Member Info for Theorist

I am not getting it. The company doesn't even have a mine and you think hydrology at Saltend is relevant?? I cannot think of anything more irrelevant. And the financing rate isn't relevant either. The company doesn't have an offer of financing on any terms. The ATF is also an irrelevancy. This is all about one thing and one thing only. Finance for a mine. Having a BFS and offtake agreements. Saltend and the ATF are smokescreens. I am surprised you can't see through them, sometimes I wonder if you are posting on behalf of the company, your recent posts are making me extremely suspicious.

Unless I am misunderstanding the data your figures for volume sold and sold value are just the AT trades. most of the recorded sales and purchases by value were off-book, as you would expect. Looking at the off-book transactions these are certainly not big boys buying out exiting retail investors, one large investor is definitely selling. You will know who next week.

Ok Mumbles, doing as I am told, started with your first post in May (share price 154p)
"Been in West Africa for 22 years, seen too many apparently great projects due to inability to raise finance. (Also seen a few basket cases, that also got financed). My concern isn't about short term share price gains, although that would be nice, its about the risk to the project. The finance risk, upon which all the other risks hinge, such as execution and operational risk would appear to be already built in to the SP, but the longer we wait, the greater the risk appears to be, bigger the discount will be applied to the SP. i cant imagine that their were no agreements in principle in place before the BP was published. wish they would get on with it."
Decided to stop at this point, better things to do!!!!!

Mumbles you obviously slept badly! Who did you have in mind?

Oh. Just an idea? Which of their other announcements are also just ideas?? And how do we know what are ideas and what are actual plans? Do we all just guess? So not mine to magnet after all, just mine to oxides then.

JMAT spends the best part of £600m and realises that it can never compete with the big boys on battery production. Pensana with maybe £10m left in the bank tells us that it is going to be a mighty magnet producer. Doesn't this just make you think how utterly ridiculous the whole mine to magnet story is?? Maybe it was just a PA wheeze in his unsuccessful bid to get some money out of the ATF, but it's still completely reckless behaviour.

I hope that RareEarther got his 411,000 shares.

More shares bought than sold?? I think the problem with your technical approach is that it doesn’t work when you have a volatile high risk stock where volumes are patchy (witness the recent price monitoring extensions) spreads are all over the place and MM’s are regularly having to step in and buy stock to maintain an orderly market. Same goes for the Chartists, wasting their time here. Also what you think is the last 30 minutes of trading almost certainly isn’t. You are looking at when the transactions are reported, not carried out. Also at the end of the day MM’s may drop the ask to clear stock they have bought in because they don’t want to hold overnight.

Classic SunDrum. I don’t have a Greek name, I was not brought up in the Uk and I definitely don’t support Arsenal. At least you are consistent, you’ve never been right about anything!

Happy to confirm that I have no relationship with LCM and I do not comment on behalf of any employer. Happy to also confirm I am not Greek!!

Tornado they've announced a competition to come up with a design for a viable plant. They have not announced that everyone in Saltend will be powered by Hydrogen in 2026!! Slight difference!

You’re not getting it. There will be no ATF grant. It has never had any form of approval at any stage. Contrary to the Company’s claims there has never been any stage of the process termed “Stage 1 progression”. It was extremely misleading of the Company to ever have indicated some type of approval and indeed this probably did not help their cause. In any event there can be no reason to create a link between a company that has nothing more than some mining rights in Angola with the transformation of automotive engineering in the Uk. It was always a somewhat fanciful long shot on the part of the Company, I am sure any balanced person would at least agree with that!

I can put you out of your misery. There will be no ATF grant for Pensana. Repeat no grant. Not a bean. You can stop wasting your time discussing it.

Wonder if anyone can answer this question? What would Moulding's tax liability be on his £830m share bonus? There must be a break even point, for example if the shares fell to 120p would he be better off giving the shares back?! just thinking that after tax foregoing the bonus might not cost him that much! I know that Company share incentive schemes can grant you shares 100% tax free but the cap is £3,600 per annum!

16th February 2021. Business Plan should land shortly including the BFS. Grant and debt funding offers coming out of their ears. Robbieishere. But could have been Mumbledrum or any of the other uprampers.

Which year?

Robbieshere its the Financial Services Act 2012 Part 2. You are looking at the Banking Reform Act. The rights of the FCA to impose penalties is bestowed by the Act. Look at the section in the FCA handbook regarding penalties. The handbook is not a voluntary code of conduct. It would be utterly farcical if, as you seem to believe, investors had discretion as to whether or not they file a TR-1. Or, for that matter, if someone could circumvent the disclosure requirements by interposing a nominee to conceal the identity of the beneficiary. Sorry mate, you are out of your depth here, best select reverse gear rather than make yourself look even more stupid.

Robbieishere. The powers of the FCA are clearly set out in the Act. The Act also confers upon the FCA the power to issue penalties against entities or individuals who do not follow the published guidance or rules. It is not a voluntary code of conduct. Note also the wording about direct or indirect holdings. Clearly if you directly or indirectly acquired rights in an instrument that does not confer voting rights, for example non-voting B shares, then no notification is necessary. I do not understand why you find this hard to accept. The FCA guidance and rules are critical to the operation of an orderly and informed market. It would be utterly nonsensical if these rules were voluntary or if they could be circumvented simply by parking acquired securities or rights in nominee accounts.

The authority of the FCA to make and enforce these rules is enshrined in the Financial Services Act 2012. There is no opt out from these rules. Companies on the regulated exchanges have to follow them. Imagine what an extraordinary farce it would be if some followed them and others did, or some companies followed them but not all the time! Having said that I do acknowledge that the rules do get broken but there are consequences. I also would agree that the use of the word “guidance” in the FCA handbook is unfortunate because it therefore sounds discretionary, which is quite misleading.

5.1.2 R
5.1.3 R
¦ Release 12 ? Oct 2021 www.handbook.fca.org.uk DTR 5/3
A person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he
holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or
indirect holding of financial instruments falling within ¦ DTR 5.3.1R (1) (or a
combination of such holdings) if the percentage of those voting rights:
(1) reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%
and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100% (or in the case of a
non-UK issuer on the basis of thresholds at 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%,
25%, 30%, 50% and 75%) as a result of an acquisition or disposal of
shares or financial instruments falling within ¦ DTR 5.3.1 R; or
(2) reaches, exceeds or falls below an applicable threshold in (1) as a
result of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the
basis of information disclosed by the issuer in accordance with
¦ DTR 5.6.1 Rand ¦ DTR 5.6.1A R;
and in the case of an issuer which is not incorporated in the United Kingdom
a notification under (2) must be made on the basis of equivalent events and
disclosed information.
[Note: articles 9(1), 9(2), 13(1) and 13a(1) of the TD]