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.
It would be good to see a clear roadmap with intended milestones/dates,
also more communication to the market of its excellent potential and possible buyers or partners that would both benefit from exploiting the resources they hold,
also communicate the positions that are being traded and the excellent trading results
The story seems to have died out... and as investors we like a narrative
Excellent post there, Fiercey. All bang on the nail's head!
I agree with your comments and in particular the last one. “Investors should always look at assets” and of course levels of debt.
My whole slant with a reserved board but a good BOD is it wouldn’t hurt to tell people we actually have assets, current NAV etc. It wouldn’t hurt anyone to tell everybody that, for example, with our latest published investment, our current NAV is this. It’s marketing and one would assume they actually want to market the company; or as Q and Hydro have alluded to, isn’t this why are we doing ASX ?
We’ve done share consolidation, share buy back, spent millions on asset purchases and where are we ? Well, unless I’m mistaken about 16.25% worse off then we were not that long ago.
Afraid I have zero clue on the tallies of monies spent/traded etc., but the last financials didn't leave me concerned. I assume/hope that the board will have a decent handle on this. They seem to have a pretty decent pedigree, and hold good cornerstone investors so I haven't lost any sleep over this. But I would be interested if you are so inclined to ask them for the data on that front. This is however not something that they can actively publish, similar constraints to that of any asset manager. Can't pump up the stocks they hold etc.
I totally agree that the NAV doesn't reflect the true value in the SP, which is fundamentally why I've held for so long even while I've missed opportunities elsewhere this past year. Personally I don't think that the BOD have been that silent, the issue that they have is they are bound to those that they have invested in for news flow. Some are better than others.
The greater dilemma that MTR face in my view is how to go about changing the share price stagnation, which is doubtless why they have gone with a dual listing on the ASX. They likely wish to broaden their marketing appeal in advance of a being able to assign a value to their royalties. However until they are able to assign such I'm waiting to pass judgment on that front, hopefully SFR speeds up their news flow a bit.
The problem with these type of mining companies is that you have to been damn patient (5-8 year time lines, if not longer), a reserved BOD is not necessarily a bad thing in my view.
Investors should always look at the assets held by the company, not at bulletin boards. You'd be crazy to day trade this stock anyway, this 100% long term view play.
Hi Q
I’ve invested like I imagine a few others some very hard earned cash into what I think looks a winner.
I have no reason to knock what is their modus operandi but it’s a simple equation to me, which others simply dismiss. If we are making millions from trading, which judging by the last few months alone is a requirement for our commitments, then fair play. But I don’t think it’s the case at all; i totally agree with you on trading and warrants. But they are all a considerable time away a so just a write up.
If you read the RNS”s and heaven forbid actually read the last 100 posts here, I don’t think you would invest here and out BOD don’t encourage you either.
TF1, I imagine MTR have freed up a lot of cash from investments and have probably traded out of a lot of positions and kept the warrants where issued. I agree the NAV position should look pretty good. What would you recommend the Board do to improve communication? There are only so many presentations you can do. I would imagine that some sort of communication has been had with ST of the FT/IC so we might expect an update there.
Good morning and appreciate your post. As you have clearly stated, dividend cover from SFR is making payments. We also pay commitment fees regularly because the loan agreement is below $20M. But if the loan facility rises significantly, dividend cover won’t be enough to pay for it.
I’m not knocking MTR and merely pointing out a simple point as I have a reasonable holding.
Recently we have made some large cash commitments to SAU,KML,CBE and two more in the last month alone.
We have no income stated as the divis are paying about half our current commitments. We have a full time team buying and selling and are amassing some good looking assets. Our SP is totally abysmal and falling yet out NAV is rising and should be recognised.
I totally agree with you that MTR is almost a closed shop in regards to share movements and the total silence from the BOD in respect of anything is irritating to me personally.
I am not red flagging anything; I’m just stating my opinion that you can’t spend £1,2 or 3 million quid in a short space of time if you don’t have the money, income or profit.
The last purchase is money down now and monthly
Payments; any one like to give a balanced answer for that reason?
Our current facilities
Agreed Charaxinae. A nice balanced and constructive comment. I only see a small raise to allow liquidity on the ASX and then for the ASX to be designated as the primary listing. Once that is accomplished no need for the dual listing. Saves the company money by getting rid of the AIM listing. The Cobre investment is staggered but that makes prudent use of cash flow. I doubt a placement would be required to cover that. What could be interesting is the partial monetisation of part of the Royalty. That would help in transparency and the calculation of the NAV. A number of ways this could be done with MTR retaining the upside. Not saying now is the right time. I imagine that MTR will have been approached by a number of Royalty house by now.
I very rarely post as I follow this board passively.
To be transparent I've held here for the past 6 years and hold just shy of 300'000 shares, I also work in asset management for a living. (not a specialist in this space)
So I understand that a secondary listing is on the cards in Oz, and as I see it a capital raise on the ASX would seem likely as they'll need this to generate interest/liquidity on the listing.
MTR's biggest issue is it's a very closely held stock and its daily volumes are horribly small thus these price swings.
Having read through the recent RNS' I can't see any other obvious reason for a capital raise. I'm not saying that it isn't possible in the future, particularly if we have a sudden upswing in short term interesting rates etc. As far as I can tell the company is simply doing what it has done for some time which is making short term investments/trades using leverage against their holding in SFR.
The use of monthly leverage is not uncommon, so I'm not entirely convinced that this is a red flag for an imminent capital call. No argument that the company's cash flow is certainly beholden on SFR, but as far as I know the dividend covers this cost of borrowing. Also SFR don't appear to be pressed to cut their dividend and the analyst consensus rates them as a buy.
This said, to thefierce1 and or others I'd really appreciate your line of thoughts as to why you are so convinced this is likely now? balanced informative replies appreciated
No it Hasn’t !
My observation was “Who thinks we need to raise cash”. I’ve got one person telling me “I don’t understand the collar” well forgive me for giving an answer but if you check back on the RNS”s, you will see approximately half has been loaned against and it clearly states, OBVIOUSLY as it should, “ Dividends received $500,000 approx and $250,000 payed back on the collar. So please don’t tell me I don’t understand a loan/borrowing !!
Secondly Hydrogen has said “We don’t need a raise” and then says “We will need a small raise for ASX” !!!!!
Sometimes it’s just amazing here that as I probably hold a few more shares than some of you, you choose to fire off with sentences saying “We DONT need a raise” when we clearly do !!
I was merely pointing out we have bought some much larger assets and the money isn’t there; it’s not rocket science. It’s in the poxy RNS.