Member Info for Tucket

Mike certainly looks the part and speaks with the confidence of someone who knows that this project is the real deal. I liked the part where he explained why demand for graphite dictates that 10 to 20 new mines will be needed by the end of the decade, but how he can see only a handful that are going to start and what a big opportunity it is f

Just added a few more. This is hot and finance won't take long to put in place given how much interest there's already been. Traction will build.

STN

Fair enough. This should do well regardless. GLA

STN

I agree about the shambolic reporting of late trades, but no one has contradicted this from ShareTalk. Are they wrong in what they state?

'The recent Holding(s) in Company announcements have attracted a lot of attention, but the movements need to be understood in the right context. Several updates in September and November showed changes in the percentage of shares held under the Peel Hunt nominee. At first glance, these appear to show a major shareholder increasing or reducing their stake, but that interpretation is misleading. Peel Hunt is acting as a nominee and custodian for retail platforms, meaning the shares represent underlying retail accounts, not Peel Hunt’s own investment decisions. The changes therefore reflect retail trading activity, not insider behaviour or institutional sentiment.'

WCAP is massively undervalued and something is holding it down. However, as I have stated before, I am still not convinced by people suggesting it's down to Peel Hunt. I understand that it's a nominee account, and should not be thought of as a single entity.

I believe that WCAP will rerate significantly which is why I'm in, I'm just not convinced by this Peel Hunt chat.

@HarChris

So are you saying that this passage from ShareTalk is wrong? Just for clarity please, where would you expect 'discretionary clients' to be mentioned?

'Several updates in September and November showed changes in the percentage of shares held under the Peel Hunt nominee. At first glance, these appear to show a major shareholder increasing or reducing their stake, but that interpretation is misleading. Peel Hunt is acting as a nominee and custodian for retail platforms, meaning the shares represent underlying retail accounts, not Peel Hunt’s own investment decisions. The changes therefore reflect retail trading activity, not insider behaviour or institutional sentiment.'

Isn't the Peel Hunt holding a nominee account? My understanding is that Peel Hunt are holding shares on behalf of retail customers, and aren't increasing or decreasing the holding on their own behalf. I'm not sure that waiting for Peel Hunt to be 'out' is a thing. At least, this is what I understood from when it was covered by ShareTalk.

https://www.share-talk.com/wecap-plc-a-retail-look-at-a-company-suddenly-in-focus/

Read the section headed 'RNS pattern and shareholder activity'

Great RNS. Adding to what has already been said, it's also reassuring that the JORC has been delivered when Mike said it would be. It gives confidence about the timeline going forwards.

Hi IfgST, look at the latest RNS for the prospectus.

@TrueRed

I agree, that's how I see it. Future dillution will be needed in order to keep hold of a higher % of the company, and £50m isn't enough to take things forward on our own. Mind you, £5b seems a touch excessive. Maybe 10:1 consolidation for £500m would have been enough?

LOTM, thank you for the explanation. I hadn't appreciated the 8 billion limit. So if I've got this right, WSBN pre consolidation can raise approximately 5 billion x current sp of about 1p, ie £50m , as opposed to 5 billion x post consolidation sp of about £1 ie £5billion?

Why is it easier to dilute from 30.2 million shares in issue, ie post 100:1 consolidation, as opposed to from 3.02 billion shares, as it is now? Dillution is dillution, and you could raise a further x% from either situation. I've read that people think the 100:1 consolidation will open the doors for further dillution, but don't understand why it differs from the current situation. If someone could explain I'd be grateful.

Brondby posted this today at 15:42 and, for me, it's the post of the day:

'The flurry of negative posts coinciding with a significant support level is usually the bottom. If they can't break the support, they switch to buy.'

For those wondering why someone people post such negatively nonsense, Brondby has hit the nail on the head. They're trading between support and resistance, pure and simple.

********************pztcdew3

some idiot, listen from 6:55 to 7:15 and i think that answers at least part of your question. in the pfs, 'only about half 'of the 25mt 'resource' was in 'reserves'. the infill drilling was done so that more of the 25mt could be turned into reserves which can then be put into the dfs. this higher percentage of the 25mt now included as 'reserves' (as opposed to previously being 'resource') is what increases the mine life. as big_kahuna said, it's the step from a promising deposit to a bankable mine plan ie. turning 'resource' into 'reserves'.

Mike talks about this in today's interview from 6:15 to 8:30. He uses different language to you though, and talks of turning 'existing resources' into 'reserves', with there being a 'significant increment in reserves'. He explains that this is important in order to show 'longer mine life' and to be able to 'produce at higher rates of tonnages', and that it can be put into a DFS.

A farm out or fundraise will certainly be required if development is shown to be economically viable. That's inevitable but I don't see it as a downside, just necessary, and the share price will be well north of where we are today if things unfold in that direction.

But NAV doesn't have a direct correlation to share price.

Jackdaw, I think many lth split their pot. Part they hold 'forever' say 50%, the other half they trade in an attempt to build a free carry or increase their holding. This would explain why we get the negative comments from purported lth, plus also all the 'just topped up' type comments. Depends on what part of the cycle they're on. It's not for me though, can't stick the duplicity and frankly can't be bothered with it. Buy and hold is for me.

Ak247, trying to get a positive comment out of some lth is like trying to get blood out of a stone. It's a negative mindset that feeds into the narrative of de-rampers. WSBN are in the process of showing that Red Setter holds extensive gold reserves and with much of that near enough to the surface to make it economically viable on a massive scale.

Mooching, I just can't get my head around why someone would invest in a stock and then continually knock it, almost on a daily basis. Nothing to do with rockets, just say something positive every now and again.