We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Investika Di | LSE:IVK | London | Ordinary Share | AU000000IVK1 | ORD NPV (DI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 123.00 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
04/5/2008 06:39 | If this is true then it just illustrates how poor the company's communication is with PIs. I get the feeling that a lot more is told to institutions/private client brokers. What they put out in RNSs is just what they have to to keep the exchanges off their backs. It wouldn't have taken much to realise the anyone reading the RNS would have thought that capital costs have risen substantially and included some sort of explanation. They're just not really that bothered! | stemis | |
03/5/2008 20:31 | Thanks ng and yes i did notice that-have had little luck so far with the company and my question,as the guy who supposedly needs to answer it is away for another week,although i think i have answered it myself,and in fact nothing in the valuation has in fact changed and as i thought,the extra $60m in capital costs as opposed to the capex for the plant build that was quoted in the pfs,now includes taxes pre-strip etc-the maths actually all adds up still if one looks at the total resource as in the jorc of 29 m tonnes at 0.59% copper-if the cash operating costs and the last quoted capital costs of $130m(for pre strip, taxes,plant capex,working capital)are taken out,then the numbers add up just as they did in the pfs,although as you say,it is looking highly likely that the improoved recoveries and improoved longer term copper prices are going to add substantially as well as las nipas and other nearby deposits,to the total value of the project-all looking good if you ask me-hoping that environmental approval comes through soon | strow | |
03/5/2008 10:26 | Strow, From quarterly report you could read: "The Phase 1 metallurgical test programme was completed with preliminary results indicating metal recoveries in excess of pre-feasibility study assumptions. The final report for this test work is being prepared." So get ready for a significant upgrade in the resource potential imo. Also do not understimate the Nas Nipas potential in your valuations. I sent my voting letter to the company yesterday. My vote was "for" for all resolutions. I hope a few UK investors send their voting letters to the company to prove that we do exist and hopefully CK would take care of interests of all shareholders . | nghomi | |
02/5/2008 06:41 | Thanks for your help guys-much appreciated-will try and repay the favour sometime | strow | |
01/5/2008 21:16 | JT, In the AIM market, bidders cannot make an offer at a price lower than the highest price they have paid in the previous 3 months - see Section 6.1 of the Takeover Code (although there are some exceptions to this rule). For further info see: | eacn | |
01/5/2008 15:13 | anyone recieve a mail re name change to Natasa mining? | nomolos | |
01/5/2008 14:34 | As we have some chat today,can anyone tell me if operating costs are included in working capital requirements?May sound a stupid question,butthe reason i ask is that the recently issued rns on the capital requirement for puquios,saying that it will be in the region of $130m,includes "working capital". Now if one looks back at the npv estimate in the pfs for what was then las pasculas,the capex for the plant of $70m was quoted separately from the operating costs in the calculation. My point or question really,is,does this likely explain what some have percieved as a doubling in the capital requirement for the project,when in fact it hasnt doubled at all?? thanks | strow | |
01/5/2008 13:39 | I take it we still have the rule that he cannot offer less than the highest price he has paid for shares until 12 months is up? | jtcod | |
01/5/2008 13:38 | Thanks eacn. I had better give the 2006 act a read. ;-) | jtcod | |
01/5/2008 12:52 | Why do I mention all of the above? Because CK is not known for looking after the little guy. | eacn | |
01/5/2008 12:52 | Re: post 1029 & 1030 To force you to sell only requires 75%. To enforce what is known as the "mop up" where a controlling shareholder can enforce a compulsory and automatic repurchase of shares does indeed require 90%, but you can achieve the same effect using a scheme of arrangement, which only requires a 75% stake. Nobody used to bother with schemes of arrangement since they require going through the courts and it used to take forever. But as a result of a streamlining of this process in 2006, it is now possible to push through a scheme of arrangement in a matter of months and they have become quite common. Note also that under the provisions of the 2006 Companies Act, private companies no longer need to call an EGM to push through this sort of thing: they can simply circulate a draft written resolution (by email if they so choose) to shareholders and then pass it without a meeting or EGM pretty much on the spot provided that they have 75% of the votes in the bag. Another change that many are not aware of is the fact that investment companies do not need to declare their holdings in a publically quoted company if they hold less than 10% of the equity. While may instititutional holders do still bother to issue RNS's whenever their holdings are above 3%, some no longer do, which is why one often finds significant changes in the major shareholder list in annual reports when no RNS's have been issued during the year. It is yet another way (along with CFDs and spread bets) for predator companies to accumulate significant stakes in a company without triggering an RNS: get a couple of friendly investment funds run by investment banks to acquire a stake of just under 10% each and then purchase these stakes. Hey presto you know own nigh on 20% without triggering a single RNS. | eacn | |
24/4/2008 11:32 | Up 14% in AUS | 5dally | |
24/4/2008 07:11 | CRC seems to be about to break out. Does anybody think that TQN could be taken over by a copper player? imo CK would seek a second (or even third) partner for the copper project. As copper becomes more demanding, I am confident that there would be plenty of interested parties would like to farm into this project. Any views on this matter? | nghomi | |
23/4/2008 16:22 | t1sh.. somethings never change for you either, still a twit as ever. things go up and down if you've ever noticed. | powwow | |
23/4/2008 16:21 | The spread kills it a bit on this one. | pec2004 | |
23/4/2008 16:20 | I would be nice to see a 50p rise the same as TMC tomorrow. | nghomi | |
23/4/2008 13:40 | POW POW you ramping here now youve finished at taih, some things never change | t1sh | |
23/4/2008 13:38 | Will be interesting to see how the market reacts in Australia tonight, hopefully a positive reaction there over and above the price movement here today and this will continue it's rise tomorrow. | red river 1 | |
23/4/2008 13:29 | powwow, I would be surprised if IVK or CK accept £5 per share for TMC. I guess they only own 15% of TMC between themselves and if the remaining holders accept £5, then there would be no choice for them. | nghomi | |
23/4/2008 13:25 | come on guys yes I agree but if a buyer comes to them offering £5, they may take it don't you think, its all about exist strategy and when you placed your investment and what the return is/was at that time. If you invested at 80p then the return is good for you and any long term investor, to get 5 times you'd need to then get £25 a share... anyway time will tell, but tmc is and will be back in favour now for some time. | powwow | |
23/4/2008 13:19 | I agree nghomi, £5 would very very disappointing. | tiggy2101 |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions