Https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/09/world-court-germany-support-israel-geopolitics-nicaragua
Possible that there will be some retaliation, i.e. restrictions on western companies (e.g. Calibre, Mako) doing business in Nicaragua. Not great if Calibre is the bidder, clearly no problem if it's the Chinese.
Thanks @condor_forever, I see it:
Filed 2024-03-14 03:17
Tx date 2024-03-14 $CXB
Calibre Mining Corp. King, Ryan
5 - Senior Officer of Issuer
Direct Ownership
Common Shares
10 - Acquisition or disposition in the public market $3,560
+2,000 vol $1.78 each
New Balance 398,200
There seem to have been quite a lot of insider transactions in the past six months, so I clearly can't trust yahoo :(
@condor_forever, You say "One board member of calibre bought on the open market last week (14th March)." I assume you mean bought shares of Condor since, according to Yahoo, no insiders have bought Calibre shares recently (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CXB.TO/insider-transactions). This is clearly very relevant re a possible Calibre bid. What is your source of this information?
If they equity raise is turned down and the company is unable to replay the retail bond in August, aren't they insolvent?
They may have a chance to persuade the retail bond holders to extend and pretend since the secured creditors would have priority in the windup that would inevitably follow a default. (I haven't seen the terms but would imagine that all secured notes would become immediately payable on default or insolvency.) However I would very much doubt that they would be able to salvage anything much for the shareholders.
I'm guessing that any institutional shareholders that have not already sold will not want to play Russian roulette and so will vote for the equity issue to salvage something - especially if they are offered a sweeter deal that PIs :(
I don't dispute that they are getting a very good deal.
The question is, would our creditors allow us to wait for it to be snapped up by someone else if Ardian decide that they want an even better deal?
I hope this is a red herring, however is anyone able to definitivly answer this?
Is there any way that Ardian could either pull out of or renegotiate the Verne Purchase at the last moment to take advantage of the fact that we appear a distressed seller? (i.e. How binding and enforceable is the "definitive agreement" described in the 27 November RNS?) Obviously, if there are other potential buyers, they run the risk of loosing a sale which, if they have the funds, is likely to prove profitable to them. However this sort of thing happens all the time in the housing market and also seems to happen in the corporate market too - a recent example, of which I am all too aware, being the sale if IM Minerals Ltd by Pathfinder Minerals Plc to Acumen Advisory Group LLC where AAG dropped the price after the initially proposed completion date and PFP was in no position to object.
ToD, I agree "value is meaningless IMO" in the very short term. This is not a share to day trade since you will be at an information disadvantage.
However in the longer term it is everything. Given that the liquidity problem has been dealt with this is the lowest risk way to double my money over the next 3-5 years I can find at the moment. Definitely one to buy and hold. It is currently the largest position in my portfolio and the one I will lose the least sleep over.
The share was suspended on 28 September 2023. It will have been suspended for 6 months on 28 March. Unless either the accounts are submitted or an extension is granted it will be delisted. Does anyone know any reason why this will not occur?
I certainly take your point about investing in sexy new asset classes.
However it looks to me like the market has had a knee jerk reaction to latest RNS and valuation. I can't see that it has said anything we didn't already know.
1. The previous valuations were BS.
2. The company has far to much debt and will be unable to pay a dividend for the forseeable.
Surely this was obvious to anyone who was paying attention and so should have been in the price already.
The questions that need answering now are:
1. Is the new valuation accurate? Hopefully they have taken the opportunity to kitchen sink it.
2. What discount to this valuation will need to be applied to sell the portfolio in an acceptable timeframe?
From what I can see today's RNS means that the company is getting on with what is required for the Verne sale and sorting out the liquidity problem although still waiting for regulatory approval. Hardly surprising that the lenders aren't objecting to something that will get them their money back however still good to have that box ticked and also, unless I've missed something, they don't seem to be demanding an extra pound of flesh for their trouble.
To me this all seems good but not game changing. Has anyone spotted any devils in the details that I have missed?
Calibre keeps coming up as a possible buyer.
Certainly they are in the best position to generate cash from the mine, however this would leave them more rather than less Nicaragua focused.
Their whole rational for buying Marathon at a premium was to reduce their Nicaragua risk and so rerate as a global producer. Their buying Condor, while improving profitability, would go against this and negatively impact their share price.
I think we're stuck with the Chinese :(
"All that will happen is that ISA holdings will move to trading accounts …"
I agree that your investment won't be wiped out in that case, however it will be involuntarily transferred out of your ISA and you will loose that amount of ISA allowance. Some investors aren't constrained by the 20K annual max you can transfer to an ISA; some are.
Another concern with an unlisted stock is that you can't easily sell it if you need to. Even if you are planning to hold to wind-up, the optionality still has value which is reflected in the price.
This may have spooked some investors who hold their shares in ISAs:
"The Board may reconsider the listing and Jersey regulatory status of the Company alongside the completion of the sale of the Company's Wholly-Owned Assets having regard to the proposed strategy for Arqiva at that time."
Reading the whole thing they are not proposing imminent changes, just considering costs, so I don't think it is anything to worry about for now. I remain convinced that I will receive over double the current share price over the next five years and have consequently added - outside my ISA.
Thanks CHELMOCHASER,
I get what you're saying that it it is redeemed at maturity, it is a very good deal - 15% for less than 6 months (at current 89 ask.)
I also understand that if RGL folded, despite being behind the secured creditors, there is sufficient property in excess of the total debt that retail bond holders would have a reasonable chance of being paid eventually.
What I am keen to understand whether private retail bond holders are likely to be forced to accept a roll on revised terms rather than being paid in full at maturity and if so, what those terms are likely to be.
From the prospectus: (https://www.regionalreit.com/~/media/files/r/regional-reit-v2/proposed-capital-raise/retail-eligible-bonds-a.pdf page 27) this is clearly possible:
"Defined majorities may be permitted to bind all the Bondholders with respect to modification and waivers of the terms and conditions of the Bonds. Therefore, for instance, if a significant majority of Bondholders were to vote to amend the Terms and Conditions of the Bonds (for example, to change the final maturity date of the Bonds) then that amendment would be binding on all other Bondholders. "
Clearly the willingness of the majority of the bondholders to accept changes to the terms of the bond are likely to reflect the interest of their overall holdings (i.e. any equity holding, other loans outstanding to the company etc) and not just their holding in the retail bond itself.
Is there any way to know who the majority of the bond holders are? This should help in determining if they are likely to accept terms that are unfavourable were they to be considered in the interest of the value of the retail bond alone. Were this the case it would clearly justify the seemingly excessive discount.