new” dividend policy would apply from the September quarter, so no payment until January 2026. And a subtle mis-direction by referring to the missed quarterly dividend as “additional” when it was never anything of the sort. They didn’t explain what they meant by “additional” and it is perfectly clear that many here misunderstood what was being communicated. If I told my child that they wouldn’t be receiving any additional pocket money next month, do you think they’d expect to receive their normal amount or not?

The miscommunication - facilitated by omissions and ambiguous language - was either inadvertent (ie incompetent) or deliberate. As investors we can all draw our own conclusions.