We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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. 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's not a matter of convincing @Dallas. The wider market, and I suspect many invested here, present company excepted are gearing up for an NPV of Amapa of $660m. In my view the true NPV will be 2-3 times this with a significantly smaller CapEx of projects of a similar size meaning the IRR will be off the chart. This will drum up a fair amount of interest from those that didn't "realise". Many won't get this. That's the play... MRE imminent, PFS follows shortly afterwards. I've seen days before now.
Post @09:17 NAV should be NPV.
Lol @Obs, it's not me that needs convincing ;-) I posted KM's response from the powers that be a while back....
"Dallasdaz Posted in: KDNC Posts: 4,356 Price: 15.75 No Opinion
RE: Improved reach or shifting footfall? 07 Mar 2022 12:41
In 2017 KM approached II's, Brokers and MM's seeking a better reflection of our worth, he was told we are an investment company and are valued so, i.e. equity stakes in EMH and BCN etc. KM argued that he could justify more through our JV's via their NAV, he was told we are not the owner / operator of said JV's and the market cap of the owners of the JV's didn't justify a better valuation for us.
Roll on San Luis and a strategy change, we were going to be owner / operator, so any value proven through feasibility studies etc would be attributable to us.
Now Amapa where we are a minority JV owner and a 50/50 operator. Is this strategy enough for the market to re-rate us... the PFS in July will guide."
So will Amapa be different if NPV's are worthless to our JV valuations? That's the question I asked above being a 50/50 operator, if the market ain't buying it, then we either have to sell it or get it listed to get value attributed to our MC.
lol @Dallas, I get you! However, when talking about valuations of mining companies we know the pear to pear comparisons are NPV's so when the market hears $660m from the CEO's mouth, it equates that with the $2B EMH equivalent, not realising it's oranges and apples, and the equivalent for Amapa could be similar with longer life of mines and decent shipping rates and iron ore prices, and exchange rates and the like. Perhaps higher... We own 27% of this, and only circa 4% of the Cinovec $2B... with a first right of refusal to 49% :-)))
Lol @Obs "Now that's conservative for a mining company!"
But is it for an Investment company? :-)
Ah yes. Found the link for those wanting to DYOR:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CadenceMinerals/comments/q56bac/comment/hlt8945/
In particular this comment:
===[
It should be noted that the $1.2B is a multiyear DCF, but the $660m is a single year available for sale valuation, two very different valuation methods: Cliffs reported $1.66B before reclassification to the latter. Page 77
]===
lol @Dallas. You must realise by now Kiran is playing this down/being conservative - he's trying to be the Yin to DL's legacy Yang, though it was pleasing to hear him very recently clarify that the $660m valuation by Anglo for Amapa was less than an NPV estimate (significantly less with today's iron ore prices!), now I wonder why he might feel like clarifying that now - there's such a thing as being too conservative in the face of upcoming news!? ;-) Hint, the $660m was a 1 year cash flow valuation IIRC... Now that's conservative for a mining company!
pre tax npv8 : $1.25b… npv0 : $3.4b…
post tax npv8 : $802m… npv0 : $2.37b…
Thanks @TC. Presentations don't reflect that though...2021 NPV 1.25B, 2022 NPV 802M lol.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MtXuS36LigSYUvYmPWfVWDpMH8MasfG/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10G-dr50rZ_UuqiRTSFCg5QX39yPvhsOe/view?usp=sharing
they’re reporting the post tax npv8… has always been $802m…
Has anyone else noticed the reduced NPV value quoted for Sonora in the last couple of KDNC presentations? Error or exclusion of the JV? The recently quoted figure looks uncannily like the PEA figure for La Ventana only. Any ideas?