The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
I'm pleased to report that my broker has seen the light and agreed to execute the open offer entitlement from my maxed-out ISA into my trading account. Many thanks to @Bannor and others on here who provided key information that helped me build the case.
Retail broker staff sometimes do not master the intricacies of their own environment, especially when it comes to front-line employees whose job is simply to relay messages to and from non-client-facing teams (in this case, "Corporate Actions"). Persistence and polite escalation can actually win the day!
Well, they are double blocking the version with blanks inserted as well.
Try this backwards :)
ku.seimmer@
@ ************* . u k
Can't believe LSE is still blocking that word!
@Bannor
Makes sense. I'd like to give them a reference point though. Perhaps you could email me? tradecraft@*******.uk
@Bannor
That's excellent news. My case is still "under review". I will call them again on Monday.
Would you be willing to share your case number so that I can refer them to the positive decision they made on your account?
Hi @Bannor
Some further detail from the offending broker, after escalating to the corporate actions management team earlier today:
"Having discussed this with our management team, unfortunately I have to advise that it isn't possible for us to facilitate that from a technical standpoint. The underlying settlement accounts/systems which govern our ISA and nominee accounts are completely separate; it would not be possible upon processing your entitlements through CREST as the qualifying holding, as the offer document requires, to use funds from any other account than the qualifying account. The only way to facilitate an acceptance of the offer would be to free up space in your ISA by selling some of the stock."
I know for a fact that this broker uses the same core platform as at least one of the other brokers who are facilitating this "external funds" manoeuvre. So I have written back to challenge them again. More on principle than anything at this point, as I don't expect them to budge.
@heidhoncho
Although the thread you started has taken a different direction, I just wanted to say that I also prefer KDNC to hold the Sonora JV as long as possible. I suspect that I am not alone among long-term holders here. Amapa actually makes this possible, and the reward will be significant. Selling off assets when they are performing well is a good strategy for an investment company (cf @Bannor's comment re EMH) but not if the performance is a "local peak" with greater potential further down the road.
@gary25
From Companies House records:
## Zest Group plc
13 Apr 2010 Appointment of David Anthony Lenigas as a director
13 Oct 2010 Appointment of Donald Strang as a secretary
29 Nov 2010 Company name changed zest group PLC\certificate issued on 29/11/10 [my note: name changed to Rare Earth Minerals plc]
## Rare Earth Minerals plc
21 Nov 2011 Termination of appointment of Donald Strang as a secretary on 15 November 2011
21 Nov 2011 Appointment of Kiran Caldas Morzaria as a secretary on 15 November 2011
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05234262/filing-history?page=5
@bigdouble
@EV_Bull's figure of USD 24m is corroborated by the "waterfall" document (cf. KPMG trove and my transcription)
JRP page 15804 shows:
DIP A&B (Inflow) (NewCO) -- (2019) 21,600 -- (2020) 86,400
The JRP is expressed in BRL '000 and uses a BRL/USD exchange rate of 3.6. So expressed in USD '000:
DIP A&B (Inflow) (NewCO) -- (2019) 6,000 -- (2020) 24,000
The USD 6m in 2019 is made up of 2.5m for 20% and 3.5m for 27%. Yes this hasn't happened yet but we would like to think it is "imminent"...
So the USD 24m would be for the remaining 22%.
Top post from @EV_Bull at 1615 UK. Well played.
Closely followed by @Masterbaker with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintinnabulation
Interesting to see the disruptors show up today. Sometimes a good sign but who knows.
@observer842
In my spreadsheet I assumed a production rate of 5.3mtpa. This is equivalent to one bulk carrier every 3 days (near enough, assuming 45kt per load). So once the stockpiles are exhausted, the limiting factors will be: production rate at the mine; transfer rate on the rail link; and availability of vessels. Anglo American did report in 2012 a slightly higher production peak of 6.1mtpa. But could it go much higher than this without hitting a bottleneck on one of these three limiting factors? I guess the PFS might bring some clarity.
@observer842
No new spreadsheets from me at this point. The only thing that has varied is the price of iron ore, and I won't pretend to be able to forecast that more accurately than anybody here. Otherwise I've not seen any material changes in the underlying numbers, so I stand by my previous projections.
The "waterfall" documents (balance sheet, P&L, cash flow) that I transcribed were published by DEV in 2019. My expectation is that Cadence will publish their own revised NPV for Amapa once the scoping study is complete. I expect we will all want to update our own valuations (and exit prices) once that happens.
@MerMillions
Good to see you still here.
Could it be that we are almost there...?
@EV_Bull
All good comments.
Your #1 though outweighs all the others.
Wait. Wait. Wait.
Then wait some more.
Calculate (if you like data).
Accumulate (if you like the results).
Harvest your fruits (imminently).
Each to their own but that's what I'm doing...
@EV_Bull
Definitely worth keeping an eye on that source. This is how I was able to transcribe the P&L / Balance Sheet / Cashflow (strangely named "Waterfall") a few months ago. The visit reports and creditor updates also have a few nuggets including pictures that I have not seen posted elsewhere. The link is readily available to anyone who reads the court PDFs carefully.
@Legalease
I have also re-read my own post and of course you are correct, the phrase "res judicata" would not be used directly. I should have listed it as the meaning of #4, not as a potential item to look out for. Thank you for keeping us on the straight and narrow.
@Legalease
Thank you for your considered commentary. I'm well aware that #5 is Latin, having studied the language for many years. Quite a few legal sites suggest that #4 is considered in Brazilian law to be the equivalent "doctrine" (to use your term) to #5, and therefore relevant to the final conclusion of the DEV case. They also suggest that #3 and #4 are the terms that pop up on court pages when cases move to a final, non-appealable conclusion (as opposed to intermediary conclusions, i.e. #1 and #2, of which we have had so many). I'm happy as always to be proven wrong, but I will not be surprised if the big news we are all waiting for is preceded by one of these two phrases.
Thank you Ray. I will borrow Paul Newman's words from his Grauniad interview in 2005.
"I'm like a good cheese. I'm just getting mouldy enough to be interesting."
I've done some deep googling + translate on the following (and DeepL is a phenomenal tool as well...):
1. Conclusos para Decisão
2. Conclusos para Despacho
3. Conclusos para Sentença
4. Trânsito em Julgado
5. res judicata
We've seen loads of #1, one of #2, none of #3 or #4 or #5.
My personal opinion is that nothing moves significantly until we get to #3/#4/#5 on the e-SAJ page.
But then I'm no lawyer, no Brazilian, and I've already missed tonight's kick-off so I'm going to settle into catch-up with a Laphroaig and the remote control.
@observer842
You're right. If I had a second set of hackles, those would bristle too.