The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
That’s why i quoted the whole paragraph.
Not looking for an argument, but you can read into it what you want.
There's a big difference between "more likely" and "likely". You can't just drop the more..! It is more likely that I will win the Euromillions jackpot than it is that I will score a century at Lord's.
marcusg71 would say I am LIKELY TO WIN THE EUROMILLIONS JACKPOT. I wouldn't..!
The comment from Martin Fewings shouldn't be selectively quoted in a way that changes its meaning. He says only that Glencore are more likely to sell the project than they are to develop it themselves.
No worries Stok
Yes let’s hope they pull their finger out and get it sold.
Thanks Marcus Much appreciated.
Let's hope they get cracking.
Stoc I hope this might answer your question.
Martin Fewings, Glencore’s Head of Investor Relations emailed me recently in response to my question about what they were doing with their iron ore projects.
“ As you may be aware, our iron ore projects in the Republic of Congo and Mauritania (inherited from Xstrata) are early stage and located in regions lacking necessary infrastructure. Given our preference to avoid the many development risks that attach to greenfield project development, we are more likely to be sellers of these projects.”
LIKELY TO BE SELLERS
Another incidental observation is that whenever AT releases an RNS the share price tanks. Hence, buy on the rumour, sell on the news...maybe one day. Sell in May and go away...perhaps.
Much speculation as to what Glen's position may or may not be. No one knows for sure and Glen has not said a word. The only thing we really know for sure is that the asset exists.
Its called investing.nuff said.
.."Glencore's position might be political.."
That's the understatement of the year ;->
They've got the US DoJ breathing down their necks over DRC, Venezuela and somewhere else; some investigation going on in Switzerland , IIRC; complaints filed by human rights organisations in Southern Chad; and their other 'spat' in C-B over unpaid oil loans....
They don't draw a salary, let alone a massive salary. Given staff are paid in shares one could argue they're perfectly aligned with shareholder interests when it comes to securing a sale of the asset. So not sure how Zioc can be called a lifestyle company. It may be a company where things appear to be happening at a glacial pace, but no-one is taking the p!ss when it comes to getting paid to do nothing. At least that's how I see it. I'll continue to oscillate between 500k to 1m shares depending on my financial situation. I'm happy to wait for however long it takes for this to get sold. Missing out on a potential lottery ticket because of impatience would absolutely kill me. A lack of news won't. GLA
I think your win more/win less outline is likely 'on the money' ;->
.."The blockage is most probably Glen wanting a much bigger value than China is willing to offer .."
and the possibility of China 'encouraging' Nguesso to take away the Zanaga license has probably receded pro-tem (thanks to Sundance/Burford arbitration), emboldening GLEN to play (slightly) harder ball....
Let's hope Ivan / Gary don't let the good be enemy of the best (outcome).
I think it's high time Trahar came clean with shareholders about where this is going. Are they close to selling? Are they even looking to sell?
We've been mugged off for too long and it's time we got some answers as to what, if anything, our money is invested for.
I never thought Zioc was a lifestyle company, until now. I now have doubts.
I'd be very enthusiastic about any shareholder movement towards getting some answers.
Mitch984 good point.
From today's RNS it would appear no one works.
"There's a smaller procedural/admin issue that remains unaddressed AFAIAA : the 2020 element of ZIOC 'team's Retention Fee package. Retention Fee Package
...This consists of an additional amount (the "Retention Fee") to be determined on a one-off basis in both October 2019 and December 2020. .."
The 2020 amounts haven't been disclosed. When I asked AT about this a while back, he replied that they were 'too busy with other things' - which seemed just about believable at the time.
This may be a hobby-horse of mine - and I may be kidding myself (confirmation bias anyone ?) - but THAT argument doesn't hold any longer, if it ever did."
I think it is a really important point. I was encouraged in 2020 by this incentive scheme as it meant, or so I thought, that AT etc would have some skin in the game instead of just drawing a salary. I am always biased against an AIM company where the staff are on a salary - where is the incentive for them to sell? They would just lose their job. (KP2 is an example of this).
It is strange this scheme has never been updated as regards shareholder info, and I applaud Extrader for bringing it up with AT.
The whole scheme though seems shrouded in mystery. For example I have no idea who, apart from AT, is a part of it. In fact I have no idea who, apart from AT, actually works (draws a salary) for ZIOC or Jumelles!
'It’s ALWAYS about the opportunity for regret being distributed equally'. 'ALWAYS', 'NEVER', 'RUBBISH!'.
I described a scenario where Glen buys Zioc for £500m in order to sell onto China for £1bn. Zioc gets a way out where they can rid themselves of a huge asset and make everyone wonderfully wealthy. Glen is happy because they make £500m with the on-sale, which pays for 50% of their share of development costs (plus over-runs). And China is happy because they get a 100 year resource for pocket change. They regain power over Oz, alongside opening up the resource wealth of this region of Africa. Everyone wins. Just Zioc wins less. And China ultimately wins more. You trying to tell me that China would regret this scenario...? Ultimately an outcome that everyone wants is secured. It just requires Glen to line up the Chinese buyer with an agreed value and Zioc to fall into line. If Zioc is holding out then we'll be waiting for many more years. But I'd be surprised if it's them creating the blockage. It matters more to Zioc that a deal is done at a reasonable value, then no deal at all. They have no real power in this relationship, which is why they win less. And China wins more. The blockage is most probably Glen wanting a much bigger value than China is willing to offer i.e. Glen wanting to win the most and China potentially the least.
Deals get done when all parties are equally unhappy with the outcome..!
You want to pay 50, I want to sell for 100; we might just do a deal at 75... It’s ALWAYS about the opportunity for regret being distributed equally.
Agree Starbright, except in the scenario I described I wouldn't view it as everyone missing out evenly, more everyone benefitting, but a little unevenly. GLA
It is possible that ZIOC itself is the bottleneck. I can't see "the Chinese" (your phrase not mine!) being particularly keen on allowing ZIOC and it's shareholders - who in reality haven't contributed much - to walk away with a fortune. I once walked a company I ran away from a deal in Taiwan where, at the last minute, the seller asked us to split the consideration differently between the majority and minority shareholders. This was - we were assured - entirely permissible under the laws in that country. I'm not suggesting that could happen here, only observing that morality and legality can be questioned when there is a perception that parties are benefitting unfairly.
To be clear, the prospect of benefitting unfairly is precisely why I have held a core holding in ZIOC for years and will continue to do so until resolution is reached. A framework like that proposed by G_G_G is the likely route to this, but it will only be achieved when all parties fell they have missed out evenly. ZIOC by accepting a BMV price, and the prospective buyer for making ZIOC rich in return for very little input... This is the province of the best investment bankers; let's all hope that some are engaged behind the scenes here!
I think you'll find they had to rns the second tranche being complete in order to release the third tranche. As I've said, this should be seen as a huge +ve given they now have cash for most of next year as well because they raised at a premium to the average sp over the past 12 months.
If I were in Glen's shoes I'd be speaking about a suitable price for 50% - 1 share with the Chinese right now, let's say $1bn. And then I'd make an offer for half of that to Zioc. Everyone wins in this scenario. The project would go ahead. We'd make a fortune ($1bn = sale at £1.60 or so). Glen would have paid for over half their share of developing the mine (even with cost over-runs), which makes Greenfield much more attractive. They would have Chinese input for mine, rail, power build etc. They would also have Chinese protection of the resource. The Chinese get a 100 year resource for arguably their most important commodity at a very good price. They foster even stronger RoC relations, which would allow them to make a play for the billions of other tons of IO in the country amongst other resources. They have a strategic ally on an Atlantic coast. And they have the input of Glen wrt to building the mine (alongside limiting exposure through sharing costs). RoC will benefit in a multitude of ways. And no doubt many brown paper bags will be exchanged by the Chinese over the years. Really cannot tell who / what is creating the bottleneck. Hopefully this year. GLA
Exactly, NewKOTB why put out the Shard third tranche RNS just 30 minutes after the first RNS. Its not like they could not have been combined in one update.
FWIW, I've bought back the shares I sold a few weeks ago when the worlds-most-obvious-ramping-crew were here. Thanks guys...
Morning all, I’m an avid lse reader but fist time poster... I’ve held this share for 6yrs & really believed we were on to something recently but this mornings RNS has knocked my confidence... what’s everyone else thinking? Opportunity to buy or just hold what we’ve got...
'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.
The re-costing exercise seems to have taken an inordinate length of time to conclude pretty much 'as you were'. Given inflation in a lot of inputs elsewhere, that's something , I suppose, but hardly 'game-changing'. They've used high quality consultants, which provides an element of 'bankability' to the numbers.
As others have commented , the RNS's are notable for their deafening lack of update on 'approaches' ; current relationship with COIDIC; and the radical offshore port concept/Yantai group's involvement.
There's a smaller procedural/admin issue that remains unaddressed AFAIAA : the 2020 element of ZIOC 'team's Retention Fee package
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/zanaga-iron-ore-ZIOC/share-news/Zanaga-Iron-Ore-Company-Ltd-Management-Incentivisa/80631873
.." Retention Fee Package
...This consists of an additional amount (the "Retention Fee") to be determined on a one-off basis in both October 2019 and December 2020. .."
The 2020 amounts haven't been disclosed. When I asked AT about this a while back, he replied that they were 'too busy with other things' - which seemed just about believable at the time.
This may be a hobby-horse of mine - and I may be kidding myself (confirmation bias anyone ?) - but THAT argument doesn't hold any longer, if it ever did.
Taken all the above together, I'm on balance inclined to kick my own investment can down the road for another spell.
All IMO. NAI, DYOR etc etc
'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.
The re-costing exercise seems to have taken an inordinate length of time to conclude pretty much 'as you were'. Given inflation in a lot of inputs elsewhere, that's something , I suppose, but hardly 'game-changing'. They've used high quality consultants, which provides an element of 'bankability' to the numbers.
As others have commented , the RNS's are notable for their deafening lack of update on 'approaches' ; current relationship with COIDIC; and the radical offshore port concept/Yantai group's involvement.
There's a smaller procedural/admin issue that remains unaddressed AFAIAA : the 2020 element of ZIOC 'team's Retention Fee package
https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/zanaga-iron-ore-ZIOC/share-news/Zanaga-Iron-Ore-Company-Ltd-Management-Incentivisa/80631873
.." Retention Fee Package
...This consists of an additional amount (the "Retention Fee") to be determined on a one-off basis in both October 2019 and December 2020. .."
The 2020 amounts haven't been disclosed. When I asked AT about this a while back, he replied that they were 'too busy with other things' - which seemed just about believable at the time.
This may be a hobby-horse of mine - and I may be kidding myself (confirmation bias anyone ?) - but THAT argument doesn't hold any longer, if it ever did.
Taken all the abovetogether, I'm on balance inclined to kick my own investment can down the road for another spell.
NAI, DYOR etc etc
At least we are holding 1st place in the "Top Fallers of the Day" ...
We all knew an RNS of this nature would have an negative SP effect ... but I do think the second RNS for Shard most certainly added gallons of fuel to the fire ..... no need at all for the Shard RNS today ..... manipulation of SP, pure and simple ...and pure disregard of current SH's.... poor and incompetent mgt or released by design .... let you decide.
AIMO
"so why the third tranche?...."
All about lubricant ... imo, as has been since the first announcement .... but yes, appears as if there is a need to get them away sooner than later... lol
Oh, and pure co-incidental timing of 3 tranche to follow nailed on fall in SP this morning, couldn't of released it prior when the SP was 25% higher... hummmm !
lubricant dear boy, plenty of lubricant ...
aimo