Member Info for StarBright

Most of the volume today is OB, so via the MM's. That doesn't look any different to any other day.

I understand that the picture of market makers "accumulating" is popular, but there's nothing in the L2 data to suggest that it is the case, despite your assertion.

Given the volatility of equity markets (Ukraine etc) my hunch is that all MM's are on strict VAR limits right now, and few - if any - of them will be building positions in the way you propose. As such the quoted prices and completed trades likely represent a pretty clear picture of where the market in aggregate sees the value today. The idea that MM's are "holding the price down" is far-fetched and evidentially challenged...

@HKK:, what does “9x MMs are on L2 Accumulating!” mean..?

As I post I can see that the spread offered by MM’s is 190-200, and the last OB trade (presumably a sell) went through at 193.1p. So what is it that indicates the MM’s are “accumulating”..? Are they not just conducting two-way trade as normal?

Novacyt is, however, a French company.

Thank you @Dip666. I don’t know either. But in the absence of evidence specific to this JV I am not inclined to believe that the 5% under discussion (the move from 70% to 75%) has special significance in terms of control. I think we’d have heard this from one of the parties to the JV by now if it were the case.

@BabyHuey - your post/theory is nothing more than made-up nonsense. It exposes your complete lack of capital markets knowledge. You were right to mention tinfoil..!

@Dip666: “ If indeed 75% ownership represents an ability to make key operational and strategical decisions without our input as is common in Oz JV's ”

I’ve seen this (75%) idea mentioned previously. Where does it come from?

Hold your horses - there isn’t yet a “this”..!

Some hilarious posts here, even by LSE standards…

…and of course everyone knows that your historical average (“in price”) is entirely irrelevant when considering your response to any offer…

Where did I say anything about ramping up gold production?

I agree wholeheartedly that people don’t understand what they are talking about…

@Jerryspaniel - far far better to listen to Ned than to the myriad of youtube GATA gold bugs linked/quoted here daily. Whilst it is entertaining to speculate on the impact of gold prices exploding upwards, too little attention is paid to the wider impacts of the circumstances under which this might occur. Bretton Woods 2 would not be utopia for anyone. The hypothesis that those owning gold (much less those holding the equity of gold explorers/miners!) will be usefully enriched by the collapse of conventional monetary systems doesn’t bear close inspection. If we get anywhere near the point where you need the gold buried in your garden, be prepared for men with guns to relieve you of it. Modest upward pressure on gold prices will be far more useful.

@Kaeren said: "I would like to establish exactly who has the ability / responsibility for terminating an existing CEO's employ and appointing a new one."

The Chairman (James Wakefield) is responsible for the CEO appointment. Not the Rem or Audit committees!

Speculation here on DA being some sort of trojan horse 'plant' is far-fetched, to say the least...

They are generally not listed companies, so different rules apply.

@ValJu - the “certain funds” requirement is one of the six basic principles of the takeover code. The offerors financial advisor (appointment of which is mandatory) must conduct a cash confirmation exercise, and certify that the offeror has the required funding. It’s purpose is to ensure that only proceedable offers are tabled. The cash on the target company’s balance sheet is (theoretically) available to the offeror immediately upon completion. Banks will arrange short-term facilities to bridge the timing gap, but these can be difficult/expensive to negotiate as the code requires such funding to be unconditionally committed - which banks don’t like. A complex area!

@Taverham is correct. The $2.8bn Pretium transaction included a choice of cash or NCM shares, and many (most) Pretium holders have apparently opted for cash. The transaction completes this quarter. I don’t think for one minute that it cleans up all of the cash available to NCM, including its undrawn facilities, but it will be a major drawdown of the resources pointed to in their recent release. Some would say they should perhaps have drawn attention to this, but they would no doubt argue that it would be well understood by shareholders paying proper attention…

Without sight of the JV contract it’s impossible to say for certain, but the inclusion of a “change of control” clause would be a normal protection for the JV partners. Such a clause would be constructed to ensure that one partner isn’t able to threaten/leverage the other in the manner you propose.

@trading4good - of course we’ll hear about an agreed figure, there is zero chance of that not being disclosed. But don’t expect a commentary on the back- and forth- of negotiation, or disclosure of “our” valuation, NCM’s valuation and whether or not the independent valuer was called upon. All of this will remain confidential. I’ll be very surprised to see anything beyond a simple statement that the sale of 5% will proceed at an agreed figure of $Xm.

Don’t get your hopes up..! I expect we’ll hear nothing until either (a) a figure acceptable to NCM is determined one way or another in which case we’ll just be told that agreement has been reached and the sale will proceed at an agreed value of $Xm, or (b) NCM decide to forego their option (less likely, but still possible).

@ValJu - the cash on a target company’s balance sheet can’t be used to acquire the target company’s own shares. The offeror has to demonstrate in advance that they have the necessary capital to fully finance the acquisition without any of the target’s own cash.

@PaddyGall - I didn’t offer any comment on the approval process for a sale of the remaining 25%. The only view I was expressing is that the comments in the AFR article do not diminish the probability that NCM will seek 100% ownership of the Hav project in time.