Member Info for Theorist

Mumbles this is perfect. Why don’t you ask him why he removed those claims? And ask him if those claims are completely accurate. He has the perfect opportunity to set the record straight. Then come back and apologise to me.

Were I to have lunch with Paul I would ask him why his claim to have been the executive director of the investment banking arm of HSBC and Chairman of the British Chamber of Commerce in China has disappeared from his profile on the company website. I would also ask him if he got a first class honours degree from Imperial College. Should I address him as Paul from accounts?!

This will never go on Nasdaq. The $4 is but one of a host of requirements that would have to be met. Governance would be one problem. The recent RNS about a placement subject to DD would come back faster than it went in. The Nasdaq suggestion is classic Atherley, an ill considered off the cuff remark calculated to give the impression that this about to fly.

Mumbles. Answer this question please. When the mystery investor with the $100m completes his due dliligence, whenever that might be, what happens if at that point the share price is 60p and what happens if it is 120p? Do you see the very obvious flaw? There’s no downside for the mystery investor. At 60p,he withdraws citing a problem with the due diligence. At 120p he trousers a $50m slam dunk paper windfall having taken no risk whatsoever!!. Assume Atherley knows that. Is that why the identify of the investor is being concealed for the time being??

It’s interesting the language that the company uses. First why would you bother with a $3m placement if you had just agreed a $100m one? I guess because the need for $3m is urgent and/or the $100m might not happen. A question arises about governance, letting the cash position get so urgent. Let’s say the due diligence for the $100m takes 3 months and in 3 months time the Sp is $0.50 or $1.50. If it is 50cents I guess the strategic investor walks or renegotiates. If it is $1.50 the investor has a ridiculous deal, extremely punitive to existing shareholders. Has anyone thought this through? Has the company thought this through? And what about the announcement itself? This deal is subject to due diligence. What are its prospects? The announcement says the investor HAS subscribed subject to DD. Not they WILL or they MAY. Is this subtle language designed to lock in the $1.05 option for the investor? This is typical Pensana, ambiguous, uncertain, poorly executed, a bit devious imo.

Mumbles. If the market cap of a company is £400m and you wish to buy a quarter of it you would expect to pay £100m if there was no premium or discount. Obviously. If someone says you can buy a quarter of the business for just $100m that’s a lot less. A discount. It doesn’t make a difference whether you get your 25% by buying existing shares or subscribing for new shares. If it’s new shares then those new shares would have to be at a substantial discount for the maths to work.

It seems every RNS is cryptic and ambiguous. You can tell by scanning the 20 posts below, nobody really knows what’s going on here. But there’s a wider problem. Experts and institutions do not trust the information they are given. There is serious doubt whether the resource is what the company says it is. There is almost derision at the $210m price tag on the mine. Nobody quite knows whether there is committed funding or where EXIm comes in, if at all. Nothing but nothing is ever quite what it seems. Saltend? All the MOU’s with Who. Absa. Exim. Personally I don’t think any part of this is real. Every time the share price flags there is a new stunt. Nasdaq. A MOU. More spectacular drilling. It’s a relentless tide of dubious promises.

If it was an informed market you wouldn’t be needing AI to help figure out if they really have committed funding. Perhaps there’s a glitch and that’s why they’re talking to EXIM? Sticking photos on the company website isn’t a substitute for proper announcements. Is there committed unconditional funding or isn’t there? A or B. Not a tough question. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

Reptile, why not have a go at answering the questions? Were they too difficult for you? Similar questions to what SmartPunter has been asking. You can peddle China’s ecclestone cr-p all day long, it’s childish stuff that keeps four or five of you entertained, but why not take two minutes to present your explanation of the EXIM announcement given that the market was informed in March that the mine had committed funding?

So aside of the predictable abuse why is the company talking to EXIm if the mine is already funded (as announced in March)? And if it isn’t fully funded or there is some issue holding back the funding shouldn’t the market be informed? And how is it with all the inflationary pressures in the market that the cost of the mine has not increased? Is that genuinely plausible? Is there a BFS? These are key fundamental questions. Call me Chris, call me what you like, you should know by now that’s a waste of time, but why not either answer the questions or admit you cannot (in which case you shouldn’t be a shareholder).

So it seems not a lot has changed in 6 months. The mine was funded, then it wasn’t. Having announced full funding for the mine in March, they announce in October they have a letter of interest (whatever that is) from EXIM for funding the mine that is already funded! Then a real Atherley pearler, a Nasdaq listing, honestly you couldn’t make some of this stuff up. Saltend blown away, it was never going to happen anyhow, more spectacular drilling, more MOU’s with WHO’s, little surprise that the rug has been pulled from under the share price. And same old, abuse Smart Punter, you have to give him credit for his perseverance, he talks more sense that China and his dreary gang. I’m thinking 60p the next stop, maybe by the end of the month. Hope you missed me!!

China you’re sounding like a pervert. Your post is extremely distasteful and quite a shocking insight into your true character.

China old boy, I realise that in your advancing years everything becomes a little confusing for you. I actually find your conviction that I am Ecclestone quite amusing, purely because it is so completely bonkers. A bit like Humdrum's theory that the share price is falling because of manipulation, not of course because there is still no word on conclusion of the finance or because nobody believes you can build this out for $200m. Or maybe you just hoped that someone would step in and scoop the company up in the rare earths panic? Anyhow I am very happy for you to throw rocks at me, all supporters get upset when their team loses.

There’s obviously not 700,000 plus robotics companies in China. Somewhere in the translation two noughts got added!

Tony I am certain you are a really nice guy but honestly. The only thing that matters here are the fundamentals. Like what has happened to the absolutely imminent slam dunk financing?

I wonder why the cap is £66m. It should be much lower than that.

Reptile I am not sure you should be posting here. Or if you do each post should be coupled with a statement that you are working for the company or its agents. Just so that when you make a statement like “this share is going to triple” everyone knows where you are coming from.

Mumbles, you are being ridiculous. Why don’t you just spit it out and say you don’t understand the Lse numbers either. I couldn’t give a fig if PA’s shareholding has gone up or done, it’s frankly irrelevant. What is fifty times more important is figuring why the shares are tanking after the financing announcement. The direction of travel may be disappointing for you and certain others but it is no excuse for the unwarranted abuse.

FFS Mumbles, of course you would think that where the LSE site gets its numbers, the simple question I asked and about which you have all got so exercised is if that is the case why is the LSE site figure 1.4m shares less???

Well if you uprampers are so smart how do you explain the 22p share price? Or the LSE figure for PA’s shareholding? For once I thought the Lizard had produced an answer, should have known better!