Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
I certainly hope you get that satisfaction Pdub - in spades.
Cindercone it’s an AIM growth business. The path has been a long one. Perhaps longer than we expected but the story ain’t over.
Many had the chance to take profit in 2018. I get the feeling more chances will come as they grow the business.
If this share price never recovers then I will look stupid. There are worse things in life.
However when this company finally does have a share price that reflects a sensible valuation I shall enjoy the moment.
I admire your defence of the board Pdub, but BMN is not successful it's been loss-making. There are many examples of companies on AIM that borrow money or utilise shareholder's cash to build a business then go bust.
I'm not suggesting BMN will go bust but, to me, a successful business is a significantly profitable and sustainable business and I don't believe CEOs should be rewarded until the business reflects that.
I've no doubt FM works extremely hard, but shareholders no doubt work hard for their money too. I already feel his basic pay is excessive, therefore he should share in our suffering.
If BMN execs didn't want their pay to be tied to shareholder returns, they shouldn't have floated on the stock exchange.
ARCM changed my mind on account of the tone and content of your post. I will respond.
First read what I wrote carefully. I did not say that I was puzzled why you responded to me. I said I am puzzled why you would want to distract me from such a positive point! That is a completely different point so do not misquote me.
Second if you think I am patronising that is up to you. My post to you addressed the points under discussion and I was polite and courteous. Yours targeted me. Says all I need to know.
You are entitled to be as surprised as you like by what I write. What is your point?
You are free to discuss whatever you like. Who is trying to stop you. Sounds a bit paranoid. It is interesting that you responded to such a positive piece of info from the AR with a negative that was unrelated to the point I made. Some might be forgiven for thinking you had an agenda.
Happy to engage you in sensible polite discussion but if you wish to dish it out expect to get it back. I would prefer not to have this kind of engagement but that is up to you.
ARMC I have said quite enough on that thread.
Cindercone that is just an opinion … yours. And I respect that.
However I strongly disagree about his remuneration.
First I need to correct you on a point of fact. Fortune promised to create a large low cost vertically integrated vanadium platform. They are working hard to create a sustainable business that is profitable but his promise was the above. And they are a long way down the path of delivering that.
The remuneration package is a little complex but you should read it. It does include sections on company finance etc and CEO package over the last three years reflects this.
But thankfully it doesn’t end there. It is structured to encourage good performance over a range of aspects of managing BMN. The BoD have done a good job at sorting out production problems and keeping the company on its growth path despite very challenging global conditions and at times low V prices, whilst keeping dilution to the minimum (just 13% in last 3 1/2 years).
Whilst rightly the CEO has not been rewarded to the extent that he was following the highly profitable 2018, it is absolutely right that the current successes of the company are recognised.
You see it differently. I can live with that. .
@Pdub
Shareholders are losing money. FM isn't, he's just not getting more money on top of an already exorbitant salary IMO. Therefore, my sympathy is in short supply.
When he fulfils his promise of creating a highly profitable, sustainable business capable of generating substantial shareholder returns, I'll be more than happy for his remuneration to reflect that.
Cindercone Faramog posted figures (not sure if it was here) that showed his remuneration from 2019 to 2021 reduced from over $800,000 to something over $400,000. (Sorry don’t have actual figures in front of me). I think losing around $400,000 off your annual package would amount to a certain degree of suffering to any fair minded person.
Moving on.
Maya, You state with confidence your thoughts on the numerous positives regarding BMN, it all seems so clear and indisputable. Hopefully the future will see those positives result in a substantial share price increase. One wonders however why the clarity of your vision is not reflected by the market in general at this time. Any views on this?
The let down has been lack of comms and some shoddy explanations and false promises regarding the appalling SP performance.
The board can be patronising at times and need to do more to deliver tangible value for shareholders. In light of that, they should "suffer" - in Fortune's own words - along with shareholders and not receive bonus remuneration.
As for delays on various projects and sales taking a hit at various points, the impact of Covid could not have been foreseen so I'm not going to blame them for that.
If you say so
Disgruntled specifically how have the Bod taken lth for a ride?
You just posted that two things to support your above point.
1. That vertical ingestion was over which it is not &
2. That the remuneration which if you read threw the AR has not been “enhancing” as you claim but been coming down
The Bod in ten years taken $20M and turned it into an asset value of $150M
Gone from an explorer to a producer owning 2/4 worlds primary processing plants
Annual production to hit 5000-5400mtv by the end of the year with plans to get to 8000mtv over the next few years
Own the largest V electrolyte plant in the world outside China which will be completed next year
Built the mini grid also ready next year
Own 25.5% ENEROX a VRFB manufacturer
Basically we have all the parts needed for vertical integration. The Bod have not let down lth
They have delivered what they promised and deserve the fair remuneration they get
Yes, i get it. I am assumi ng that you are a fair bit underwater too (if so I really hate to see that), but do you feel there is an upside to recoup or, if not, would you not be better cutting the losses and reinvesting elsewhere? I am new to the game (2 years), but have cut loose a few different shares already due to my lack of confidence (poor, illinformed judgement from a newbie!).
Derry, I have been invested almost as long as Pdub and did see it as a good long term investment, only to be failed time and again by non delivery of many of the BOD aims, so perhaps you can understand my cynicism
Disgruntled, you have 197 posts since you joined, i have been through them and there is not 1 single positive post, not 1! I am sure even the most critical of share holders will have seen something positive here over the last year or 2. I am not one for "canceling" or trying to shut people up, but I just want to know why you are invested if you really can't see anything about this company that is good? Genuine question and not looking to cause offence!
You will always dress it up and spin it , which in my view is pitiful, but do not see that as a personal attack.
The BOD have sold us LTHs down the river in my view, but of course you will have it showing that they are taking us on a cruise rather than a ride.
Disgruntled you recently called me a broken record. Take a look in the mirror.
The world has moved on. Most of the criticisms the BoD have been sorting out.
Progress is being made on many fronts. Wake up. Smell the coffee.
The remuneration package is designed to encourage this. The very large fall in CEO remuneration over the last two years (more or less halved) reflects the balance sheet and share price. But they are rewarded for building the business. I am happy with that.
Even slow progress at BE has to be seen in the context of a brand new global industry that has developed at a pace that has certainly held back the players including BE.
Vertical integration is still part of the plan. This has been repeated multiple times by fortune in the AR and in yesterdays call.
“Bushveld Minerals will retain vertical
integration through a significant
shareholding in Bushveld Energy”
On the whole, SH s have been misled for years in the integration of the company and selling the dream.
So apart from the elder of the BB , who now believes that the BOD have earned the right to a n enhanced remuneration package?
ARCM I am sure you had noticed that my comment was about something VERY positive that I was not previously aware of.
We all knew that Vanchem has higher costs than Vametco so I am guessing that those who don’t scratch beneath the surface assumed that it’s products are less profitable than Vametco’s.
The more observant among us will have noticed that some Vanchem product prices are also higher. This has previously been in the public domain also.
So the VERY positive point from the presentation is that according to FM Vanchem’s products can also attract ‘better margins’. I would imagine many here were not previously aware of that.
I am puzzled why you would want to distract me from such a positive point!
However I will add that if anyone has been following my posting they would know that whilst BE has great potential I recognise that the sales of vanadium products to the steel industry remains the mainstay of BMN and that has been the focus of my attention. That may help you to see why this is such important news to me.
There are those who have been more excited about BE than I am and follow the energy storage part more closely. They are better qualified to answer your point. BE certainly offers massive potential for growth and shareholder value but whether I am still alive to benefit from that is a tricky question.
I will add that Eskom is certainly not the be all and end all of the energy storage industry in S.A. If BE either by choice or necessity needs to focus on smaller scale off grid scenarios I think that could turn out to be an excellent niche market for BE. That could greatly benefit LTHs in BMN/BE.
For now I am very satisfied with the progress made at the two production plants to first stabilise and then expand and diversify production and control costs. Everything seems to be in place for a profitable 2022 largely from sales to the steel industry and a larger market share in the next few years.
Just my opinion.
BE may not directly win any of ESKOM tenders right now but we don’t need to win them directly to benefit. I think an important pint to consider is that that any VRFB ESKOM tenders won by whomever will need to source electrolyte. This electrolyte more than likely will come from BELCO as it’s impractical and expensive to ship electrolyte around the globe.
As the electrolyte makes up 40% of the cost of a VRFB that still a significant portion of any VRFB tenders from Escom that we will benefit from.
In the meantime BE can fund to expand cell-cube to the point we’re it can tender for the projects outright benefiting us further
With the margins being made now from sales, all we need from Eskom is electrolyte sales. Don't see the issue. A company of Bushvelds size, doesn't want large contracts, they will stifle growth. They need good margin reasonable size contracts. Large contrcats come with too many attachments.
Good to hear Fortune reinforce the point that whilst costs are higher at Vanchem compared to Vametco so are the prices achieved for the specialised products made there.
What caught my attention was the he clearly stated ‘better margins’!
And those margins will only grow as Vanchem costs fall in line with the ramp up in production through this year.
I have said it before but it needs repeating. Despite the short term impact on the share price caused by Duferco selling the shares from CLNs isssued for purchase of Vanchem that plant may yet prove to be the Jewel in the BMN crown.
Just my opinion
Just catching up on the posts here. I think you misheard Cindercone. He said that Bushveld get offers of ore from third parties that have no way of processing it rather than offers for Bushveld’s resources.
He made the point that the price of vanadium is greater this year than it was last and that costs are expected to come down as kiln 3 ramps up. There should be more clarification on this in the q2/h1 numbers. The call was mostly about last year, most info was known so is largely historical.
As cc mentions, he made comments regarding CLNs and the fact that they do have a detrimental effect on the sp which in theory should be removed over time as the CLNs mature and the sp can find a higher level. He remarked that the brokers both have estimated a much higher target , I believe SPA have a figure of 31p and ARC 24p from earlier this year. A couple of problems with this are that AIM does not really follow logic or fundamentals at times, and there is also the Orion CLNs in the distance but it is not clear , with a target price of 17p, how this would work if the sp stays below that. I guess there is something in the small print and I think the company may be able to reduce the burden. I guess thats where a discussion takes place on how any profit is used , future expansions, etc.