Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
In LB's most recent interview she inferred that Helium 1 didn't need all the money raised but the presentation infers that they do. So which is correct
The amount raised for EWT includes contingency. They already have enough cash for all the other activities.
It's about as clear as mud. What is needed is an update on their total cash position so investors can see that they are not going to be mugged again and again. The presentation shows the cost of this appraissal well and additional dril to be much higher than competitors can do similar. The dilution is simply phenomenol.
From the investor call the cash position is $12.8m
Lets put this to bed now.
Technically, the Nomad would leave himself open to prosecution if he allowed a bare faced lie to be written by a company director/ceo as it would be construed as misleading to investors. my views.
But yet again, placing investors are being given (price sensitive) information that neither the market nor existing shareholders is privy to....
You have IR email address - send the questions across, and i am sure you will get the answers. If you are putting in the type of money that we are, we want answers to our questions, you are quite right to ask.
Where's your proof that they have actually been given price sensitive information? if they have actually been given that as you state, then you need to take it up with the Nomad and FCA. They might well have been given information on prospects in a bit more detail, but what is the price sensitive information you refer to CP?
Well, if dsymons is to be believed, that they have $12,8m in free cash.... And as regards the Nomads and FCA Toffers - not quite yet but I have made my feelings known; if I do not get satisfaction from my initial queries that'll be my next course of action.
CP, there's a difference between someone saying they have $12.8m free cash and you stating that placing investors are being given price sensitive information. As I said, where is your proof? I'm sure we would all like to know.
Https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=HE1:LSE
Toffers - knowing that the company has $12.8m in cash IS "price sensitive".... that is proof enough , if indeed it is true.
It's out there that they have pocketed over $12 million, I've just posted the FT page for He1, and you can see what they've raised this year, it's clear for all to see. That's not price sensitive.
Dear oh dear, if you say so Toffers. What they have raised and how much is still left "unspent" are two very different things. We shareholders only know, officially, what has been presented in historic accounts - what dsymons was relating was their "current" cash position - which is NOT public information.
But hey, enough, you keep on about it if you want - I have already done what I think is appropriate - end of.
Upi are now trying to twist it CP. You said that placing investors had been given price sensitive information, that's quite a statement to make, and you clearly have no proof to back it up, and now you're saying it isn't to do with that, but it's unknown what their current cash position is, but that's the same with all companies, what they spend day to day etc aren't decisions that shareholders are involved in, that's the Board's responsibility to have checks and balances in place. You can roughly calculate from what they have raised, and what they have said they are going to spend that money on, and the previous set of accounts, that is all, but there is nothing there that is price sensitive information. Get a grip. You really ought to detract that statement that you made about price sensitive information as you have nothing to back it up with, and potentially, it's libelous.
Crusty and toffers. You're gumming up this board with a load if rubbish. Can we move on please.
I have no proof you are quite right. But if what dsymons says is true then that is divulging price sensitive information that is not in the public domain.
Nothing I have said is "libelous" I am simply saying that if what dsymons and Robsaunders has said IS true then there has been a breach of sensitive information.
I have asked the company what information was provided to placing investors and asked them to make the same information available to all shareholders and the market in general. IF there are some privileged few that know what our current cash position is then we should ALL now.
Simples
Itis libellous CP because you've made it a statement, and now you are saying you have no proof to back it up, which is what I thought. I've reported it. Let's hope it gets removed, for your sake.
And Pompey, I've posted links this morning in my quest to help maintain positivity about helium and it's production in Tanzania. What have you provided exactly?
I completely agree Crusty, if posters here are telling us that they took the placing and have been given information that is not in the public domain and not available to all retail investors and this information is price sensitive then it is a clear breach of the regulation, never mind that its is just plainly wrong. Of course the Posters who have posted this statement may well just be lying. It's up to the company to be now be clear on this.
You cannot make a libellous statement based simply on hearsay! Heavens sake.
Firstly it is dsymons that stated that the information came from the investor presentation not me - I have simply stated that, if that is true, then there has been a breach of sensitive data.
Moreover no statement can be libelous if it is "true".
" if that is true" - you've already said price sensitive information was given. You clearly have no evidence so just leave it at that, but own it, and move on from it. Until you have written evidence, in the form of a witness statement from someone who was present, and it was clearly said behind closed doors and other investors have not been made aware of the same, then you haven't a leg to stand on. End of.
"if it is true" rather
I have "owned it" Toffers I have brought it to the Company's attention that on a public board, posters claiming to be part of the investor group that took part in the recent placing are claiming that they are privy to information that the rest of the shareholders do not have - I have asked them what exactly they were given and asked them to make the same information available to all shareholders.