She posted it then but it was known broadly at the time VanEck was buying in. I can't recall now (and don't really care), but the original post did have some (I think rather specific) details (but again could all be worked out publicly). My understanding is they didn't want a run on the price as VanEck had already organised an on-market averaging in plan with another player (that went through at close that week). If the market ran with this type of thing its a negative for their buy in it seems (in whatever deal they worked out). Maybe a bit dodgy for those parties to take it down, as FFX price is what suffers short term (however long term wouldn't matter, is prob good Van Eck are in happy, and just another trading game).
I don't really know why VanEck didn't just trade an off-market trade with the counterparty at some agreeable price (instead of some weird closing auction trade). They did also buy during the week on-market but not comparably much.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- FFX
- Ann: Becoming a substantial holder
Ann: Becoming a substantial holder, page-10
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 1 more message in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add FFX (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
I88
INFINI RESOURCES LIMITED
Charles Armstrong, CEO & Managing Director
Charles Armstrong
CEO & Managing Director
SPONSORED BY The Market Online