Member Info for StarBright

@Mkx007, Big Rock has an RA contract for “over $14m annually” that is expected to account for 40% of its total revenue generation. It’s a “stackable” contract, with the balance anticipated to be generated through merchant energy sales, ancillary services, arbitrage etc.

If $14mm is 40% then 14/0.4 = ~$35m annual revenue

Some details here: https://www.energy-storage.news/gore-street-secures-stackable-resource-adequacy-contract-for-california-bess/

Looks like a very bumpy ride to me. I hope the message is getting through…

“…

Of the special resolutions (Resolutions 14-17), which required 75% of votes cast in favour to pass, Resolutions 16 and 17 passed. Resolutions 14 and 15 received support of over 74% but did not pass.

…

While Resolutions 5, 6, 12, and 13 passed, they received a significant number of votes against. The Board takes this feedback seriously and, in line with Provision 4 of the AIC Corporate Governance Code 2024, the Board will report on the actions it has taken to further engage with shareholders.

The Board also expects to undertake a further round of formal shareholder engagement in approximately six months to update on progress. “

Simples, @wolves90. A corrupt broker, acting in choreographed collusion with ALL the market makers, causes a magic short sell to be printed below the touch by manipulating the quoted bid prices posted by all RSPs. The magic print prompts inexperienced investors to lose confidence and give up their golden tickets. Later, whilst no-one is watching, another magic trade is placed. This time an invisible phantom buy that squares the books of the shady cabal without returning the price to “where we all know it should be”. The magic trades are repeated daily over an extended period, each one acting to depress the price.

It’s the magic short sell that I find particularly impressive. Just one 0.5% size position is enough to overwhelm the 100.5% of ordinary long positions, despite the owners of the 100.5% long positions also having access to all of the same tools (corrupt research analysts, bent journalists, colluding market makers, boiler-room bulletin board posters etc) as the shorts. Note also that the institutional owners of major long positions are entirely content to see the price manipulated - against the interests of their own clients - so they all look the other way and let the shorters conduct their activities without challenge.

Basic knowledge @wolves90, thankfully well understood by the expert posters here who nobly give up their time to protect the interests of inexperienced investors.

Monday….?

Whisper it quietly, but I understand that Doc Martens are regaining popularity in the US….

This is one of those areas where index construction and ETF reporting diverge in ways that aren’t obvious. The index methodology begins at the “Company” level, but the holdings report is made at the “Security” level. Greatland Resources is assessed for inclusion on its total market cap, free float and liquidity etc. Once qualified however, a replicating ETF can include one or more of its securities (GGP LN in London, GGP AU in Sydney) when managing its target weights.

For larger dual-listed miners such as Alamos, Endeavour or Equinox, the ETF can achieve its target company-level exposure simply by holding the most liquid or primary line, so we see a single entry. In Greatland’s case, both the London AIM and ASX securities are viable and liquid enough, but they sit on different share registers rather than being fungible depositary lines. The ETF holds and reports both lines, most likely because the ETF manager wants access via both exchanges for liquidity and timing reasons.

For investors in GDXJ the distinction isn’t economically material. The ETF targets a company-level weight, not a precise mix of AIM vs ASX shares. But because funds report their actual security-level holdings, we see Greatland twice in the list.

5% disclosure threshold in Oz, vs 3% here.

@9, I can answer some of those questions:

Can anyone tell me why Blackrock who bought 2.93% of voting shares, took another 0.12% of voting shares on loan? [No, but Blackrock doesn’t make many (if any) investment or voting decisions top down. A BR entity somewhere has borrowed the 0.12% and those shares are included in BR’s internal holdings consolidation]

Do Blackrock have the right to exercise those extra 0.12% votes, unless the lender recalls those shares for a "scheduled meeting" [It is normal for the borrower to take title, which means they can vote]

Who was the lender - was it Tembo or was it Firetail? [No idea]

I know Tembo play their cards very close . Firetrail on the other hand reveal through their own fund documentation, which explicitly notes borrowing (for shorting) and, by implication, lending (to generate extra revenue) as part of its strategy for absolute return funds. Did Firetrail lend to Arrow for the short? [No idea, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that an entity that borrows/shorts will also lend. Some fund regulatory regimes permit borrowing but not lending.]

I'm aware the UK Stewardship Code, suggests that asset owners recall shares ahead of critical votes, but in practice, many shares remain out on loan if no major controversy is foreseen, especially in passive or index-tracking portfolios (and that shapes cross listings apparently?). [Yes, they typically stay out on loan]

BlackRock’s filing reveals their investment is controlled through a gobbledygook structure of global subsidiaries, spreading over the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and various offshore centres. [This is entirely normal for a Global Asset Manager like BR. They have to operate through locally registered & regulated entities, so necessarily have a huge consolidation task to determine entity level voting rights]

Is it fair to assume that these numerous "individual" holdings lay beneath the reporting threshold? [Yes]

How many voting shares do Blackrock actually have? [The number they have disclosed in the TR1]

Has anyone "foreseen" the takeover bid that is coming our way? [Why do you suggest this?]

I did sell 70% yesterday but now timing the buy-back. [Good luck…]

No idea what Wyloo think, or are they part of it? [Part of what?]

Who knows hey?

RM say that that the market undervalues GSF's assets, and that poor governance is part of the problem. I agree.

RM say they are acting to provoke change, and they have - evidently - had some success. I am supportive of their efforts.

@IanCurtis123, you are right re the likely buying pattern for funds. But there is a wrinkle in that the Aus index fund space is dominated by ETFs not open-ended mutual funds. This is important because the AP’s who “serve” (ha ha!) the ETFs are absolutely incentivised to buy ahead of index inclusion. This because they can buy today to create baskets for delivery on inclusion date which they will then exchange for newly-minted ETF shares. So the passive funds themselves aren’t doing what some called “front-running” but their AP’s are. Typically the AP’s will hedge their positions by shorting the relevant ETF whilst they build their baskets. They will then close these short positions through the ETF shares they’ll receive. We are in the window where the AP’s will be active.

Just pointing out that Blackrock (one of the world's largest passive/index managers) have made a holdings disclosure today that includes their positions held through funds managed by:

BlackRock Australia Holdco Pty. Ltd.

BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited

Perhaps some of the promised "Massive Price Insensitive Buyers" have already bought...

Https://rm-funds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/RM-Funds-GSF-AGM-Statement-09-09-2025-vFinal-1.pdf

Authority to buy back up to 76m shares is to be renewed, albeit no purchases have been made under the existing authority.

That’s a desperate straw-clutch @jwoz…

The word “materially” is everyday language for businesses like Alien and Fenix. That each have used it in the last few months is entirely unremarkable. It’s far more relevant that Fenix’s release references an acquisition not a jv.

I’ll be delighted to be proved wrong on Monday morning, but there’s nothing to suggest that the idea Fenix and UFO are about to announce a jv is anything more than wishful thinking.

The “unknown” trades btw are likely mid-point-pegged orders, a trade type not typically available to private investors using retail platforms. As the name suggests they are filled at the mid-point, meaning the crude calculation utilised by sites like this one to classify trades as buys and sells is derailed. I don’t think they are particularly interesting or exciting though.

No response(s) to my email(s) as yet. I did send them to both the Nomad and ZIOC itself. It’s v poor that neither have responded. I’m away enjoying some golf in Sicily so haven’t been diligent in chasing. I will chase responses to both now.

Anything I receive I will share here.

Just before I tee up my ball….

The truly interesting part of the RNS is the reset in the convertible pricing to 75p, and the following text:

“ The Amendments are subject to the following conditions having been satisfied by 15 January 2026 (the "Long Stop Date"):

· Avacta completing a fundraise of, or receiving gross proceeds of at least £13,000,000 in aggregate on or prior to the Long Stop Date by way of:

o Entering into any partnership or other agreements in respect of its pharmaceutical products; and/or

o Any strategic investment into the Company; and/or;

o An equity fundraise”

This ball is going down the centre of the fairway…

This RNS is great news for holders. It’s a material reset of AVCT’s financing. More later when I’m back from golf…

“Lunanhead… …has been sold to a third-party buyer at a price in line with the 30 June 2025 carrying value.”

Useless info without the sale price. How are we to know whether this is a material cash inflow or not? Given that this is a company trying to reduce debt… The carrying value is essentially irrelevant.

A classic example of the the opaque / obtuse disclosure practices that are undermining trust in this sector.

The trade disclosures today are compliant with the delayed trade reporting rules. The rules are there for a reason - they improve liquidity and price discovery for the benefit of all market participants. It’s fine if you don’t understand them, but perhaps take the opportunity to improve your knowledge rather than just parading your ignorance by describing something you (evidently) don’t understand as “Bent as f**k”…

Here are the rules: https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/20240520-mit-and-te-parameters-version-8.9.xlsx you’ll need to look at the “Delay Regimes” tab.

HTH.