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.
A new day so I’ve re read yesterday’s RNS together with the previous ones. I’m not seeing a vast change in position from the 19th February RNS. Yes, the company is deep trouble, but we already knew that, and has a distinct possibility of going into administration, but we already knew that. AND, yes an increased possibility.
The 19th February RNS talks about Estimate at Completion (“EAC”) and Cost-to-Complete (“CTC”). The EAC being US$1,004 million, comprised of US$479 million spent up to date, US$52 million is outstanding to trade creditors, US$15 million for critical activities during the slowdown period and US$4 million pre-first metal mining costs, and a CTC of US$454 million.
Yesterday’s RNS takes a different view, so not truly comparable. It talks about the money needed and current liabilities. So does EAC equal liabilities plus new funding?
Liabilities are US$418 million, comprised of US$241 million in senior debt, a US$27 million cost over-run facility (“COF”), US$68 million to trade creditors and US$82 million of convertible loan notes, and a restructuring solution for its existing royalties arrangements.
New full funding required to complete construction and bring the operation to positive cashflow is US$567 – 592 million. This consists of the Project CTC of US$454 million, as announced on 19 February 2024, plus US$89 million of pre-production costs, ramp up costs, general & administration and working capital required to bring the operation to positive cash flow, and US$25 - 50 million that relates to transaction costs and a minimum cash contingency.
So EAC of US$418 million plus US$592 million US$1,010 million.
I must be missing something, please explain! Genuine answers only.
I’m going to answer my own question, the previous equity raise.
Your figures look correct so it’s still $1 Billion , what I find hard to understand is these funds that are invested in HZM are long term funds, they must be aware of all the EV Battery factories setting up & the requirements for ESG ? They also know that to build this project from scratch today would cost in excess of $1.2Billions ?
If it goes to Admin then everyone loses including the Cornerstone Investors, doesn’t make sense, that said not a lot does these days.
Lawrence
How do you explain your daily ramping over several years and censoring of the board by getting critical posts removed so only your positive posts remained?
Isn't it the case that you are just looking for any opportunity to start telling people it's their last chance to buy at under 2p?
How do you feel that people may have bought or held due to reading your posts?
Don't you feel shameless trying to have a decent conversation now that the game is up - although to anyone with a brain it was up 6 months ago, and even before that if you really want to get into it.
Maybe you should one like the other rampers?
I am seeing a vast change in position.
Between 19Feb and now, 40 whole days have passed, with no deal found.
The change in position, is the time lost for not founding a deal.
And if one is a subscriber to the narrative:
You still can go into admin accidentally by virtue of not being able to find a deal, instead of outrightly intentionally, then time lost is a hell of a change of position.
It matters the world to me.
The key evolution between RNS is simply this.
Whats not being said: solution not found.
Mv01,
The company did say an I quote
The Company will continue to work closely with its major shareholders and senior lenders on a full funding solution, targeted for Q2 2024.
So no change from the 19th February RNS
Allow me to disagree by virtue of a demonstrated example. It's merely introducing myself and how i view position and probability as a concept.
My vet comes and says to me on 19feb:
Your kitten mike will be pregnant by may 1st.
Then she publishes an rns on 30 mar and resonates:
Your kitten mike will be pregnant by may 1st.
There is a change in position to me.
The what's not being said is that we lost 40 days of trying. Hence the probability of that pregnancy happening is reduced by virtue of less time now available for that chancy event.
That is how I see our position worsened.
Genuinely my view.
Mv01, to look at it a slightly different way, on 19th Feb the statement from the iCEO was:
"Further, the CTC estimate is the capital required to complete the construction of Araguaia, commission the project and deliver first metal. The final financing amount will be higher and will depend on a variety of factors including discussions with Senior Lenders, suppliers, cornerstone investors and other third parties."
The final financing amount was confirmed yesterday. So technically it would be unrealistic to expect a deal to have been reached until this figure was confirmed as there would be a danger of going back again for more money.
Shareholders were always going to get screwed as has been mentioned most are in above 80p. Major dilution is going to be a big impact.
I think yesterday's RNS was a 'come to Jesus' moment.
I suspect they have a deal in discussion that involves significant sucking it up requirements which some of the cornerstones are finding a bitter pill to swallow.
Nasr is trying to break the Mexican standoff by painting a brutal picture of what could happen.
Subtext: right we've got the real figures now, stop messing about and come to the table so we avoid pushing ourselves into administration by accident.
Mv01,
I’ll counter that with my own example. Your example is on/off, which is fine. My example would be empty/full.
Take a glass and fill it. Empty or full. In between neither empty or full but just a transitional state from empty to full.