Member Info for baldmark

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?

Indeed. It would be excellent for their profitability, and terrible for their share price!

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.

Am I missing something?

Is there any way that RGL can get out of repaying the full par + 2.25 coupon on the retail bond when it matures on 6th August whilst still continuing as going concern?

Clearly it's an unsecured bond, so in the event of insolvency secured creditors take priority. However we're not currently insolvent and are unlikely to be so by August. Obviously RGL can offer an extension / restructuring / conversion to equity however can they force retail bond holders to accept this (without declaring insolvency)?

I've currently taken a smallish position in the retail bond however have avoided liquidating other holdings to fill my boots since when something looks too good to be true it often is.

Also a chance that Abrdn investors will reject the deal in favour of a managed wind-down.

https://reactnews.com/article/abrdn-property-income-trust-faces-shareholder-backlash-against-custodian-reit-merger/

We can hope...

At least if it is being treated as a bond that suggest that people with more knowledge than me the dividends to continue to be paid. I'll just sit back, collect the dividends and wait for the Fed to break something.

I'm not sure how much weight I would put on Mr Frisby's advice. I like his articles but following his previous tips has got me into Andrada Mining (formerly Afritin, underwater) and Moneta Gold (deep underwater). Hope he's right this time, but not holding my breath.

Marunam2,

I doubt much of the government/Civil Service opposition will be explicit and in the open. It's more likely to take the form of delay, bureaucratic obstruction and behind the scenes lobbying of FIG officials, international bodies and potential funders. Anything in the open will be done in the name of Net Zero and the "Climate Emergency" rather Decolonisation.

As to the Americans seeking to keep their vasal states energy dependent upon them, recent examples involve opposing the planned West Cumbria coking coal mine (https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/john-kerry-cop26-cumbria-mine-coal-b1814428.html) and, of course, the destruction of Nord Stream.

"Company continues to work through the requisite approvals and still expects completion by no later than 30 June 2024."

My main takeaway from this RNS is that there is still scope for the "Specialist Fund" to weasel out of the funded participation agreement in the (hopefully unlikely) event that the April annulment hearing goes against us. This would leave us needing to fundraise to pay the legal bills and may still prove fatal.

Obviously it's good that Navitas are getting on with things, especially if they have found an FPSO. However I still think the main risk to the project is political rather than engineering. While the permission is technically the responsibility of the FIG, I strongly suspect that the British Civil service will, behind the scenes, attempt to sabotage a project with the Zionist Entity and the Colonial Power to develop new Fossil Fuels in the Malvinas. Once Labour are in power, they will have the tacit approval of the elected government. (Not that that makes a lot of difference.) Also the Falklands, being in the Atlantic, are in the US sphere of influence. The Americans don't generally like competition to their own oil and gas companies.

I'm currently sticking with my original plan to sell the bulk of my holding after the annulment hearing. If facts change I could, of course, change my mind. In particular:

1. Someone, who knows the situation better than anyone on this board, committing to the billion dollars of funding to first oil.

2. Getting a US partner.

The latest eruption seems to be centred on Grindavik, about 12 miles from Keflavik so unlikely to have a material impact on operations - this time.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/14/volcano-erupts-near-reykjavik-forcing-evacuation-of-residents

I'll certainly be relieved, and hopefully the share price will recover a bit, once the sale has completed.

"Andrey is a Chartered Certified Accountant, with over 25 years' experience in the mining industry including as CFO at Petropavlovsk Plc, "

Petropavlovsk went bust.

Please ignore my last post. I had the rebalance month wrong 😳 We're definitely being relegated.

The market cap is based on COB 28 November - i.e. 865.17m * 39.3p = £340m. i.e. still second to bottom. (Below 888, which has also taken a kicking today, on 350m.)

Currently second bottom so certainly not looking good short term if it's still there at the end of December. So long as there is no need to do a raise to keep the lights on until the first tranche of the sale proceeds, this should make no difference to the eventual wind up value. If sentiment doesn't change, it could be event more of a screaming buy for the patient in early January. Of course the volcano story should be old news in a month's time so I'm not sure demotion is a done deal yet.

Even if RKH doesn't go bust, the current ROI will never have to pay it. Arbitration and associated legal process lasts far longer than Italian governments. For successful politicians, not holding the bomb when it explodes always trumps the long term financial, or other, interests of those they claim to represent.

In the same vein, an article from the South China Morning Post saying that the Namibian police are trying to prevent the Chinese from evading their restriction on exporting raw ore. I'm guessing the is good for ATM - so long as we're not looking for a bid from the Chinese.

https://amp.scmp.com/news/world/africa/article/3239060/namibia-orders-police-stop-chinese-firms-lithium-exports