Episode 16 of the Investing Matters podcast has dropped. Listen to our latest episode featuring Reg Hoare, a Managing Director of MHP Communications. Listen 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Echo that, TDT - especially the last bit about making a cash offer for the entire Co if Sviblov really wants KM and upfront, too, in entirety for distribution to the shareholders.
Good, well reasoned post from Cowboy, as usual - sasa.
''In the current circumstances, I'm surprised RY managed to get as much as he has for it, in fact even managed to get anything''.
Very noble of you Mrs Young!
"An immediate return of 4,5 or 6p is a significantly better return than dragging this along with the risk of not receiving the future monies"
what makes you think the SP will get to 4,5, or 6p?
There's nothing transparent here
All I see is kicking the can down the road at shareholders expense
C xxk Up
Its definitely a No from me..
And yes i know by voting no i risk it all but this is better than being left on drip feed for the next 15 years, hoping that i might get something back, but looking at whats on the table doesn't seem like i will be getting much back.
I don't say this lightly this is not money that i can afford to lose
It is what it is, such is life..
Good luck everyone
The only reason I can see sanctions not to be lifted quickly if Putin was to be removed is that there would be calls for some of the Generals (what’s left of them – reports say up to 12 have been killed, which is almost unheard of in western armies) and Senior Ranks to be tried for war crimes.
Very good post and all makes sense, in most other situations I would have voted No too but I've always said AMC is a trading stock. The Russians we're never going to let it go outside of Russian control and that applies even more so now.
In the current circumstances, I'm surprised RY managed to get as much as he has for it, in fact even managed to get anything.
"Sanctions will be in place for many years"
Absolute garbage, fear mongering.
No sanctions beyond Putin. This is not about Russia, it's all about one man.
RY would really need to resign should this vote not pass?
In that case...
This is what you need to focus on, from the RNS should the resolution not succeed
$0 million upon Completion of the Transaction (to occur within 60 days of signing the SPA);
$0 million within 12 months of the date of the SPA; and
$0 million within 48 months of the date of the SPA.
$0 million for 10 years from start of production.
AMC burning through their existing cash trying to continue to progress the deposit.
RY would really need to resign should this vote not pass.
It is impossible to raise future funds
Sanctions will be in place for many years
I hear the concerns regarding RY continuing to draw a large salary of which there is a remedy at this years AGM, but lets park him and look at Tom who I suspect led the negotiations.
Tom must be worth $100m, bought a shed load at 2.2p, has options at 1.75p expiring next year and salary of about £35k.
An immediate return of 4,5 or 6p is a significantly better return than dragging this along with the risk of not receiving the future monies.
Tom supporting this deal should tell you all you need to know
its a no from me
Thanks CBS for a well reasoned post and for what its worth I concur with your conclusions. Best, P
Hi all. I've had some thoughts recently on all this - took some time to digest and think on it - I do with these things. You look at a problem, step away for a while, look at it again - step away - and I think I've finally come to a few conclusions. Will cut to the chase: think I've got to go No on this one. With deference and true regard so many of the posters on here - many whom ive had personal communication with, who will disagree, I'll lay out what I think is simple enough for me to understand. WRT:
1.) My understanding from the interview and from the RNSs is that BOD have identified near production assets they can buy. That's all fine, but our guys aren't exactly stock promoters - they're mostly geologists. Outside of TB's experience, they're good at finding targets to dig up, so what value they'd be bringing to the setup is hard to understand. I find it hard to understand what they could buy with $15m in the bank and some personal guarantees for a near production asset that's any good.
2.) What other deals were turned down that made this one so attractive? Let us imagine a straight-up $105m offer. That's terribly unattractive for an always under-invested BOD. Should that take place, and a wind-up ensue, it means these guys would have to start all over again. A deal that ensures a $30m stream over ten years keeps these guys going, they don't need to bother with the tiresome capital raises. They can pay out what they will - see TDT's prior examination of intentions here. If I was one of the BOD, I'd want the deal to look a bit like this.
3. If $ funding is the reason this deal is structured in this manner, then how it is that $60m can be paid after four years? Surely that's too much too soon if there must be trailing annual 10 year $3m payments? It is hard to evaluate this without returning to the cynical conclusion this was structured to compensate a BOD that has always been lightly invested.
That is honestly about it. I cannot see this deal having been structured in any other way than as
1.) a second chance for a BOD that was always under-invested here, and for reasons legitimiately beyond their control (other than say owning lots and lots of shares) their payout will be low on this deal.
2.) sychronously giving the buyer a reason to make a quick purchase given the remarkably odd structure. I wouldn't be all that surprised if a version of these cash flows was presented to Spiv as an alternative to a similar all-out cash offer.
Imagine a world where an all cash offer was made at $105m. It looks me as though that means RY would have to head out cap in hand to raise funds on a new venture that hasn't been explored yet. This is a fast-track for him and the BOD to keep things running.
And honestly? i've got a fair whack here. This has always been a punt. And voting No in this situation is a punt - nothing's changed.
And again, all respect to other posters - these are simply my (very) basic thoughts.
All the best
I don't think the RF will seize the asset. So far no assets have been seized - as far as I know. If the asset was seized this would basically be theft and nobody would want to develop it as when the current situation improves it would be returned to the rightful owner.
I think its very likely that if this deal is rejected a better on will arrive... and even if it doesn't Putin will soo be dead or deposed and as such the situation with Russia should be greatly improved over the next 4 years.... when we would be likely to get a lot more than 105M for it.
This is what you need to focus on, from the RNS.
US$15 million upon Completion of the Transaction (to occur within 60 days of signing the SPA);
US$10 million within 12 months of the date of the SPA; and
US$50 million within 48 months of the date of the SPA.
"The Company intends to use the proceeds from the payment obtained on Completion for an acquisition via a reverse takeover within six months of Completion. Funds from the Completion payment will be utilised to evaluate and acquire one or more projects located in mining friendly jurisdictions. It is anticipated that portions of the second and third payments (totaling US$60 million) will be paid as dividends to the shareholders."
The first payment will go on buying another project so nothing for PIs from that.
What do you think this open ended statement means:-
"It is anticipated that portions of the second and third payments (totalling US$60 million) will be paid as dividends to the shareholders."
"Anticipated" and "portions of" could mean all of the $60m or none of it. There is no firm commitment to distribute anything to PIs. It's only "anticipated" that you'll get a "portion". You are being asked to trust that the BOD will put your interests before their own because let's face it after they've spent the first $15m on buying something else they're going to need the next $10m to keep the show on the road until the next payment is made. What will $50m be worth 4 years from now and who's to say the "portion" they "anticipate" paying PIs will be anywhere near $50m?
Let Spiv make an offer for the whole company, $105m where Amur get's wound up and the whole proceeds of the sale distributed to share holders.
The people who are talking about voting to give the BoD carte blanche to do as they please must have amnesia. When have they EVER demonstrated that giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their actions was a wise choice?
Not only that a No vote could give the RF an excuse to seize the asset. Last thing they want is a load of westerners dictating to them.
It’s really Naff but I don’t think there is really a choice.
Best deal for shareholders as RY's salary could easily be brought to an end in 6 months.
best deal for who?
I believe they are supporting it because it is the best deal.
RY is up for re-election in November and the BOD can't effectively issue any more shares before then due to preemptive rights not passing previously.
I will be against his reelection if a clear strategy hasnt been presented and the pay structure amended to represent the part time nature of the roles
I think we all know why the BoD are supporting the deal.
It's worth remembering that a key part of us voting against our Board of Directors in the Crede deal was because they had a contractual responsibility with Crede to continue the deal.
This became apparent when VAST published their similar terms at the time.
There is nothing to suggest that a better deal can be done and no competition to force one. The BOD have a better understanding than us of what is happening and are supporting the deal.
My Yes votes were cast earlier today.
I'm a LTH (Pre Licence) and I read the posts on here but rarely post myself. Like most LTH I stand to loose a considerable sum of money. Having followed and read the posts on here for a number of years you get a sense of the posters who are credible and ones with a lot more knowledge worth listening to. TDT is a poster I tend to listen to and is absolutely right about the Crede deal and in my opinion TDT is also right in saying ".... PIs will be lucky to get anything from this if the yes camp prevails". My stance is a yes vote ends in no reward for the shareholders but funds the lifestyle & pensions for the BOD; a NO vote gives some "hope" of an improved offer and the potential of rewarding the shareholders, however there's the risk the RF will just take the asset and we the shareholders get nothing but at least we'll get the satisfaction the BOD also get nothing! Every shareholder needs to make their own decision and what's best for them and so I also respect CT and his views. GLA
Giving an interest-free, unsecured loan, to a billionaire in a dodgy jurisdiction, does not sit right with me.
Robin & Spiv are using the war and Decree 81 to hoodwink you.
We are entering into a period of relatively high inflation.
How much is your 3-4p going to be worth in four years time?
With a few CRs... You'll be running to stand still.
Spiv knows he needs to secure our licence now.
If we are taken over by the state then it's far from certain that they will give it to him.
Even if they do, he'll have to pay full price.
There are oligarchs further up the pecking order.
Do not be gullible!
If you look at the way this deal has been structured and the woolly wording around payment I think PIs will be lucky to get anything from this if the yes camp prevails.
The BOD recommended voting for the Crede deal several years ago and that was rejected. I don't think there's anybody on here who now thinks that was the wrong decision.
I have a lot of respect for Geng etc, but purely based on the numbers (and the timing of payments), I have voted against the motion. I fully accept that we could lose the lot, but on balance I think the risk leans towards voting no, and await an update. I would regret it if I took no action, so I recommend you all make your own decision but do then cast your vote (1 email or 1 phone call) ASAP.
Coincidentally, my partner and our daughters have done the same, so a fairly sizeable holding.
Good luck everybody.