Yes, of course it does speak TradingVolumes.
As pointed out by @Gammat ( post 59561182 ) the revised interest in PEK would have violated one of Appian's inferred transaction criteria as IMO ( post 59565718 ).
Why would Appian pay CGT, ever ?
BTW : Something does not make sense here. Try to make sense of these propositions . . .
.
"Appian are a UK pension fund" @staz024 ( post 59556648 )
"Appian is PE" @psk ( post 59572144 )
"fund horizon at 3-5 years. Exit/liquidity is paramount" @psk ( post 59572144 )
"(no) licences issued to APPIAN PINNACLE HOLDCO LIMITED or authorisation from an industry specific regulator to operate. " ( URL )
"appian . . . now own shares in Shenghe resources" (SSE: 600392.SS quoted in Renimbi, in Shanghai, exit/liquidity regulated by the CCCP ) @dwuuuu ( post 59561147 )
Many HC posters are executives of an Australian pension fund (their SMSF), regulated by ASIC and the ABR, and with PEK exit/liquidity regulated by the ASX.
. . . compare the pair
