George Frangeskides, Exec-Chair at Alba Mineral Resources, discusses grades at the Clogau Gold Mine. Watch the full video here.
Censoring discussion on whether it happened (which certainly didn't make any allegations) and censoring the making of a gagging threat would seem to he the order of the day.
As usual.
RUK,
Yes, sell existing holding today you are entitled to the dividend. Buy you are not.
A bunch of things happen in the background with the register on settlement. Most individuals will not be on the register anyway it will be their nominee and most frequently in a pooled account.
The register tomorrow "simply" governs who the dividend is paid to (eg HL nominees will get 1 payment for the entire pooled account. They need need to route that to the correct individual accounts)
"That's simply wrong. If you sell today, you will still be entitled to the dividend."
Quite right RUK. I didn't phrase that well at all did I. Sorry.
What I was trying to point out was that who a dividend is physically paid to is not necessarily who is actually entitled to it.
The dividend will be paid (sometime in Jan) to those on the register tomorrow (*). It doesn't mean they are entitled to it. Those who sold today are not entitled to keep it and must pass it on - that's the XD condition (**).
(*) These days anybody who thinks they are a shareholder most often isn't. They are "merely" beneficial owner. Their nominee whether individual or pooled will the the recorded holder.
(**) What this means is that you nominee will get paid the dividend if you have sold but are still on the register. They are obliged to pass it onto the counterparty. (If this were not the case you could just buy loads of stuff the day before XD, sell later and keep the dividends in effect for free).
Personally I am surprised it hasn't dropped by broadly 42.75 though.
You don't come out of bona vacantia. Essentially when struck off it ceases to exists and the assets go to the crown.
There is a process for administrative restoration under limited circumstances.
It would at keast appear that Nuog just about have the cash to get through to May.
Completing an RTO - if they do - is only a step on getting relisted though.
It is slightly curious that it was exactly 6 months since suspension. But it sounds lije some sort of glitch in HL's system.
Ask them.
The stock exchange still lists it 0.03. Point tgat out to them.
I expect they will come oit with some spiel along the line of "after it has been suspend for 6 month we show a zero value". But that is ball****s.
You gave no idea of the amount that the new management team put it in. That was a deal between them and the old holders of the debt. I doubt it was anything near to the inflated face value the debt.
They have little scope to reward the shareholders, but that should become clearer if and when an admission document appears which should detail the impact on existing equity.
Forgot there is a discretionary 6 month extension at the moment allowing suspension for a year before cancellation. If granted that would be april 2021.
In any event any completion of an RTO results (strictly) in the cancellation. The new entity has to apply for lusting via an admission document (usually simultaneously)
I believe it wil be the 14th October if no admission document has been produced (6 month from the suspension).
It could be 4th November (1 year from the RTO approval).
Taxi, curiously GTW was in the prospectus. Also it was the original purpose of PDIP.
Seemed to fall by the wayside until it got refloated as the next big thing.
It would be theoretically possible kmack. Bit I imagine it would be rather difficult to get the shareholders to vote for it..
kmack, when I was observing the value at 1p I was referring to 1 penny - i.e. £0.01. That appeared to be what was postulated on advfn (ie basically a 40 fold multiple of the suspension price).
Cattleman seems to be postulating 0.15p to 0.20p (£0.0015-£0.0020).
(This would still be around £5m of added value if achieved).
With approx 3.4bln in issue then 1p would imply an increase in mkt cap from 925k ish at suspension to 34 mln ish.
That's a lot to get from an asset owner in exchange for a listing and some possible (but unlikely if acquiring a recycling asset) tax losses.
They have not "acquired". There is an intent and, assuming they get further agreement on terms, the details will be published abd put to a vote. It is highly likely to need some funding, but hopefully this will also be clear in the documentation.
There is no real timetables for this. However they will be forced to suspend early may (so they are unlikely to lift the suspension if it falls apart before then).
They will be delisted may 21 if a deal is not completed (but can of course relist as a new admission).
There will be an offer document of sorts produced which should clarify the intended direction.
I am doubtful it will be possible to use the tax losses against any profits, however all that is known is that the target is in the EU. I guess there may be some possibility of utilish the losses in that country. No idea as yet.
It seems likely to me there will be some sort of debt restructure.
There is no indication as yet what portion of the equity will be retained by existing holders.
Your thought of returning 920k to shateholders is the flawed bit :-)
1. They don't have 920k. It is approx 250k.
2. They need to pay all the creditors first. There is the matter of a 2.5m debt.
3. They are insolvent (in strict terms). Net shareholders funds (in effect that which would be available for distribution on a liquidation) are negative. The technical insolvency is Ok because the directors believe they can obtain the necessary funding and no external creditors are chasing them.
I agree with your premise that they won't do a deal which undervalues. But your starting point of what the current assets are worth without a deal is mistaken.
Very true Dickbat.
Without this deal there is little time - or money - to find another one. If the company were to liquidate there would be no return for the shareholders.
Whatever deal comes, even if folk feel it undervalues, would likely be a better alternative. It at least should leave some sort of base to try and build from.
Although the can raise at any time I would hope that any financing requirements will be detailed in the shareholder documentation. At least then shareholders can make a more informed decision about how to vote.
In terms of devaluing they can put anything they like to shareholders for a vote. The real thing they need to highlight is the consequences either way.
It may be that whatever is put forward devalues (but it may increase too). If the alternative is worse then it is still in the shareholders interests.
Partridge,
It seems nuog have agreed to bear upto 60k of their remaining 250k as counter party fees. The situation in which those comes due is unclear.
It seems pretty likely - but not certain - the RTO will happen. Provided it is voted through.
The real question is the terms. I guess those won't be published for a while
The tax losses ae likely unusable. So what is the incoming business gaining from this ? An AIM listing and - currently - 2.5m of convertible debt (some sort of restructure looks inevitible).
What will it give up to gain this ? Only known when the details are published.
Partridge,
It seems nuog have agreed to bear upto 60k of their remaining 250k as counter party fees. The situation in which those comes due is unclear.
It seems pretty likely - but not certain - the RTO will happen. Provided it is voted through.
The real question is the terms. I guess those won't be published for a while
The tax losses ae likely unusable. So what is the incoming business gaining from this ? An AIM listing and - currently - 2.5m of convertible debt (some sort of restructure looks inevitible).
What will it give up to gain this ? Only known when the details are published.