Member Info for Bannor

Hmmm .... Not sure how but posted twice!!!

Morns MB,

bit damp up here today but looking forward hopefully to clear skies for the zenith of the Perseid meteor shower tomorrow/Friday.

Yay for the chatterboxes ...

Morns MB,

bit damp up here today but looking forward hopefully to clear skies for the zenith of the Perseid meteor shower tomorrow/Friday.

Yay for the chatterboxes ...

Nothing "criminal" or underhand IMO generally shares like this tend move as result of sentiment & potential IMO when more people are prepared to sell than buy the price goes down & the reverse when more want to buy than sell .....

Hi MM ... can't offer much other than some thoughts I'm afraid ....

First ones easy though last night's price here was dictated by the UT @27.50 that's now been washed out so the SP now reflects the midpoint (as usual) that's why our apparent drop this AM but the bid/ask is the same.

Any drop due to ncertainty & delay over Amapa is being replaced by the increasing value of EMH.

The current EMH rise was already priced in here by the market to some extent when prior announcements on EMH that have precipitated recent rises were made.

You know as well as I do that the market doesn't respond well to repeated delays & we've got delays in spades here & not just related to Amapa.

....of course you're promoting/recommending it to shareholders here otherwise you wouldn't have posted about the potential & positives (as you see them!!) of another share on this board....& You wouldn't have opened with the line "I am not recommending"

People post about other shares on a board for one reason only to attempt to garner interest ....

....not wishing to keep repeating myself but Kiran stated $200m for each (currency not defined)

..... especially considering I posted the news at 07:34 last Friday in any event....

Whoever was contracted to do so at whatever price & payment terms were agreed ...... which may or may not be the supplier of the rig in the first place - it doesn't necessarily follow that the manufacturer of the rig is also the installer/maintainer of it ..... tile manufacturers don't necessarily install roofs..... I would hope they would engage with firms qualified to do the job at a fair price to complete the task ...... there are a lot of local businesses, individuals & authorities who will be excited & keen to see this progress....

..... without being funny I've had experience of companies folding & recovering as well as folding & not recovering .... At the end of the day business is business & whilst not impossible most businesses will work with a recovered business even having been burnt by the first .... of course new relationships & trusts need to be forged but it's be incredibly short sighted (or nose to spite face) for a business to turn it's back on income/revenue it just comes down to appropriate pricing & payment terms as a 'new' relationship....

Indeed OBS ... Whatever debts existed when the company folded are now rolled/wrapped up in the recovery - anyone attempting to make a new claim now would almost certainly fail to get the courts to include it at this late juncture...... Clearly there's been some deterioration of all the assets (as well as stripping/theft in the intervening period) that will need to covered or addressed but without the most bizarre/exceptional circumstances after so many years of opportunity there won't be any historic debt from prior to folding accepted now IMO.

If there was an outstanding debt for it when the company folded it would simply be one of the creditors identified & accommodated within the JRP recovery..... why are you concerned about additional debts not already known/identified suddenly coming out of the woodwork?

Not necessarily if that is the usual/normal methods of trading the commodity .... facts are that we don't have knowledge of the whole supply chain whether there are intermediaries involved or we're selling directly to the consumer ... In either event it would not necessarily be to the detriment it's why manufacturers use wholesalers, who sell to retailers who supply the public, some businesses are good at getting stuff out of the ground but they may not have the network, contacts to place all the product as it becomes available so they might use a specialist intermediary either to sell to or operate on a commission & of course they might have a single direct consumer who contracts to take all available product however having a single customer carries as much risk as being single sourced that's the value of intermediaries who have a network of both ......

But as I said it's all conjecture as to the why's, how's & wherefore's but for me I think right now everyone will be focussed on moving this forward & there'll be a significant amount of oversight of all deals & activities whilst it's under the control of the courts so personally I wouldn't worry about it for now ..... but don't let that stop you LoL....

No I wouldn't say so MD .... the courts are not likely to rule on what value the ore should/would or must be sold at, market forces take care of that I also don't see them getting overly involved in mandating payment terms although they might insist that this is completed by a secure method such as an LC ..... for me the courts will rule on matters of dispute & legality but to the extent they can they will (under their authorisation to ship) expect & allow DEV to secure the best deals for the best value as the market & commodity will permit .... if it were to become evident there was any underhand activity not in the interests of the recovery process someone (such as the banks or other creditors) might alert/challenge that & the courts would need to consider whether there was any legitimacy to the concern & if necessary act accordingly.

TC .. you need to Google ICC incoterms there are 11 in total (EXW, FCA, FAS, FOB, CFR, CPT, CIF, CIP, DPU, DAP, DDU) these can be modified to reflect practices &/or specific mutual agreement between a buyer & seller .... the closest to your FMG would either be EXW mine gate (if the buyer supplies manpower, loading equipment & accepts loading risks) meaning the seller simply makes it available for collection on the floor .... or FCA mine gate (if the seller provides the manpower, equipment & risks of loading the collecting vehicle provided by the buyer) .... These also dictate whose responsible for organising & paying customs formalities & the exporter is often best placed to sort this element but as said having got to the most appropriate/desired Incoterms with agreement the specifics of each one can be tweake by agreement between the relevant parties but any contract should reflect clearly what any agreed tweaks are - trust me if it goes to court it needs to be saying things like we had it verbally agreed or shook hands in it doesn't wash.

Also quite often with bulk loads of this type there is often a succession of purchases & sales transactions (under different payment & trading terms) between traders & dealers which can take place for the same cargo whilst in transit so the party that purchases & processes it in China could potentially be two or more parties removed from the original seller.

The other thing to remember is that Incoterms whilst potentially linked are completely separate & distinct to payment terms which are subject to separate agreement (stated/full) & methods from deferred letters of credit through CAD to account & cash in advance....

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02404238-6A1044705?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

.... they may be state owned banks but a lot of influence from external (private & influential) sources & "friends" can be applied within state controlled entities for all sorts of reasons political & personal - that can occur in any country regardless of how 'open' & 'fair' they appear or portray themselves to be .... you just need the right influencer to offer the correct carrot/handshake to the right office(r).

" it's only a matter of time"

Yep I'm think most agree with that - how much is what's being discussed not that that's the case....LoL

OBS the bank didn't reach an 'agreement' with the debtor's until they were threatened that they 'might' be demoted to unsecured creditors if they didnt... reaching an agreement (in principle) resolved that .... now they are delaying signing it so unless they are again threatened with unsecured status if they don't sign & return it I don't think they will..... the court seems to have taken another course of action to negate the banks non return by permitting shipments with reserved amounts for the banks so I don't think they will again threaten to reassign their status..... In my opinion this could be the position until there are sufficient reserved funds from authorised sales to settle the banks in line either with what was originally owed or the 'agreement in principle' .... Therefore it could be some time yet before we get the bank issue out of the way or alternatively they could cave & sign tomorrow .... who knows - no-one posting, guessing, assuming or stating so on here that's for sure....unless one if our posters is one if the BoD LoL ...

Hmmm yep seems so .... if this continues I may put in a kill or fill order at a further discount & see what happens ...