A strange one, but vaguely positive. |
A very peculiar RNS this morning I had gone on the basis that Mussat lived in Paraguay. We await news later this month and we will see if they break ground in Q1 as they have previously indicated.. In the December RNS they talked about a second round of project finance discussions but no ides where we stand with that from the RNS today. |
The link below is an interesting article about recovering phosphates from polluted waterways and restoring the phosphates to the surrounding land.
If this catches on it could reduce demand for new fertilizers. |
The chart looking very Peter Levineish. |
Has something leaked? |
Be in no doubt that Peter will be doing whatever is best for Peter |
Is Peter just tidying up his house or preparing for something. Can’t work it out. |
anOther p&dUmp bY bOUntYcnT. atoMic |
Well I suppose it’s a good option to have extra land available for the future. |
pauljohnson9: thanks for the teaser about additional documents.
Any chance you could expand upon the nature of those documents, the location and perhaps a link to such?
I would not waste your time before I had made strenuous efforts to locate first.
TIA. |
Additional documents posted on the IDB website today under the client files section. Could be a precursor to an announcement. |
First job for our new broker is to walk this back up to the 80p level🙂 |
Thanks to both dawneyed and bbd2 I am now in a more understanding position. I do recall a placing but thought it longer ago than September.
Appreciate your effort in explaining. |
Mc An additional placing doesn’t reduce the number of shares you actually hold but it does change the percentage of shares that you own in the company. So the more shares the company issues the less of a percentage of the overall company you own. For big holders, this percentage change affects their disclosure obligations and the various thresholds that trigger an RNS requirement. This is why after a placing, a company will issue an RNS stating the new total shares in issue; so holders don’t fall foul of the disclosure obligations. The Nov RNS is simply stating that due to the October Atome placing the percentage of shares CPH2 hold has reduced. Their RNS was late, which is perhaps what is confusing people.
The selling of their shares due to their(CPH2) precarious financial position is a separate and totally unconnected issue which has caused the drop in the Atome share price Hope this makes sense. |
Exactly. The selling of the Atome shares held by CPH2 is because of the financial situation they are in, as specified in their own recent RNS. I have to say that if the CPH2 Investor Relations team did indeed confirm to the earlier poster that they are selling their Atome shares; then they need sacking!! |
Th dilution occurred because of the placings towards the end of October. |
Billy3 Have a look at the RNS again. You will clearly see at Para 2 the reason for the notification. Copy below: Other (please specify): Increase in Atome shares in issue resulting in shareholder dilution X
Hope this helps |
The Atome dilution ? Dilution suggests the total number of shares Atome have in issue increased meaning CPH had a smaller percentage of shares as a result. You are wrong there.
It clearly states the number of shares held reduced. So one of the percentage thresholds was reached requiring RNS.
If dilution was the reason then there would have to be an RNS for every major shareholder.
So not sure what you mean by ‘dilution̵7;. |
The 7Nov RNS was issued because of the Atome dilution so their percentage holding reduced. Took them a month to notify, so we may not see an RNS reflecting their selling for a while. |
RNS on 7th Nov for Atom confirmed reduction in shareholding of CPH by selling shares.
On 7th November they had 1,412,429 remaining shares in Atome.
I added up and about 80% of Atome shares are held by large investors or Atome staff. |
Thanks pjohn for that info. |
pjohn, thankyou for your response and for the effort you have gone to. |