Member Info for StarBright

To understand better the “shenanigans” referenced earlier by PlantPower, it might be helpful to know a little more about Orca Capital, DEM Deutsche e Metalle and African Gold Partners. Who/what they are (the phrase Insto Investors isn’t enough), whose capital they are deploying, what their interests/objectives are etc etc etc

Also about Stephan Mueller, who is associated with both DGWA and Deutsche e Metalle. Mueller is shown as a NED on the German version of the company website https://caracalgold.com/de/ueber-uns/board/ but not on the UK version https://caracalgold.com/about-us/board-of-directors/

Looking at the “Media” page https://caracalgold.com/media/ there is a new link titled as “Caracal Gold - An shiny new star in East Africa”. It doesn’t link to anything (yet).

Anyone?

The phrase “Institutional Investors” is ill-defined and covers a multitude of possibilities.

At one end of the spectrum you have the marque-name providers of long-term patient capital - inter-alia the pension funds and a subset of high-profile collective funds - that every small-cap wants to have on their register. These investors are valued because they have reputations for investment acumen and diligent professional process built over many years. They will stand their corner in fund-raising exercises, vote your resolutions through and provide long-term stability to underpin your share price. Their very presence on your register is a seal of approval for companies and their management. It’s a big win to get these institutions on board; a win that can in itself propel your share price.

At the other end of the spectrum you have those who are only Institutional Investors under the kindest definition of the term. Here we find - for example - the nominee companies holding discounted placing shares for the clients of spivvy bucket shop brokers, and the “high-turnover” trading funds who perhaps lack the err…. process and compliance constraints of the high-end players.

Of course all of these help to make a market. All have roles to play.

On the LSE ‘boards we frequently see the loose phrase II’s used carefully to infer the desirable characteristics of the white-collar players on firms that are anything but patient providers of long-term capital. The proponents of this sophistry do so to try to persuade inexperienced retail investors that whatever they are ramping has the support of high-end professional investors. If II’s are investing then surely (1) that’s a seal of approval, and (2) their capital will drive the price up. What’s not to like…?

You have to look behind the veil of the phrase “Institutional Investors”. Not everything you will see there has the characteristics associated with the name.

Also possible that what we are seeing is Orca assembling a parcel for someone else. A grey area....

Ideas welcomed...

Sure. The MM's are doing their job of finding the price range in which both buyers and sellers are prepared to transact...

Orca at 9.32% now.

Punchy.

Too speculative / too many unknowns / too many moving parts etc for true II's at this point. Might attract some special-sits bottom fishers, but they aren't what the shareholder base needs. What will change this?

1. New CEO gets off to a good start and quickly establishes a new narrative
2. Profitable trading "ex-DHSC" is demonstrated
3. DHSC resolution - no further doubts over amounts in receivables etc
4. Wider acceptance that covid testing revenues are durable (at least for 3-5 years)
5. Clarity on intended use of growing cash pile (see 1)

All eminently achievable in the next 6m. 5 boxes ticked will trigger a re-rate and create the conditions to attract II's.

For now, a good balance of risk/reward for the speculative component of your portfolio. I have been buying sub £3.

Marik - Jupiter's short position is disclosed as 0.75% around 1.9m shares. roughly one day of average traded volume. I don't think it will be difficult for them to close out, either through a worked trade over a couple of weeks or (more likely) by picking a parcel from someone happy to accept a small premium. I think it is a mistake to expect Jupiter unwinding its position to have a material impact on price action.

To be fair Bluelight, many here have been impatient for 9 months....

The impact of the AGM issue is being overstated here. NCYT have had problems previously with quorums etc, and the French regulations provide a way forward. It’s a sideshow, presently being hijacked by frustrated posters looking for sticks with which to beat the BoD.

The endless cycle of expectation building and disappointment here is largely self-inflicted. The company will neither have been able to hold RNS-able news back or bring it forward to suit the scheduling of briefings like this. It’s good that we will get an update from management tomorrow, but to work this all the way back to whether or not there is an RNS at 7am is ridiculous. Events like the presentation have to be scheduled well in advance. RNS-able news rarely arrives according to a schedule…

Long term investors should look through the efforts of those motivated to create illusory inflection points with binary outcomes.

All good here thanks ST. No signs of desperation yet, but thank you for your concern.

I think (c). They didn't own any but have now acquired 5% through a series of trades concluding on 22nd.

Anyway - I would like to hear from ST as to where the info on them being "...in for the long term..." comes from.

I am happy to add below £3, and have done so today.

PP - your 12:10 post appears to refer to Orca as [existing] shareholders via the initial raise. I was just pointing out that the TR1 says they weren't as their previously notified position was 0%. Sorry if unclear, or if I have misunderstood.

I don't think this is about statements to shareholders/the market. More a question as to whether unusually onerous contract terms were agreed to in an unseemly haste to get the DHSC deal over the line.

Well their previously notified position was 0%...

Don't fall in love with their money ;)

Thank you Porky9. I appreciate your knowledge and commentary on this. Particularly your observation that that the sums involved were frankly never envisaged at the outset.

3 is the point though. The terms were the terms - and the company cannot look now to remake a bad deal simply because it does not like the outcome. But if a director acts knowingly against a company's interests, then legal considerations outside of express contract terms may apply. If I were on the Rem Com for Novacyt, I would be asking for comfort on this point via some sort of formal review before payments were made.

ST - what's the basis for your assertion that Orca Capital are "...in for the long term..."? Orca are typically opportunistic financial traders not investors. It's interesting news that they have a position, but they don't fit the picture of II's held by most retail investors. To be frank they are a long long way away from being stable/patient providers of capital. Did I miss something they've said with respect to GCAT?

Some good posts.

On the LTIP question, a central question is whether or not GM or other beneficiaries undertook any actions that were pro-payout, but may have been against the company's longer term interests. For example agreeing to onerous contract terms in order to have high-profile contract wins to announce. I'm not suggesting for one minute that this happened, but were I on the Remuneration Committee I would want some assurance that there was no danger of anyone popping up after the payments have been made with evidence to the contrary.

Thank you Radiagreen - that makes good sense.