Member Info for Theorist

I think you have forgotten something Tony. For this world beating grand plan to work don't you need a mine?!

My understanding of the listing rules is that all director sales and purchases should be notified almost immediately and the notification would show in the filing history at Companies House. If Atherley bought £600,000 shares through the placement why hasn’t that been notified? Not mischief making, just interested.

I don't see why the current share price would mystify anyone. The stark reality is that Pre has nothing at the moment other than some mining rights in an African republic. They don't have any particular expertise or technology (which is probably why there has been no further progress with the ATF), they have broken a string of promises, two key non execs have left recently and on the same day, there seems to be no progress with financing a mine and the company has a market cap of roughly £225m. To me this seems a very high number for what is in reality no more than a hope valuation. That hope is slowly fading and that is why the share price is falling. It is nothing to do with shorters or downrampers, it's just an incredibly obvious fact. Saltend is just a diversion. Until and unless the Company can announce committed financing to develop the mine the SP will continue to fall, certainly to 80p and very possibly to 50p. Even at 50p the hope valuation is still a whopping £110m. It is naturally very disappointing for shareholders and as we can see there are some ridiculous fights breaking out as everyone grapples in different ways with the reality of what is happening here.

Interesting post Tony. Purolite have been going 40 years and Pensana in its current form 12 months. There is no evidence of any expertise in these resin based processes within Pensana, wouldn’t it be utterly miraculous for the Company to hit on a unique process for purging the radionuclides in just 12 months? Put it another way, if the claim turned out to be false wouldn’t it have seemed so damn obvious? I would counsel extreme caution.

I don't always agree with dumbpunter but on this occasion I believe he is absolutely right about the Thorium problem. Thorium is present in many if not most geological structures and is of course totally safe within those structures. Once it is disturbed or extracted it is a different story, with dust drift and water contamination becoming serious risks. There is a clue as to the danger from the periodic table, Thorium sits two to the left of Uranium for a reason! Sadly there are less developed countries that hide from the tailings risk, for example Brazil before Samarco and New Guinea with Lithium. It is not credible that Pre, with its limited experience and technical know-how, even with assistance from Wood Group, have come up with a hitherto undiscovered process for rendering the Thorium inert or safe by simply blending it back with the tailings. One downside of Saltend is that were Pre able to finance the mine, a massive question mark of itself, and send the product to the UK for refining, the UK becomes accountable if one by-product is an environmental disaster for Angola.

I agree with you. I found on the net a copy of the register from March of last year. Remarkably few of the larger investors remain on the register, outside of course AWF and directors. That would suggest that many have taken their profit. I guess only to be expected given the fabulous run they had for 12 months.

Why do you find the need to abuse everybody who posts something contrary to your own view or opinion? You state you know for a fact that 3 shareholders hold over 35%. Details of the largest shareholders are as poster Tony pointed out on the Pensana website. Looking at that I can see that the holding of Vynben Pty Ltd matches that of Hohnen. Aurora Nominees must be Maclachlan. I guess that as and when Pensana updates the information on their website we will be able to see if those shareholdings reduce.

This is a forum not a love-in. Childish statements like yours are of no service to investors. Informed debate about important events such as this will benefit all investors. For example I don’t have access to the share register although anybody can pay to see it. There could be somebody in the forum who does. Wouldn’t you want to know if these two guys are buying or selling? Just how valuable would that knowledge be? They know everything, if I knew they were selling I would be out the door in a flash. Conversely if I knew they were buying I would accumulate.

Not sure that I agree it is ridiculous putting up theories. Two guys very close to PA for decades resign on the same day. Obviously not coincidental timing so there must be a reason the company doesn't wish to share with us. There's obviously been a bust-up over something pretty serious because Pensana has been a phenomenal gravy train for them.

The simultaneous retirement of the two non execs is a matter of considerable concern. Maclachlan and PA go back 40 years or so, they worked together at HSBC/Wardleys. Hohnen has been close to PA and Maclachlan for many years. So what inspired their simultaneous resignation? There are only a few possible explanations and none of them positive. The first and most likely is that they fell out with PA. The second that something has happened at Pensana that they fundamentally disagree with or object to. The third that having amassed an extraordinary 7 million shares between them for nominal contribution they wanted to cash in. I don’t think there is a fourth, the timing and the coincidence is too overwhelming. So which is it? As non execs selling their shares wasn’t an option. If serving directors sell their shares, exec or not exec, it is likely to start a stampede. The only way for Maclaclan and Hohnen to cash in on their extraordinary bounty was to resign and then sell, indeed some of their shares may well have ready leaked onto the market and explained some of the bulky sales recently detected. Maclachlan is a loss because he is the only director with the nous and the experience to pull off a financing. The fact that he has headed for the door is an extremely alarming message. And why may they have fallen out with PA? Is there something the company has done that has made them feel their position was untenable? Was there some skullduggery around the placement that they wanted or needed to distance themselves from? Have PA’s claims become too outlandish for even them to accept? Do they believe Pensana is doomed? Whatever the answer this is a very significant event in the short life of Pensana and a matter for genuine concern. It also explains the mystery that a number of posters have alluded to, ie the discrepancy between the placing price and the SP. I think we now know why the shares are trading well below the placing price. The worry is that two old hands have walked out and they probably almost certainly know a great deal more than we do. A very bleak day for Pensana.

I know that private companies can allot shares without shareholder approval if they have only a single class of shares. Main board UK listed companies need shareholder approval for a placement. In PRE's case they obtained shareholder approval for various placements at the AGM in November. Resolutions 15 and 16 gave authority for certain placements but in both cases subject to Listing Rule 7.1. However Listing Rule 7.1 is an Australian listing rule that only applies to companies with a market cap under A$300 million, which in any event would disapply Pensana. So I cannot see where the shareholder approval for the placement already exists. Basic company law does not allow main board public companies to make a share placement without shareholder approval, that's why all the resolutions are proposed either at the AGM or a specially convened meeting. I am just worried that the Company and its advisers have overlooked the precise wording of the above resolutions or just thought that they would do. Maybe I will bung the company secretary an email and ask him.

Have checked the resolutions and the articles (just looked at the companies house filings) and cannot see where the placement authority exists. There was a resolution in December 2020 but that authority expired in March. Just intrigued by the fact I cannot find it. Not aware amin0406 of any blanket authority for main board companies, where did you find that?

The market makers do not match all sales with purchases, they often carry forward overnight a surplus or shortfall of stock. Overtime if sales volume exceeds purchase volume the sp must fall, but not necessarily in any one given day. If you look carefully you will notice throughout the day the bid offer spread widening and narrowing as the market makers deal with their surpluses or shortfalls. Market making is a science all of its own.

Just wondered if any of you experts can explain to me how the placement works. I see it says no shareholder approval required but I thought all issues like this needed approval unless some existing resolution covered it? I know it's an anal question, I was just intrigued as to how this all works.