||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Equity Investment Instruments
Security Res. Share Discussion Threads
Showing 1376 to 1398 of 1400 messages
Sama Graphite Inc. (“SRG”) – (TSXV: SRG) is a Canadian-based resource company focused on developing the Lola Graphite deposit in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa. The Lola Graphite deposit is one of the largest surface graphite mineralizations in the world, with an area of 3.22 km2 of continuous graphite rich gneiss. SRG owns a 100% interest in the Lola Graphite Project. Sama Resources Inc owns a 49% interest in SRG
The Lola graphite deposit is located approximately 1 000 km east of Conakry, the capital city of the Republic of Guinea. The Lola deposit graphite mineralisation is well exposed at surface along its entire strike length, with samples grading up to 20% Cg (large flakes) and can often be seen in higher concentration agglomerates.
Additionally, the first 20 m of the deposit are well weathered, freeing graphite flakes from the silicate gangue, thereby allowing for easy grinding with an optimal recovery of large and jumbo flakes.
The Lola graphite occurrence was originally discovered by BUMIFOM (Bureau Minier de la France Outremer) in 1951. BUMIFOM dug 309 pits in the oxide material, performed numerous metallurgical tests and drew up blueprints for a proposed on-site processing facility.
However, shortly after Guinea’s declaration of independence in 1958, the project was abandoned and subsequently forgotten - until Sama Resources “re-discovered” the deposit in 2012|
|Has anyone tried to contact this company for an update?
Clearly they treat shareholders with utter contempt but if there is wrong doing then that is a different matter. I can't understand the strategy or the timeframe in which they are operating.
If you want to sell assets then surely you tee up this process. The longer this drags on the more desperate you are seen.|
|Well the longer this drags on the we have less shareholders with fed up punters selling at the auctions.|
|Yes that has crossed my mind as well............|
Do they intend to make any return?|
|It looks as though there will be nothing announced here this side of Christmas. It's a rather sorry state of affairs.I have never understood why companies who are seen as forced sellers expect to get top $ prices for assets.Is it the case they want to complete the sale of all businesses before making any return. ?|
|Yes but the bid/offer there doesn't seem at all attractive. I keep returning to skyships excellent post 312.|
|There's an auction if you wish to buy or sell..|
|Is anything happening here? I'm rather thinking that the Board are hoping to run off with all the proceeds. This really is a disgraceful situation IMHO.|
|erstwhile - sorry, didn't mean to sound terse.|
|Okay then! skyship means skyship|
|erstwhile - sorry, wrong on all counts.
It would be a re-run of the Lionheart campaign - but as Theresa May constantly states - "Not sensible to set out our negotiating stance in public".
All in good time....and when it comes to it, I'm sure we can count on your vote...|
|"consider our position"
Sky, there's surely no options available to you. Essentially, you're a minority in an unlisted corporate and as long as they don't break the companies act - which I don't think is occurring - it's the board completely in control. It's not what minorities want, it never is, but it's not like this couldn't be seen a ways off and the story was simply that the directors were supposed to be minded to exit as you wanted due to their own holdings. I have a small bit here but I kind of figured this risk was on the table.
As to costs, it this unlisted share even in CREST anymore? If not, much harder to do a cheap cashout.|
|Indeed. I had shares in Pure Wafer which has to date made three returns to shareholders without any whinging or nonsense about costs. As an earlier poster pointed out there is a significant opportunity cost here whilst the Board mess about/mess up.|
|ATTN: John Mervis....cc John Warwick
You may recall we spoke c6weeks ago, just before you were off on holiday. I was too & upon my return forgot to get back to you as promised.
We were discussing the costs of making a capital repayment to shareholders.
In written correspondence you have recently stated this to another shareholder:
"As each return to shareholders is a costly business in so far as it incurs legal fees, stockbroker fees, registrars fees, printing fees etc.
we are waiting to see the outcome of the present marketing initiative before progressing a return to shareholders any further."
Sounds perfectly reasonable; but the problem is that it is entirely fallacious and perhaps deliberate obfuscation. I'm sorry, but it is difficult to put it any other way.
There are many listed companies making capital returns to shareholders. I show below just one I approached - DUET Real Estate.
They confirm the cost of a £5.5m distribution was just £6200!
Another company (AXA Property Trust) made an £11m repayment/redemption for just £7500:
If you speak to your former brokers they will confirm this.
I am concerned at your reticence; and suspect an ulterior motive. Why for instance when I phoned did you answer the phone:
Why on 29th July was your FD speaking to another shareholder regarding a prospective acquisition?
I have dealt before with Directors tempted to treat shareholder funds as their own, wishing to extend their control and continue employment contrary to shareholder wishes. Take a look at Lionheart plc back in 2001/2.
If you fail to act soon with an appropriate cash return, then I and other shareholders will have to consider our position; so as to protect our investment from possible misappropriation.
I hope to receive a reply answering some of the points raised herewith.|
|Many thanks for the above posts. Nice to know they have not done a runner with the money. Anyone hazard a guess at the final return to shareholders?|
|Thanks IC2, I've had similar replies, the costs imv are minimal given the small shareholders register but unfortunately we are at the mercy of JM. Our only hope is a sale some time soon but I'm not holding my breath.|
|Below is an E Mail exchange I had with Finance Director John Warwick just over one week ago. So he did confirm that the second payment for Audiotel had been received,and also that my estimated 32p per share cash and equivalents figure was about right. Lets hope that the present marketing initiative will mean that we see some positive news first.
See Emails below.
I am a shareholder in your company and have been waiting patiently for a return of funds since the announcement of delisting on 26th November 2014.
The companies original intention was to return a payment equivalent to 15p per share in April 2015, I know that you issued a statement on 5th April 2015 saying that due to additional cost of making ad hoc payments, that you would make an enhanced payment after funds were released from a disposal of one or more of SRG's operating segments.
On the 2nd September you announced that Audiotel had been sold for £1.0m, with a cash payment £500,000 received at that time, and a further and final cash settlement of £500,000 to be paid in September 2016, so I must make the assumption that the second payment has now been received.
Looking at the most recent full year accounts I see that you have £5,698m cash and equivalents, adding on the £500,000 received last month would mean cash and equivalents of £6,198m, or 32p per share.
As your original intention was to return shareholder funds in two payments, I think a payment now of between 20p and 25p would not be an unreasonable expectation, which would still leave plenty of cash for working capital requirements. And it would be welcomed as a goodwill gesture from the company, and of course will give investors back additional funds that they can use to continue to make worthwhile gains in the stockmarket.
I refer to your recent letter addressed to Jonathan Mervis.
We have now received the £500,000 that you referred to and as you suggest our cash per share has increased to around 32p per share.
We came close to selling PSG but not quite close enough and are now re-marketing it and are hopeful of a sale. As each return to shareholders is a costly business in so far as it incurs legal fees, stockbroker fees, registrars fees, printing fees etc. we are waiting to see the outcome of the present marketing initiative before progressing a return to shareholders any further.
|Anything going on here?|
|I hope that's a sale and return of funds.|
|Reference Onzima I suspect.PatientCapital - 29 Jul 2016 - 22:52 - 421 of 421 - 0Now that you are an 'insider' under the Act you should no longer be commenting in public unless doing so through official channels, i.e. by way of the Regulatory News Service.|
|Lovin' the first name references|