Member Info for StarBright

ValJu - pretty sure you have misread/misinterpreted something.

XOFF TNCP trades are….. complicated, to say the least. They are sometimes placed as part of the process supporting OTC derivatives. These can (although I am NOT saying that this is happening here) be used to “manage” holdings disclosures. Watch this space,

@TT - that is a fair point. In theory (at least) the 145m shares could be issued without mining going ahead. Something of an edge case, but possible. Asking SD should satisfy our curiosity here…

@Sycho - if it’s just an oversight now being corrected then it’s no big deal. The original 2016 RNS contained summary details of what is no doubt a longer / more complex agreement. The RNS was accurate, if (necessarily, as that is the nature of a summary) incomplete. Better to disclose the additional detail now, as it looks likely to be relevant. The end state however is unchanged. All competent investors will have been using the fully diluted SII in any case.

The company’s decisions on disclosure look sensible to me. No need to make more of this than is necessary.

Assuming this hasn’t been referenced previously, there are two possible explanations:

1. The original agreement always contained this wording, but it wasn’t included in the summary details disclosed at the time. Someone (internal) has spotted this, and it is being disclosed now.
2. The original agreement has been changed.

1 seems more likely than 2. My guess is that this is more likely an oversight/mistake than a deliberate change. The best (closed) question to SD to get straight at this might be “Has the original agreement with PT been changed?”

Interesting development! I see it as increasing the likelihood of a compromise (where the price is determined with reference to BOTH valuations) over one party being the “winner” (where the price is determined to be one or other of the submitted valuations).

With the long term in mind, I think this is a positive/constructive variation.

Agreed @CaptainSwag. The three knowable factors are:
1. Favourable / final DHSC settlement
2. Confirmation of ongoing good sales/profitability
3. Biosynex takeover

A full-house is entirely possible ;>

As is a random re-rate independent / in anticipation of any of these.

If - as appears to be the case - Biosynex are building a position by buying shares on the market, then I don’t think it makes sense to expect a rise in SP on the back of each purchase/RNS. The disclosures will come with every 1% added, and there’s no real difference from 7% to 8% to 9%. It’s more likely now that we’ll see the SP react as and when Biosynex reveals its intentions. At this point, further PDMR purchases would generate more interest.

@BabyHuey - your presumption that NED’s can buy and sell whenever they want to is entirely incorrect.

Yes - more good news here. Company secretary (or whoever is charged with this decision in NCYT's structure) has evidently determined that there's no reason why directors shouldn't be buying. It'll be interesting to see if there's more to come.

My take on what we see is that it tells us that the directors are genuinely positive about prospects for the sp, but that there's no firm news on DHSC resolution or Biosynex intent. It's entirely possible that the company is seeing good underlying demand/sales/profitability in spite of the noise for shareholders...

Holders need only hold.

Thank you.

I don't work for anyone @Hydrogen.

Can you answer my question; why do you think there is a "...huge order at 14.9p" ?

@Hydrogen - why is there a "...huge order at 14.9p" ?

Well, I have added this morning as there appears to be a sale on. At this level, I think that the balance of risk vs potential reward is in favour of holders/buyers.

Simple tip - buy on red days, sell on blue...

It really isn't.

What do you mean by “agreed”..?

Agreed, @HS.

@BHSL1 - isn't +70% in 7 days enough to call a pop..?

I'm not saying that might not be more to come!

Clueless question!

Indeed!

Although something of a double-edged sword as he wouldn't have been able to make such a purchase were he to be holding price-sensitive information (eg pre-discussions about a potential offer).

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data.

https://www.ft.com/content/e26c93a0-90e7-4dec-a796-3e25e94bc59b