Member Info for wwguk

why you said above >> what you said above

Longtermview24: "If they subscribed for new shares at 2.5p they could get about 70% of the company for $600M and the shares would increase substantially as the project would be de-risked by the fund raise and by the strong strategic partner covenant/name they bring. They could leave Fraser in charge to continue the work (that they have endorsed and been complimentary about) and had a more passive investment, albeit as the majority holder. ..."

Many of us here would agree why you said above. They can easily own 70% or even 80% with $600m, and leave a small portion for existing shareholders. They do not have to pay Gina and the lenders of the remaining convertible bonds.
With such a halo strategy partner, the CF team can take care of rest, including the deferred stage debt fundraising.
If so, the mine will be built and operation in a happy environment surrounded by thousands of shareholders (including many of SM workers, not just the managers) .

They did own Boulby jointly with ICL in the 1960s (50% to 50% ).
Why are they so greedy and harsh now?

which is to update which (old jan 9 to update new jan 10), it is confusing.

GoldmanSachs seems to be invited to trade for Siruis, as Bank of America and Morgan Stanley for AAL.
All major SM house brokers, JPM, Librum, S.Capital are also doing trading of sxx shares around 5.5p.
The takeover rules seem to disallow many things, and at the same time, making thing not allowed become allowed?

The risky mine project designer and creator did a great job, not only convinced 85k PIs, but also attracted a large number big competent IIs, and got so many major U.S. big banks involved, in a vigorous business process, and finally got it sold to a big company to have the mine built (an own project mission completed successfully) ...the full story is to be told in a few days

"it would save hundreds of jobs in northern England", i.e., creating jobs around 3 thousands; while at the same time destroying life earnings/savings of 85 thousands when they invested into the project.

"three sources close to the matter": SM, AAL, JPM are the three directly involved? or others involved in the strategy review process i.e., the potential strategy partners and the potential strategy investors we are really looking for and wishing for?

But smart mine project creators are normally more happier or anticipated that the project is bought by a big company as early as possible, such that they can move on to next project or just packet the gain and enjoy their life . For this to happen certain conditions (e.g., good construction and marketing progress and near the bottom of the market financial state) have to be created, and now all conditions are met.

one 'improvements' might be added to the firm offer might be to provide existing shareholders' an option to take AAL shares of the same value (5.5p x their holding); so we are still in a 'happy' star family.

Facebook and Twitter Feeds removed from Home Page
Now the possible offer is on the right top corner of the page, followed by a list of announcements that might be the only communication channel left to inform us the on-going events and change (towards 'a new star' of AAL).

Many of us now got some first hand experience on how these were earned.

casa, thanks for the RNS summary. I noticed that you have avoided to name any companies/IIs.
I named some of them in my posts as I thought the information is public. Is there any problem on this (so that I should be more careful)?

Highbridge further reduced some of its shorts.
Whitebox reduced their short first time; it added a couple days before! It even reduced 15.3m short in CFD;
Oasis purchased 3.6m CB (increased from 5m to 8.6m) and bought 24.5m at around 5.5p

However,
Sculptor increased its shorts; and its now seems to be only one doing in opposite directory.

Fred, Up to now, they have only got around 100m shares (mainly in the first two days). I do not believe that they can get around 30% to 50% of the shares; as so far most big IIs still hold their shares (around 33% almost the same percentage as before) and not all PIs selling all their shares, and as those bought may also include many other PIs. I gather the big IIs will only be forced to vote yes when no other solutions appearing at the end (or as mentioned by some here, they push it to a situation no voting is required, not sure how this is possible). As now all its buying has to be disclosed in RNS, we may see if they continue to get more shares from the market or by other banks. There seems no big buys for AAL in these two days, i.e., not in big amount and fast speed at the moment. So they may get some voting power, but may not be very big or dominant. If they can improve their bid to take care of existing shareholder better, or if other solution wins at the end; they should still be welcomed to be an investor or mine industry partner.

Why could an only 'Possible takeover offer' that can be canceled at any time dominant or interrupt the whole strategy review process that has intended to find a strategy partner and strategy investors for the $600m (rather than an acquirer)?

If this is made so easy as what has happening, any company (in relation to SM's opponents or unfriendly acquirers) can stop SM's effort to sort its funding problem by making an announcement to have a takeover process triggered, so as to burn out SM's limited time and funding, and pushed it to the corner to be acquired.

SM may initially intended to have AAL as a strategy partner, and then may just want to have this as a backup or last resort when AAL's intention had made clear. Therefore, SM has had such an tentative agreement with AAL. However, some leak mentioned by others here brought this to the front much early. (kind and wishful thinking) .

On the other hand, as some others also mentioned here, the whole thing, i.e., the SM project, might be designed from the very beginning by a small group of people, developed into a real compelling project that can be sold at a 'good time; and 'good price' ; and then let the project to be beneficial to everyone except its early investors (as otherwise, it is not possible to develop a project into a state that can attract a big company to grab it in 'great value'). The great value, of course, comes from the early investors, in this case the nearly $1b worth assets would be transferred to the acquirer for free, in a business-like manner (i.e., implicitly and indirectly transferred from early investors to the acquirer), and the early investors would be kicked out by giving them the certainty that they can take a few pence with them.

The designer and his/her partners get what they had planned for through loyalty, salary, and large sum of shares that even being bought out at a very low price would still give multi-millions. As described by KOH, the SM workers who have bought a lot of SM shares using their life-time savings may Kindly have their job made certain by the Kind acquirer, and then be able to work in the deep mine for 10 year to earn their lost investment back. And many local SM PIs living around the mine may resent the mine for years.

I hope this is not true, a better solution or improved solution that are more friendly to those who provided money to make SM to its current state. The MPs are happy with AAL built the mine; only the Mayor so far has expressed concern on the large number of local investors that are all round the mine.

thanks, casa for your reply. I noticed that Polygon sold 3m new CB which as you said got a very good price and It increase its long position now at a level 264.3m, 3.76% (from 109m shares 1.55% a couple of days ago) possibly using the newly earned money.

casa, thanks for looking at this. Myo noticed that these might be the new CB converted from the old CB, outside of the $400m returned new CB.

I have a new question:
Two America banks bought SM shares at around 5.5p as shown in multiple RNS, with the following:
(c) Name of the party to the offer with which exempt principal trader is connected: Anglo American plc
While other brokers (JPM, Liberum, ...) have no info fillied in (c) as seen from the RNS when they buy or sell SM shares.

Does this mean that the two U.S. banks bought the shares for AAL?

calamari: "wwg, where do you see the american banks buying SXX shares for AA?"

see RNS today at
Mon, 13th Jan 2020 11:11

RNS Number : 6074Z
Morgan Stanley & Co. Int'l plc
13 January 2020

(c) Name of the party to the offer with which exempt principal trader is connected: Anglo American plc
43m shares bought and then 19m shares sold to AAL, and 15.7m in short CFD (from ALL?)

There are a few RNS of similar nature by the two banks, see my previous posts.

I thought that they may still have holdings of SM, as their holdings still appeared on the websites, might be not updated?
(search result on 13 Jan 2020):
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd 250,668,595 11/10/2019 3.57%
https://siriusminerals.com/investors/shareholder-information/significant-shareholders/

SMALLCAP World Fund ® 196,282,195 $9,614,937.00 0.02%
https://www.capitalgroup.com/institutional/investments/holdingssearch/
in the search box, enter "sirius minerals"

calamari and Myo, although AAL has not made a firm offer, the overtake rule has applied (e.g., they cannot make open comments and IIs trading has to be disclosed using RNS). This might mean that 4.10p has been considered the share price before a offer (although it was not a firm one). Therefore, when they buy SM shares after the announced possible offer, the rule does not apply (i.e., it only applies to the period before the initial offer)? Still not very clear on whether they can or cannot reduce their offer price (it seems that they can as they said it in the announcement, of course before they bought any SM shares):
Can they reduce the offer from now on after they have asked the two U.S. banks to get around 100m SM shares for them?

As AAL did not buy SM shares directly, does the rule your mentioned still apply to them, or this the reason why they asked the two America Banks to buy for them?

calamari: "Another reason why AA will not want to buy in the market is that when they make a general offer to all shareholders they have to offer the highest price they have paid for any share in the last 12 months."

calamari, do you have a link on the rule behind your above message?
AAL has got 55m + 14m, i.e., 99m through Bank of America and Morgan Stanley at a price at or just below 5.5p;
If what you said is true, then they cannot reduce their offer any more; the only option is at 5.5p or above. That is great.

I believe they both are still large IIs of SM, why their holdings not appeared in RNS?