Member Info for tbow112

"Please explain your reasoning Tbow."

The company seems to be getting into the habit of issuing discounted shares without considering the interests of other shareholders - eg. the shares issued at a significant discount to M&G and now shares issued to an unknown entity without a serious explanation as to who that entity might be and why the shares should be issued.

PA may have, quite justifiably, a poor opinion of the LSE but that is no reason to ignore those shareholders who have elected to participate in the company and would happily put up more capital if so asked.

Voted against all resolutions at the GM.

That is a dozen corporate resolutions voted against in a few days - certainly does not say much for British corporate governance.

Voted against all resolutions at the GM.

That is a dozen corporate resolutions voted against in a few days - certainly does not say much for British corporate governance.

Doc, the current share price values the Pitfield concession at about £400 million.

"If you listen to the posts here it seems that shorting this stock is common.

Just wondering whether this is the case ........................"

EEE is a stock that shorters would normally avoid unless they believe that

a) EEE is another Theranos and is simply a fairy story, or

b) that the TiO2 market is a lot more difficult than the stock market appears to believe and that EEE will be unable to produce TiO2 for less than the price that Chinese producers are prepared to accept.

That said, MasterRSI has clearly come across some peculiar trading patterns and it would be interesting to understand them.

When do these guys buy back their stock ?

One does get the impression that our financial advisor is remarkably generous when it comes to distributing company shares.

MasterRSI -- "Now no more conversation with you, .................."

That"s a pity because you could probably provide some useful information if you put your mind to it.

"Try again with a proper question. I do not DO shorts"

I am simply asking why you think certain sales are "shorts" when they appear to be unlike anything that a shorter would normally do.

There does not seem to be any disadvantage to you in educating all of us.

Perhaps you need to explain more about how your "shorts" work as they appear to do exactly the opposite of what I do when shorting.

For example, when do your "shorts" repurchase their shares ?

" Oh well, sh.it happens."

It is not really random sh.it, more a question of a company which is appallingly managed as far as retail shareholders are concerned.

What a farcical retail offer ! Our power cut lasted longer than the offer was open for.

If Nanosys were clearly operating without any infringement they would have chosen the court in Texas which already knows the case. Going elsewhere suggests that they are hoping for a different opinion.

Drill and blast are not needed at Pitfield.

"At 5.1% TiO₂, that’s roughly:

~1,100–2,200 per tonne of contained TiO₂ equivalent cost basis "

Surely, at current prices, that is far from a guaranteed bonanza.

https://businessanalytiq.com/procurementanalytics/index/titanium-dioxide-tio2-china-price-index/

Jim, simply looking at the readily available information it looks like a case of the people who originally set up the company not wanting to dilute their position, and being quite happy to see outside shareholders screwed to maintain that position. And the company management being quite happy to go along with that situation.

The original IPO was at 60p per share so there is still a long way to go before the initial public shareholders receive any return on their money whereas the current majority shareholders have not done too badly.

This is entirely speculation, so if anyone feels that it should be corrected, please go ahead.

Valii, where did you find that price ?

The current APT price is ?

Because TUN would be a great investment were it not for the controlling shareholders who have already made £5 per share unlikely.

Does anyone think it normal that a company would pay out over £100 million in return for a loan of £22 million when there was nothing dramatically unlikely about the success of the project ? And then the people making the loan expect an extra £10 million because the documents covering the loan were poorly drawn up.

Apologies - go that wrong. Should be over £170 million.