Friday night but anything instead of watching my Eagles rabble. Like to say I can't believe your strenuous efforts to defend the indefensible but I cant. Pretty simple really, most companies I've reviewed (I will research and confirm) release to the market when NAIF has approved funding because it is a big deal, is market sensitive, and the Minister rubber stamps them all from what I have seen. Doubt the Minister has never over-ruled a NAIF Board approval, but stand to be corrected.
It's really pretty simple. NAIF said it approved TB funding in March. SFX chose to delay an announcement until 14 Apr. Maybe they waited until Ministerial approval, maybe not, either way they waited and let the market trade uninformed for over two weeks, unlike so many others before it. The ASX rules for continuous disclosure have lots of wriggle room (eg non-binding TO offers where the share price screams higher while boards 'consider the merits') but the intent is clear if nothing else. It's not about saying "we thought the market sensitive information was tightly held" because continuous disclosure is all about the reality market sensitive information is rarely/never tightly held right. Theory is, take away risk/temptation/reality of market sensitive news leaking and just damn well inform the market so there is no question of information arbitrage...
Anyway, don;t want to get bogged down in semantics. Bottom line, imo:... NAIF was approved in March, Board held off releasing news for 'some' reason using Ministerial sign off as the excuse. Ministerial sign off didn't come because the election was called, as flagged by the well connected Bridge St analyst. I'm on HC grizzling another 1-2 month delay is shitful and unacceptable if NAIF has actually been board approved. Board think about it and realise their in a bind. what they thought was going to be a cheeky few week delay for Minister sign off has morphed in to maybe 2-3 months and not saying anything really isn;t an option. Untenable right, so next day rush out a ridiculously ambiguous release about having NAIF board approval, pleased with level of Federal support (which means absolutely nothing btw).
Why not write the facts clearly for all to see like STA? Call me cynical (though not cynical enough), but the only reason to obfuscate is when simply stating the facts doesn't suit. Doubt we will ever be told the truth now, but what is clear, SFX sat on the NAIF news waiting for the rubber stamp instead of informing the market in March. You say, NAIF has been on the cards for months and nobody has stepped in to buy the story. But how much was it, same $90M, less because the project been shrunk to dig and deliver, or higher because governments can't give enough these days? You say, "NAIF removes 70% of the funding risk" (by far the largest risk) and earlier " that this de-risking event could justify an sp of circa $0.75 - $0.85"... well, did someone say market sensitive
You say my "post sounds a bit like a potential response of a trader who maybe took a view that we wouldn't be seeing NAIF financing until after the election and sold some out with the hope of trading back in at lower prices and then got caught short, and now looking for someone out there to blame". That really is offensive after three years riding this stock from 60c down to 6c and back up again. I supported this stock through dark, dark times when everyone was looking for comfort there was no fatal flaw and a JV deal would get done eventually. That FIRB would be approved despite all the chatter our China partner was a poison pill etc. And I've been grizzling a lot longer than before Bridge St raised the idea NAIF was delayed until after the election waiting on Ministerial sign-off (oh, day before NAIF confession
). I'm on record saying NAIF had to approve this before the election, and I never believed the Ministerial delay angle before yesterday.
I'm not short just selling down to token levels, happy to disclose for anyone who asked. Surprised nobody asked actually, I tried to give enough hints but couldn't bring myself to throw that wet blanket on a stock I was averaging out on. After holding 3 years through the valley of death nobody could call me a trader lol. Might be selling because I need the cash for medical bills, maybe I'm over exposed to min sands, maybe I bailing out before the good ship hits the rocks. It's cathartic, I needed to sell down like a claustrophobic needs to escape an elevator that stops every floor and never seems to reach it's destination. The decision to average out into the BFS, NAIF, FID news flow was made ages ago pretty much regardless of the price. Happy with 60's, hope I get more for the rest. Look at SFX like a Disallowed from the 6 cent days anyway so happy in that respect
Back to my grizzle. Shouldn't matter why a 3 year holder wants out, they should be able to sell out into an informed market without being played by the board like a fiddle, or accused of being a
traitor trader. Thanks for your concern, but don't worry about discouraging me from posting further, I love following/posting on min sand stocks. Maybe I'll let the traders know when I think it's time to go short, presenting the other side certainly can be useful...
(20min delay)