Emed Mining Share Discussion Threads

[paulie1] 30/12/2014 13:40

It was a loan as we were skint. They agreed. Terms weren't bad got rid of the CEO for a better one see us through to finance. The new CEO had a word and junta said by end of jan. The finance is yet to be sorted. That's the next rns. Depends on what terms. If you take it to it's basic form. They gave us the dosh

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 13:31

Oh well I'll

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 13:19

Thanks for the advice . . . really useful . . .

[laurence llewelyn binliner] 30/12/2014 13:15

Foolsgold, can I respectfully suggest you go back to bed and try getting out of the other side of it this time.. ;o)

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 13:06

The latest injection was a "bridging" loan hence involved no new shares . . . this doesn't indicate any desire either way prior to the permits being issued IMHO . . . I have no idea what your negatives are . . .

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 12:55

Fools,

Currently, the three own c 46% of the company, and the latest injection showed no immediate desire to increase that. What will it be if there is significant dilution? Who knows? The 34th RNS appeared to leave scope for debt funding, so this too may come into play.

Your perception of significant negatives and mine differ markedly. In the end, it matters not, for what will be will be.

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 12:53

Well about 50% of the trades today, have a C next to them which denotes that conditions were agreed between the parties when the deal was struck. Seems a high proportion. That might turn out to be significant.

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 12:20

Except for the listing cost savings and the significantly reduced rules and regulations and subsequent scrutiny that the private major shareholders are used to and appear to value. . .

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 12:16

I agree Cufe and I also don't see any significant negative with them being listed, and as you say "then they would be there if they were listed or not".

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 12:10

I don't see any significant negatives . . . and if there are any then they would be there if they were listed or not . . . happy to be proven wrong though . . .

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 12:05

CuFe as I asked earlier - what do you see as the negatives for the three if the company is delisted? There must be some.

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 11:44

As you said yesterday wanderer, the ask went to 6.25 why? Once it dropped back to 6 that will register as a fall in the share price and start the ball rolling. In fact the last .25p was a gain for no particular reason yesterday. We've had a good few days news wise and share price wise and so a pull back not unexpected. Volume not massive so I can't see need to worry.

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 11:40

fools,

'the primary reason for listing is access to capital'

This certainly applies to AIM, but not to listed companies in general. Most listed companies do not need, or require, access to capital. They make profits.

IMO, EMED is far more likely to go for a main board listing rather than delist.

[come on] 30/12/2014 11:36

One of the reasons trafigura called for the egm was lack of shareholder value hopefully they will want to help this but who knows

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 11:29

MrOI don't think Astor would sell on the open market, if they are it will be dire consequences for us Pi's. I would suggest they are privy to more information than us and would not bode well.

[mronions] 30/12/2014 11:25

Astor selling IMO

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 11:24

CuFe what do you see as the negatives for the three if the company is delisted?

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 11:22

The three major shareholders are all private companies . . . . the primary reason for listing is access to capital . . . the three major shareholders do not require access to capital to take EMED into production and then expand from operating profits . . . none of the three major shareholders could dispose of their holdings via the market without decimating the share price IMHO . . . unless you know something different . . .

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 11:17

Without wishing to appear rude, I would respectfully suggest that those who consider delisting to be an attractive option for the 3 IIs fail to appreciate why stock markets came to exist at all.

I do not suggest that delisting is not an option, simply that it is a very unattractive one.

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 11:00

Why would a market listing offer the chance of an easier exit for one of the three major shareholders . . . the market is very illiquid and any deal can be done off market . . . after all how did Trafigura get their holding . . . do the three major shareholders need to have a listing to access capital . . .

[erric] 30/12/2014 10:50

I do not think so, Wanderer.
It's more likely that the MM's are trying to make a market because of a lack of volume ( ie less than £50k this morning ) so are trying to encourage some activity.

On the issue of de-listing, I agree wholeheartedly with Cufe on the benefits and attraction of de-listing BUT I also concur with the view that it will take one of the three ( or a new entrant ) to do it because I do not believe they are assuming consensus on all future decisions and will need the possibility of an easy exit not the problem of finding a new private buyer to take their individual share.

[manfrom] 30/12/2014 10:48

Drop coming soon? HNY

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 10:45

MrO Lol, seems a lot of 100k chunks going through though

[mronions] 30/12/2014 10:42

it's Estienne exiting after being bashed on this board . our dillusional ethical fund manager who likes to talk down a stock before selling