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.
"It'd be a notifiable disclosure of interest if any other board members were shareholders or directors of Juno Limited. Because it isn't noted in any of their statements, they aren't." - do you know how offshore vehicles work? There are a number of ways where this requirement can be circumvented without difficulty. I'm not saying that this is happening but it's not difficult and (in most cases) perfectly legal.
"Tommy; "Where do you get the interest rate of 10% on the £3.7m of loans to AYM? Genuine question. This seems ludicrously high given the low interest rates of the last decade++."" - I addressed this almost 2hrs ago. when I read p51 and note 18 of last September's Annual Report but until you mentioned it I had missed it. However, as I said to Bob, it's small beer if moves to production begin or a buyer appears.
If there are broadly drafted NDAs in place the BOD could be very hamstrung as to what they can discuss publicly. I see these all the time and still from time to time draft them myself though I usually get a junior to do it.
I do agree though that communication is not a strong point of this BOD and would love to see some news but you can't assume it's just dormancy.
Tommy; "Have you paid for a search of Juno LTD (Bermuda) structure, board members and shareholders? If not how can you make this statement? It's complete speculation which is what you accuse me of and therefore kettle calling the pot black. On the other hand, if you have looked into the structure of Juno LTD (Bermuda), are you prepared to disclose who are the shareholders in said Juno LTD (Bermuda)?"
It'd be a notifiable disclosure of interest if any other board members were shareholders or directors of Juno Limited. Because it isn't noted in any of their statements, they aren't.
Tommy; "Where do you get the interest rate of 10% on the £3.7m of loans to AYM? Genuine question. This seems ludicrously high given the low interest rates of the last decade++."
In the Annual Report. Its only payable on the principal, so its not too bad.
Tommy; " errm, no. That's a very naive view of the world. No development stage mining companies are going to broadcast an interest and see the SP rise. Just think about it."
That isn't what I said, and I'm certainly not naive on normal practise in the industry. What I said was that ongoing discussions do not stop the Board communicating with shareholders (on other matters of progress). Presumably something else should be going on other than discussions with a potential partner for selling the asset. They raised £600k in January to "to continue the development of the group’s Parys Mountain property as outlined in the recent positive Preliminary Economic Assessment for that project". How is that going? We have no idea.
I follow dozens of junior mining companies, and this is one of the weakest out there for shareholder communication, and it always has been. They just conducted a raising, and should be progressing this promising project forwards - but they are acting like they are in a perpetual state of dormancy. Most development stage mining companies provide regular updates on progress throughout the year, not just in Annual and Interim Reports. If they did this, it would improve shareholder and market confidence in the company.
I think Varma is shrewd too.
Would be interesting to see more details of Juno but short of fork out couple hundred pounds for Bermuda search not sure how find out.
From what I have seen the board appear extremely scrupulous in adhering to regulations (albeit wording of RNS can be ambiguous)
So i am inclined to think if any had significant direct interest in Juno it would be in accounts or on website.
Although that thought then leads back to what actually is the incentive for them. Unless a chunk of options is in the offing. But I have a feeling that Juno would not be keen to see any more appreciable dilution to their holding unless the end game was in sight.
For what its worth I do think board progressing matters. I accept your point re commercial confidentiality etc but do not think there is a need for total radio silence - although this is par for the course for the last three or four decades.
Bob - I'd missed this but posted just a few minutes ago before your post that I'd now seen it on note 18 (page 51) of last Company Report.
Varma is shrewd but this is actually small beer if Parys gets bought or, better still, developed.
Detailed on annual accounts in the notes
I thnk most recent is March 2020
Interest is payable on capital.
Agree ten per cent in current climate on face of it high. But I believe to be unsecured loan - it is topped up from time to time to provide working capital
Without Juno support unlikely company be here now - a point the auditors emphasise from time to time.
There are lot other interesting points in accounts including actual ownership Parys Mountain etc.
I'd missed 'note 18' of the annual report re the 10% interest on the £3,660,788 loan. Mmmm ...
"and discussion with potential partners does not stop other development stage mining companies interacting with shareholders." - errm, no. That's a very naive view of the world. No development stage mining companies are going to broadcast an interest and see the SP rise. Just think about it.
"I don't think there is any evidence any other members of the Board are associated with Juno Limited, " - Have you paid for a search of Juno LTD (Bermuda) structure, board members and shareholders? If not how can you make this statement? It's complete speculation which is what you accuse me of and therefore kettle calling the pot black. On the other hand, if you have looked into the structure of Juno LTD (Bermuda), are you prepared to disclose who are the shareholders in said Juno LTD (Bermuda)?
Where do you get the interest rate of 10% on the £3.7m of loans to AYM? Genuine question. This seems ludicrously high given the low interest rates of the last decade++.
I completely agree with you re the underlying quality of the asset of Parys Mountain and have also 'reaccumulated' a decent amount of shares at these extremely low prices.
The BOD may be comatose (not really) but I doubt Varma is and the value of what is in the ground keeps going up and will keep going up for the reasons I have previously posted many many times.
That its "time will inevitably come" is what I've been saying for the last 15 months and it'll come in the next 4 - 5 months imo.
Look forward to your response.
Starting to drift towards a pointless argument now. To bring it back round to the original point (hopefully...) - looking through various stock exchange filings over the years only Danesh Varma has been referenced as associated with Juno Limited as "a Director" and "a significant shareholder".
I don't think there is any evidence any other members of the Board are associated with Juno Limited, so the idea that other members of the Board don't need to hold shares in AYM because of that seems to be fairly baseless. Only Bill Hooley has any shares in AYM directly, and then only about £7k, so one could certainly argue performance is not adequately incentivised presently. Certainly though Mr Varma's exposure to AYM through the Juno Limited, is significant.
As discussed before Juno Limited don't just own 26% of AYM, they also hold £3.7m of loans to AYM. Presumably, Mr Varma, or his beneficiaries, would like to get that money back one day. But for now, its just racking up interest of 10% (on the principal) per annum.
I've reaccumulated a decent quantity here recently at these lower prices, primarily because of the underlying quality of the asset of Parys Mountain and the low market valuation of AYM overall now at £7m. I get that there's a risk the BoD are actually doing nothing, and that only time will tell whether they are in advanced discussions with potential partners, or indeed just asleep. I can see why people are frustrated though, there hasn't been enough dialogue with the market, and discussion with potential partners does not stop other development stage mining companies interacting with shareholders. I also think this was way overhyped a few months back and that expectations were not in calibration with reality. But nonetheless, Parys Mountain with this updated resource and some further optimisation, in the current market, is a really decent VMS deposit, and I think its now becoming an inevitability that its time will come.
To major on the wrong company name in the context of this thread is indeed to strain at a gnat. If you think you can hide your ignorance concerning what I said by deflecting then you are mistaken. Those who have any understanding of the relevant legal matters now know that Divermike isn't the knowledgeable person he tries to portray himself to be. I can address my simple error (unimportant in this context) by way of a simple amendment whereas your lack of knowledge would take years to address. Your infantile responses only demean you further.
The wrong company, a minor issue 8-)) Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Driver Diver, just in case you are as unfamiliar with the idiom as you are with legal, trusts and especially company law matters (beneficial equitable ownership as opposed to bare legal title too difficult for you?) I thought I'd explain it for you:
"strain at a gnat" ... To exaggerate or put far too much focus on a minor issue to try to make it seem like a major one often in an attempt to deflect from the serious point.
Straining at a gnat there Driver.
You didn't even get the right company 8-)) ..... Dohhhhhhhhhh !!
What is it with people on this BB who can't read what's there and see written what isn't written?
Where did I mention anything about Juno LTD (Bermuda) being a listed company. It's not a PLC is it?
Of course it's a private limited company which is why it's a 'LTD'.
Everything I wrote is correct as it often applies to offshore private limited companies in places like Bermuda but it clearly has gone over your head because it seems you know little relevant law.
You are clutching at straws there mate, to clear things up JUNO LTD (Bermuda) is not a listed company therefore does NOT have public share holders, it is a "Private investment company" the only shares in issue will be the directors shares (A very nominal value !!!) making sure they have a Limited liability in the event it goes pop, every LTD company has to have some sort of share issue, even if its just 1 share at 0.1p
Well in that case there are shareholders aren't there?
Additionally, even if the shares are only 2 in number (an extremely unlikely and somewhat fanciful scenario) and have a nominal value of $1 Bermudan dollars each, that doesn't preclude them from having a true value of $millions if the 'ltd' company owns assets worth millions (as it must do in this case). In fact, you don't have to be a shareholder to have a valuable right because the shareholders could be trustees so that the legal title vests in the nominal shareholders but the equitable and valuable ownership is in others.
I half suspect that Juno LTD will be structered so that the shareholders will be other offshore corporate entities (in the Cayman Islands perhaps). This is a fairly common regime where offshore entities are concerned and usually aimed at secrecy and minimising tax.
As far as investor's are concerned, it ought not be of much concern and if it is, on payment of a few hundred £s you can unravel most all of the structure and put your mind at rest.
I don't believe for one second that the BOD are asleep at the wheel. If nothing of intetest has materialised by November then it maybe time to reassess my holding. I'm not expecting to be disappointed though and may add some more shares if there is another dip towards 3p or less.
As you know, as well as I do .......LTD could very well mean 1 share per director at 1p each
Diver - I may have got the company name wrong but I did say it was an offshore entity.
As for not having shareholders, Bermuda company law is for the most part like English company law so that a 'ltd/limited' company in Bermuda has to have shareholders.
Tommy, do some research mate, JUNO Mining has nothing to do with Anglesey mining, the share holder you are referring to is Juno Limited which is a private investment fund based in Bermuda. When research you have to be very specific with the name, Juno LTD (Bermuda) they don't have share holders