Member Info for StrummerJones

@grg.

You are a card mate. This screw up of an investment doesn't deserve you my friend ...... ;-)

@grg..

Not thinking about jumping yet. I have had no money, a fair bit, and none again more than once. So try and remain philosophical. As bl**dy annoying as this one has turned out.

I won't jump. But my missis may push me .... ;-) but that's another story.

Cheers.

Hi @grg.

I have had dealings with DJ on a few common shares. Personally, and it's just my opinion.
I have always been impressed with his analytical abilities at the early stage of an investment. He has always been open in sharing that also, nd at that point a great enthusiast.

However, I know he's not a lot of people's cup of tea later on for his actions. I know from the GGP, HZM, ACP, HUM, and obviously here bbs. That he has rubbed a lot up the wrong way.

Tbh. Somehow I give him more slack than many. As his initial reveal of a company has been open, and very useful. I have debated with him a few times though his "butterfly" methods of trading out, trading back in, trading out. But not being able to leave it at that. Always having to return and (in great detail), justify his current position (in, out or shake it all about!).

In my 3 odd years in this share he went back n forth a few times. Finally picking up on the car crash RNS and selling out for a 100k loss he says. After that I did politely suggest ( as it was clear that he would keep going at it, given his track record). To please desist.

But he can't help himself. I think maybe he's a bit autistic ( or similar) perhaps. As he certainly as you said, can't see that rubbing it in when people are at a low (as right as he may think he is).... Isn't the time to keep proding....

At the end of the day though. I hold no grudge with him. I genuinely don't think he is malicious. He just can't see the impact he may have. He seems to need the "justification confirmation", that his persistent reiteration of what he has done brings him. But thinks not of the impact on others sadly.

The 100k he's lost is of course substantial in anyone's life. But it gives him tbh no more justification to ram it down others throats than your potential 20k or my 334k.
All these, and everyone else's matters to them. But he can't see it.

The other poster on here. I have far less time for frankly. I think he/she is very much a malicious type, who actually enjoys the trolling game. A real keyboard warrior, sadly all too common on bbs. But that's just my opinion. So I now just ignore that drone.

Anyhow. What will be will be here. I just hope, and as in my couple of recent posts. If it is sold off, that we see a few buyers contesting to up the price a it. Since I fear here that looming uncontested sale, to clear the debts and fees and that's about it.

It's a great shame if it does go that way. As the resourse and product had so much potential. But that's investing & another lesson it looks like.

Regards.

Hi Martin.

So, & as per my post earlier today. The best way to ensure a reasonably valued sale is via competition. As clearly otherwise the debt + fees will be covered, but nowt else.

So are you saying that despite the past failures of financial management. There will be multiple suitors. Ergo, some kind of pricing uplift?

Can you be more specific?

Regards.

Fair enough. Bigger issues in play do agree - banks et al.

Most all shares selling off not buying at present.

Suspect our seller here will be back in, but likely lower & as they planned, at AN Other later date.

AIM I have slowly learned, even in good times, tends to work that way. Traders abound, and many frequent bb's.....

Take care....

Impossible to say if it's only one individual. But that pattern of selling off multi thousand clips all day mentioned last Thursday has clearly continued for the last 5 business days and counting.

Maybe a large distressed seller carefully offloading to avoid too big a drop. Though while they were supported by those 2 huge buys mid last week. Since then the price has dribbled down to reflect the selling with no obvious large counterbalancing apparent.

I guess for every seller there is a buyer, so assume these will be being picked up by the MMs for onward sale, and they clearly see a market here, which is good. But again, interesting.

It's almost tempting to think that someone is looking to short this. I know that's very unlikely on AIM. Though I am aware of another share that it's claimed by some has been a victim of this (ITM for what it's worth).

Probably unlikely as said. But the selling in these 2,3,5,8,10k chunks has been very noticeable this last week and goes on.

Cheers.

I have a lot of reasons to hope I am wrong here.

But surely now, & with this fast moving along to talk of auctions etc.

If you have ever attended a house "do it upper" one. You will know that if there is a reserve (if?). It will go for that unless there is competition.

I assume the reserve is the sum of the monies owed. So unless there are more than one suitor. Why would anyone pay more sensibly. Regardless of the fact the resource potential may warrant it we may feel....

Sorry, been too busy to follow the events fully. So maybe there is some clauses that can/will prevent the cheapest sell off. Happy to be corrected 100%.... But if not, then surely a distressed sale is just that, so seriously, talk of someone paying anything close to our perceived value is not realistic - unless, as said, there is more than one of them in for it?

Interesting trading patterns today. Someone selling clips of 2k, 5k, 12k, 5k and repeat all day. These at 1.4725, 1.47 etc.

Price didn't move as one may expect. I guess due to the 1m and 1.5m buys at 1.485 odd being filled.

As usual. MMs facilitating a big boy in at a price no Joe blow would get for those huge volumes.

Interesting.

In terms of declaring and agreeing an "Allowable Loss". I believe you have 4 years following the fin year of the loss to register it. Once agreed you can use the loss offset in future fin years to increase the standard CGT allowance and avoid paying CGT on any gains.

My understanding is that for shares in a trading account. If the company actually dissolves then you can make a representation for an Allowable loss compared to your purchase price. Just as you would if you had sold the shares for a loss.
However. If the company shares become of negligible value. But the company has not rdisolved.you must first make representation of the "Negligible Value". Then if HMRC CGT department accept that. You can then apply for the standard Allowable Loss. But not before.....

Shares in an ISA can't qualify for either.

I would suggest to be careful assuming that if your ISA provider/broker ultimately decided to move worthless shares to you trading account. That you can use them to claim any sort of formal "allowable loss". They were originally purchased in an ISA, and the decision to move them is the brokers alone.

As far as the HMRC Capital Gains office will be concerned. I am pretty sure they would not be eligible to be recorded as a usable Capital loss.

Thanks @Hippo, for the detail on a public auction.

So, on the assumption then that the auction reserve (set by the administrators) is the owed debt, say +-50m.

The left overs come down, as with all auctions. To if there is competition for the resource. If there is then extra monies accure. If there isn't it's sold for the debt one assumes.

I was simply trying to cut through as well for public info on who that extra monies may go too ( if that's the result). As of course there has been this ongoing view from certain individuals that we (RMM), by defaulting have forfeited the whole resourse.

As a non legal type (I am a technical guy by trade), it's not easy to see the truth from the ubiquitous trolls, as ever on this BB.

Cheers.

Yes. That seems logical to me.

But Smartpunter seems to repeatedly make the point that the resourse is now with the debtors. So just seeking to clarify?

Cheers.

@Smart

Genuine question. As this came up before and wasn't answered...

If Rambler owes (say) 50m, & the action is to sell. Let's say a couple of buyers recognise that the resourse is a good one and if run properly worth far far more.

If a mini bidding war happens and the sale realises 70m for arguments sake. Once the debtors have their 50m. Who owns the extra 20m?

Basically if it's the debtor's, as you imply that they now own the resourse - due to the defaults. Then why would they settle for only the 50m, if they may be able to get 70. This seems odd to me, unpalatable as it would still be for us of course.

If however they can only get back the debt they are owed. Then clearly if they won't wait and want the 50m. Then yeah, why sell it for 70, as they have no interest in us, the shareholders of RMM. So they won't press for more understand.

What's the legal situation, if you know?

Ta

@Monkey.

You enjoy revealing in others misfortune in real life too then I can only assume?

What a pleasant individual you come across as....

No idea if Moose is in any way related to you. But he seems more than bright enough to answer a few simple questions to clarify why he is posting here on his own.

I know you stated you get bored at weekends so continue to Troll bb's. So fill your boots mate. Some of us have a life and won't be reading your vitriol.

@Moose.
So clearly, you have strong knowledge of Canadian Mining process.
You joined LSE at the end of December, well into the financial foul up. Since then 31 posts. All on RMM ... Nothing to say on any other shares?

All not only telling us what we have sadly all found out.... The financial mismanagement. But also hammering it in that regardless., that indeed also the resourse isn't up to industrialising it. For all the reasons you point out repeatedly...

Kinda begs the question(s)....

A) So where were you a couple of years ago, to save us all the monies of investing then in something that you clearly see as having had no economic future ?

B) Why are you now using all that expertise banging away repeatedly here on this lemon though ... When you could be making money on viable plays elsewhere given your knowledge strikes one?

I am not disputing your very jaundice view now. As a large investor here I will be amazed if this isn't gone now from us the way it's been run. I try and be objective, as much as I would like it not to be so.

But... I do find the motives of some people here now, hard to fathom sometimes..... Or maybe it's not so difficult to under stand some of them, even at this stage....

Yes Fuku.

Agree it's looking dire now. I did read an interesting view elsewhere.
Basically the idea that NGen were a stalking horse, for unnamed loaners. That were basically looking to acquire the resource from some time back.

If the 5 Mill is more, but in from the same to secure... So from those still " interested" parties. That would make sense.

The resourse, at up to 2% Cu in a few years time. Will be a more than tidy sum, we all appreciate.

But likely now, for whomever requires/relaunches the company (Brad maybe, or AN Other?).

If they can take the mining advances, inject the capital, and run it professionally..... It will bring to a great earner IMO, and not just mine....

But existing holders look like toast sadly.

Big F*cks Small it seems?

What a shambles.

I found this looking up CCAA.

Not saying it's definitive by any means. But this hardly reads like the best time ever??

"Holders of common stock are typically last on the list. Quite often in CCAA proceedings, they get back none of the money they invested. Their old shares become worthless and often new shares are issued in the restructured company"......

With Iweb, which is Halifax @Free.

As said. Never had to use (in modern times) on main market, anything other than the standard online system to get prices.

Assume you are saying phone em and try and agree a deal for larger amounts? Good advice if it works for AIM PIs I guess.

Fair enough Bertie.

Not sure how many more times I can say that I will vote all my shares against this management if it ever comes to it. But there it is.

As to not lifting a finger. I think in my way over the last 3 odd years invested here. I have fought a few battles on this BB with both Uber rampers and derampers. People clearly looking to trade on others misfortune and influence sells or buys from them according to the traders current book position.

If you haven't seen that, then fine. But I have tried in a limited way here fyi.

Anyhow. We are on the same side. We think something is fishery here. As said, I assume that an RNS must come directly to explain their next steps. Let's see if that's been influenced by, as you say, the work you guys have put in?

Cheers.