Member Info for StarBright

There you go. @pumpky gets it. If Liverpool Uni were involved in testing and gave “glowing” results before receiving £10m from the company whose products were being tested then that is possible evidence of corruption.

Can anyone point to anything similar with Strathclyde Uni? Were they involved in the decision to award the LFT contract to Innova?

Suggest you read my post again @Cashless.

Strathclyde University is to receive £50m from someone closely connected with Innova, who have a £3bn+ contract with UK Gov.

Were Strathclyde University involved in the decision to award the contract to Innova? Or are they just innocent recipients of a gift - albeit one made possible by a profitable contract with Uk Gov?

If the £50m had gone to Prof Peto’s college (for example) there would be a link to investigate, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Is there evidence that someone involved in the decision to award the contract to Innova has benefitted from the £50m gift to Strathclyde Uni?

I’m not immediately convinced that this is the smoking gun it seems to be being interpreted as.

Corruption is demonstrated when someone involved in a decision making process is shown to have benefitted from an undeclared payment.

Has that happened here? Who? How?

Great summary of stuff that actually matters… Thanks.

It’s a fool-proof plan. What could possibly go wrong?

The flat tailspin that BiggL’s occasional posts seem to induce here really isn’t warranted. His posts won’t be having any impact on the share price. Suggestions that he is “the shorter” or a paid poster on a mission to secure a lower buy-in are likely well wide of the mark. I suspect he’s just a mischief-maker, poking a stick into a hornets nest in search of a reaction which he gets every time… Posts harking back to the $3k/oz etc and other attempts to ridicule are just efforts to play the man rather than the ball. Far better to tackle the substance of his assertions.

So it’s unfortunate that the thread in which he’d already been drawn out a little in terms of outlining his thinking has been deleted. I was looking forward to examining the case he was slowly being encouraged to set out. But it would have been better to have him further along the branch before starting the chainsaw. Such a shame…

In this instance I agree 100% with those (notably Hydrogen and Texlax30) pointing out that there are many contemporary transactions with implied in-situ prices that are multiples of $93/oz. This single point is a substantial rebuttal of what BiggL proposed.

@loftmonkey57 - if you read my post above from 16:56 I have set out how this works. There are rules - the “class tests” - that determine whether or not shareholder approval is required for the disposal of an asset.

@SaS - I’m not sure that I understand your question. All proceeds from potential sale(s) of GGP’s interest in Hav will benefit GGPs shareholders. If NCM were to offer (say) £1.2bn for the remaining 30% then my assessment is that one or more of the class tests would be exceeded by 75% so shareholder approval for the proposed transaction would be required. Smaller disposals (say £200m for the next 5%) would fall between the 10% and 75% thresholds so would would trigger a formal notification, but shareholder consent would not be required. Does that help?

@SaS asked “…what happens if an offer came in just for the asset ? Does anyone know the answer to that ?”

The answer is that a sale of part (or all) of GGP’s interest in Hav might or might not require shareholder consent, depending on the size/materiality of the proposed transaction assessed using something called the “class tests”. The class tests examine a proposed transaction using 5 measures: Gross Assets, Profits, Turnover, Consideration & Gross Capital. Each measure utilises a specified numerator and denominator to derive a percentage indicating the materiality of the proposed transaction. A “substantial transaction” is one which exceeds 10% in any of the class tests; it triggers a shareholder notification. Only a disposal exceeding 75% in any of the class tests would require shareholder consent (50% of those voting, tbc*), via a GM. Based on today’s figures, an asset disposal at <£475m *could* be below the 75% level on all of the class tests. As always - I am happy to answer questions on this.

To consider the wider question of “What’s in it for Shaun Day?” it is important to understand the qualities needed to gain a position as CEO of a FTSE250 market-cap company. These roles are highly sought after, and rarely go to anyone who is not highly professional and intrinsically motivated. Shaun Day will be driven to do the best for his shareholders, because he will know that his professional peers are watching. That - rather than daft ideas about £££ and a soft role with NCM - will be what drives him on every day. High profile roles are subject to constant peer scrutiny, and Shaun is early enough into his career that he will want to be seen to do the best job possible for GGP’s shareholders. After all this is his first CEO role. GGP is about as far from a lifestyle company with soft director roles as you can get. I think it is specious to consider that he will be swayed by personal considerations in the manner proposed. Having seen him in action (in interviews and the AGM etc) I am 100% confident that he’s a pro and will play GGP’s cards as well as he can.

Correct @Hydrogen. Those are cancelled trades not cancelled orders, so not spoofing. The whole point of spoofing is that it doesn’t leave footprints in the market - because cancelled orders aren’t printed. Those are cancelled trades. The distinction between an order and a trade is important.

I think you have L2 access. Watch the order book (the entries under the yellow strip). If spoofing is taking place you’ll see orders placed here - to impact apparent depth/liquidity - but then cancelled before they ever become trades.

Interesting interview - thanks.

Is the Sprott holding in a discretionary fund or an ETF that tracks an index?

Good work @Ninkynonk.

@Ninkynonk - is that something you wrote (good job if so) or a media report? If the latter could you post a link please?

@JSP123 nailed it…

I have made a couple of minor changes and fired this (below) to my MP and others….

“ An unbelievable situation of our own making, with (luckily) a solution at hand. How is the UK short of LFTs? Perhaps the answer lies within the UKRTC. How has the government has ignored the capabilities of British companies such as Abingdon Health, Avacta and Omega Diagnostics? The UK has the ability and capacity to provide itself with UK designed and built tests. Instead we choose to run out of tests sourced from China that the FDA in America refuse to use. Why are we using second rate tests when better ones are available in the UK. Designed in the UK, built in the UK, available for the UK but so-far ignored by HMG. It is time to put this right.”

IF the government (either government…) knock on ODX’s door, I hope someone at ODX is ready and waiting to play hardball on contract terms. This is the moment.

As you were Damo. Eyes front.

I like the tone and content of the year end letter. It is factual and measured. Carry on…

*NCM every time sorry, not NMC. You knew what I meant..!

Can red herrings gain legs…..?

Let me try to clear this one up:

- the document shared by @Bamps21 earlier discusses the accounting treatment of shared enterprises in the mining sector. In simple terms there is a question over the point at which a joint venture like Hav has to be “consolidated” in the financial statements of its primary owner. Consolidation requires different accounting treatment so affects the way financial statements are prepared.
- In NMC’s 2021FS, Hav is treated as a JV (ie not consolidated) because NMC had only a 40% interest. In their 2022FS I expect it will be consolidated because: (i)NMC’s %interest has increased beyond 50%, (ii)they have operational control of the project and (iii) a majority representation on the JV board. It is largely “theirs”.
- These are the tests referenced in the paper @Bamps21 shared. They are applied by accountants to determine accounting treatment. There is nothing special about the 75% figure! The document is not easy for a layman (in this sense a non-accountant) to read/interpret. @Bamps21 appears to have misinterpreted an example used to illustrate the workings of the tests via an imaginary 3-way JV in which 75% represented a controlling interest. It’s not relevant to NMC/GGP/Hav so should be disregarded.
- TLDR - there is nothing “magic” about the 75% figure. It isn’t a threshold beyond which “control” is deemed to have been gained. It won’t support a higher (or lower) valuation for the 5%. In fact it won’t be a factor in the valuation/negotiation of the 5%. It’s just a misreading of a technical accounting document…
- Happy - as always - to answer questions…

@Bamps - perhaps go back and take a closer look at section 6. You are (inadvertently I am sure) misrepresenting the relevance of the 5%. It’s not a magic number as you propose and what is outlined in sections 6&7 will not impact upon the valuation/negotiation for the 5% in any way.

It relates only to how the proper accounting treatment of the Hav project within NCM’s statutory accounts is determined. It is part of determining when the Hav project has to be fully consolidated within NCM’s financial statements vs being treated as a JV. The move from 40% and the terms of the JV agreement will be the primary considerations, so I expect to see consolidation from the 2022 FS onwards. If you want to see how this might progress, take a look at the notes regarding Red Chris (which has been consolidated since FY2020) in NCM’s financial statements.