Member Info for tricky1276

The last few posts have been absolutely on the mark . I also have been holding for many years and have no intension to sell for at least 7 years . Judging by the silly volume they have successfully shaken out all the weak holders .

PGMs are up along with other metals , but the large rise here is JLP specific . The likes of SLP are up only marginally .

Why focus on the RH price ? Just one of the 4e elements . Platinum is not far off highs .
This company is very nimble they can focus production to the higher margins.
ATB

Ai is a threat to day traders etc.
So just sit back , pick up the divs and sell if needs be when the sp bounces back.

Similar , got some more @ 11.89 . What a pleasure
GLA

Mammon I worked at Luanshya / Baluba mines for RCM / ZCCM Zambia and spent a great many hours in the Luanshya concentrator , not being a chemist it was a bit of a mystery to me how the floatation process actually worked . But I was in mining long enough to know that the most hazardous and expensive elements of the metals extraction process was mining the ore and smelting . Jubes have the technology to sidestep both these steps and it can only be a game changer with very exciting prospects for the future .
Not a lot of volume here at the moment I reckon there are not many sellers in the market and even the day traders are holding.
ATB

Very fair results surprised @ the drop
Blahblah If that is the best you can dream up to avoid actually answering my post , I am rather disappointed . What a con.

Blahblah what is the point of your post ? We know that the sp normally makes a swift recovery from the instability and distortion referred to in the title of this thread which you refuse to acknowledge . How do you know that the sp could not be even higher but for the 10% overnight off the market mugging. ?
I have repeatedly asked you to comment on paragraph 7 of notes in the bookbuild RNS . You wont because that might require the use of terms such as " conflict of interest " or" lack of disclosure" and that would be too much of a challenge for you
ATB

Not helping that JLP are trading on AIM , in the near to medium a nice increasing revenue stream along with the well diversified board as per the recent announcements will assist in a move to the main market.

BlahBlah care to comment on para 7 and the the question posed in the title of this thread ?

BlahBlah I note that you still have not commented on the possible connotations of para 7 and the fact that if the book builders can trade to their own account gives them no incentive to obtain a price close to the market price .
I also note that you do not comment on the question asked in the title of this thread I find that very illuminating .
For once and for all lets put to bed your obsession with the word con . I have previously stated that markets have to be seen to be free fair and transparent otherwise they simply cannot function . The con element here is the fact that shareholders ( the market ) have to meekly take a mugging via a process which is demonstrably not free and fair . A confidence trick that they can perpetrate with immunity .
ATB

BlahBlah you concoct a fraud allegation then accuse me of dishonesty ! Squirm into a spasm over the many definitions of the word con . There is no ambiguity in "overnight mugging " but you cannot address that because it would cause you to answer the question posed in the title of the thread and the equity of the BB process. If you overcome your reluctance look at para 7 ( post 3rd June ) which states that the book builder is allowed to participate in the BB on their own account then ask yourself how investment bankers make such luxurious annual profits . Good luck to them. Just one of many possible chances for the privileged participants in the BB process to make a profit. You need to understand the difference between conjecture and accusation . Only the former is possible with the lack of disclosure in the BB process and no accusations of " fraud " have been made. I would hazard a guess though that if complete disclosure was made, the content would be within the rules but it would raise quite a few eyebrows.

BlahBlah the fraud insinuation was yours . Perhaps you have not heard of the phrase " pros & cons ". Advantages & disadvantages . Well fraud here would be a very major disadvantage and it is not catered for in the word con. You do not comment on the main theme of my post that of equity , so presumably you consider it acceptable that individuals have pricing power over on the market trades .

with the market not individuals away from it . BlahBlah in various posts I have made clear my concerns about the bookbuild process. Seems that you cannot grasp the reality here , so I will have yet another attempt .
The term fraud was proposed by you not by me . Institutional parties agree OFF the market to a share price acceptable to them all .Even with the apparent complete lack of scrutiny and disclosure it is obvious that within the process there is no scope for criminal deception fraud . The bookbuild is announced after hours and the price agreed by this cosy arrangement is imposed ON the market the next day with immediate impact on all shareholders and possible financial loss for some . I believe that the market price should be set by trades ON the market and that price fix should take should take precedence. The con is the fact that regulators allow institutions to perform what is in effect an overnight mugging .Not rocket science ,a simple concept to grasp . It is called equity.
ATB

Thanks for info Barny . Lets hope the operators stick together ,

IMO nothing to worry about , this will probably be a bit volatile as a result of the uncertainty caused by after hours bookbuilds and become vulnerable to rumour mongering . A solid long term hold ,even a trader given this volatility . I will be adding tomorrow if this weakness holds.

BlahBlah The mention of fraud is yours not mine yet another distortion and lie. I have made it clear that IMO all the rules were complied with . The parties involved in the bookbuild (there could be quite a lot of them we will never know with the lack of disclosure ) reached an agreement off the market on a price which they were all happy with . Not so jolly though for all shareholders when that OFF market price is applied ON the market . Punters who bought at or near at or near the date of the after hours RNS especially ,could lose out with a 10% immediate loss or tripped stop losses . I consider that profoundly unfair . The rules have been followed otherwise it could not happen but It amounts to a legalizes mugging

Yet again you have not replied to the message in my post and the part that you have attempted to address you choose to distort . The "whatever you fancy " quote was a reference to the fact that you ignored the main theme of my post and instead invented on my behalf various theories around the word con. The" whatever you fancy" referenced you not bookbuilding . You have ignored my post @ 15:32 probably because it is an inconvenience and and continued with your distortions.. I note that you have begrudgingly conceded that more transparency might be due , if you read para 7 you would change your mind . I have often used the word recipient rather than buyer because there may be an element of enrichment in the bookbuild process . The sp was recently approaching new highs then fell back possibly because Pi's were hesitant to buy it up for fear of another institutional mugging this situation is doing AAF no favors .

BlahBlah Just in case I have not made myself clear.
The "con " is the system that allows this form of legalized mugging take place . It is quaint only in name certainly not in practice .
ATB

Hi Blah Blah you seem to be reading my posts and making of them whatever you fancy while ignoring the salient points such as fairness transparency and timing . I have not accused any of the institutions or bankers of illegal actions I merely pointed out that if the news of a guaranteed near term drop in the sp was available to privileged individuals human nature would mean that some might be tempted to act on that knowledge it would be naive to think otherwise. I am confidant that the sellers and bankers did not and would not do anything illegal . To me the PROPOSED bookbuild was done at breakneck speed within 12 hours, presumably bids were solicitated and collated . Note that this was not an accelerated bookbuild where 12 hours might be just feasible . Please read para 7 of the important notices starting with "in connection " it blows my mind .I will not comment on it or else you will say I am open to court proceedings . If the "rules " such as they are allows off market actions to impose a price fix on the market the rules are open to abuse and they need to be changed because they are utterly unfair. Why are the recipients not disclosed this would this would rule out any shady dealings. I think it is unfortunate that the volatility caused by these actions will put off some investors in a great company , although I have benefited by buying the dips I believe this should not be necessary and a more efficient means should be formulated for recipients of the IPO to divest.