Member Info for Bannor

OBS my take on the 'prepayment' element was to prepay the handling & costs of getting it from where it is (private port/stockpiles) to the public port for loading FOB onto the ocean going vessel as I suggested might be a possibility in an earlier post .... the local handlers, shippers & agencies still have outstanding historic settlement debts due to the failure so far to gain bank agreement releasing the $2.5M which was to be used to settle them .... hasn't happened yet so understandably I think they want payment up front before they'll move it at our 'prepaid' cost to the public port & ocean vessel..... subsequently now & in accordance with the court direction for the sales of $10M net income of ORE which will instead be used to settle these historic smaller private & operator debts.

Still think it'll be FOB on board the ocean vessel with surrender of original bills against payment but nothing guaranteed as you know & you have other thoughts ..... but that would be my view on how it will pan out.

Hate to be picky OBS (or perhaps I don't) it's a common misunderstanding/mistake but Incoterms & the satisfaction of the obligations thereof doesn't dictate, mandate or confer transfer of title to or ownership of goods & shouldn't be employed to do so.

Any business negotiator worth his salt would have retention of title/ownership clauses in their contracts so that title/ownership of goods doesn't pass to the buyer until full & final payment is received .... without a retention clause a seller opens themselves up to the risk of losing the goods AND not getting paid .... however assuming we control 'original bills' until payment receipt OR get paid in advance it's almost neither here nor there .... the risk only really manifests itself if you handover effective control of the goods prior to receiving payment .... say open account deferred/dated payment etc....

*** any *** should be MANY .... kindle can't keep up with fingers & that's with or without autocorrect making a mess of things !!

....possible indeed although still less likely for me as to quote CFR/CIF we'd have to increase the selling price per tonne price to accommodate the increased cost or suffer the costs in our sales margins which would be very unpalatable.

The buyer(s) of ORE are unlikely to be single sourced or allow themselves to become so & I'd like to think of a size that would make our supplies only part of their feed requirements & as such they would likely have multiple global sources so from a volume perspective on numerous routes would be in a stronger negotiating position to contract for vessels rather than a single seller trying to secure a contract rate for a smaller number of vessels on a single route.

They'd also likely already have a global marine insurance policy in place which is why IF we were to go to 'C' terms I'd say more likely CFR than CIF...... but who knows what will he agreed if our BoD have anything to do with it can't think of any (non Sonora JV investments) they've made that I didn't strongly disagree with ..... fortunately there will be others hopefully closing negotiations & making decisions at the moment especially as we don't currently own anything or make up part of the board of the JV holding company & have only 'lent' them money at this time.

If I was a controlling element of Trafalgar it'd be me ...... not only have the just converted $300k of the CLN at half the conversion price (so twice the number of shares) but they can also sell them with a small margin as well .... must be nice to be able to control / influence matters whether directly or not (although of course I'm not suggesting anything untoward!!) Imagine if you're involved in both Trafalgar & KDNC though ..... potentially reduces the downside & risk some eh..... must be nice as the noteholder to think you can adjust the conversion price suit when you want/need/like.

Sorry .... lost it but to finish:

& from the buyers perspective why accept less & take on the burden of organising & paying for origin costs/fees .... that's why FOB is so often the benchmark for bulk vessels.

But again these are just my views/opinions & assessments - who knows what Messiupio & co will come up with :-)

OK after a very late night watching (whilst supping) Man on Fire (great film) for the umpteenth time on Alibi+1 last night I think I've sorted myself out sufficiently to explain my own thinking why FOB rather than FCA/FAS ..... which I must say is mainly just my opinions from both knowledge & experience based on bulk ore shipments being made on full charter vessels.

Some of the rationale would be financial from buyers perspective... using FCA/FAS would open up the buyer to the potential of incurring costs in 3 currencies & whilst they may have a account to settle Ocean costs incurred in USD without any XR exposure it's unlikely they'd have one to settle origin fees so might have exposure there either directly or indirectly via a broker or forwarder who incurs it prior to invoicing.

Looking at FCA/FAS from a logistical angle these would be more suitable, in my opinion, if the buyer was consolidating smaller shipments from multiple suppliers in the same country/region or only had sufficient cargo volume for a consol / groupage / part charter shipment.

FAS is what it is but why agree a rate FAS leaving the buyer to pick up the tab for the final origin yard of just handling & placing on board when there is no real need or reason to.

FCA is more reliant on further agreement & needs the actual FCA point clearly identified & if necessary specifically .... it can be anything from FCA sellers premises through any point or place on route to the port or to the port itself .... if the port at the gates, a warehouse within it, by the side of the ship (FAS!) again what would be the purpose/benefit for the buyer?

None of the above means they can't or won't be able to agree FCA/FAS just in my opinion makes 'FOB the main Ocean carrying vesse'l the most practical & agreeable for both parties for the type & volume & as indicated previously with a relatively fixed & reliable cost to serve so known & protected margins & from the buyers perspective why accept less & take on the burden of organising & payi

Will cover off reasons tomorrow .... had too many whiskies already ¦-}

OBS there are reasons (which I won't bore the board with any more than I have already) why I do not think FAS/FCA would be the most agreeable/likely Incoterms for the shipment profiles &/or both parties ... & suspect FOB (named Port) is most likely.

Anyway .... the garden is calling again & the sun's shining so TTFN & time will tell in any event.

OBS you shouldn't confuse Incoterms (or shipping terms) with terms Payment the 2 can be linked but one is not dependent or enforced by the other unless the contracting agree & make it so..... payments can be in advance, on shipment, 30, 60, 90 days EOM, invoice date, on board date or can be split 30% in advance, 30% on shipment & 40% on receipt or any of the other aforementioned days etc..... & don't get me started on payment vehicles CAD, LC amongst others .... obviously best for us is payment in advance or on vessel departure against Bills of lading but the buyer has some input on that as well.

The agreed INCOTERMS however are different & whilst you can adapt them to specific requirements (e.g. EXW PACKED or EXW UNPACKED) they are just there once agreed regardless of the payment terms or method.

INCOTERMS only define the split of obligation, costs of transport, associated handling & administrative costs & transfer of risk between the buyer and seller ........ whilst anyone can (& some companies do) just create terms of supply on a whim that have no enforceable legal standing in case of issue ....which can cause problems in the event of dispute..... if a business wants something that has international standing then you would create contracts that specify the use of 'Incoterms' as governed & published by the ICC..... these are changed/reissued every 10 years (current edition Incoterms 2020) & I've got all the publications back to Incoterms 1990....

Anyhoo FOB is a good 'Incoterms' to use for a seller & is often used for bulk carriers because as has been pointed the 'risk' & 'cost' pass to the buyer when the goods pass over the ships rail at the departure port so the seller has a good handle on his 'cost to serve' & safeguards margins against a volatile & oft changing ocean freight costs (along with any CAF/BAF implications).

I'd like to see FOB for these reasons but if they're going to use ore sales to repay the loans then the payment terms for ore will need to be agreed with the buyer in a timeframe that facilitates it.... such as in advance or using Original (rather than express) bills of Lading with release against payment.

........ or potentially maybe equity issues to let their 'mates & cohorts' in cheap just days or weeks before transformational news is imminent ..... maybe Trafalgar (who's linked to that again) wanted some cheap shares hence why we let them convert $300K @ 6p instead of 12p (the equivalent amount as notified fir conversion in the RNS 15Jul19....... anything for a mate ....or someone else sitting on the board eh........ . either way it stinks IMO & people wonder why I have such a contempt, distrust & lack if faith in our BoD is it no wonder I refer to them as Messiupio, Strangle, Sucking & F#@kbourn .... I can only hope that scumbag Lenigas hasn't been given any more cheap but I'll probably be disappointed in that by them as well..... absolute shining examples from the AIM S#itpit

Indeed Dallas LoL .... & I don't want to say to anyone 'I told you so' but a 'discounted' placing 'prior to ownership' .... so I won't LoL ;-)

However one assumes that our 'bridging' loan into a company that we don't own anything off will provide benefit (offset against the $3.5M 2nd payment OR perhaps triggering one of those share holding change events mentioned)

As for the conversion of the CLN ....... down to historic failings of Messiupio, Strangle, Sucking & F#@bourn .... choice is to sell assets or dilute .... plus they still need money for salaries & running costs as well so maybe both.

More (hopefully better & bigger) news either imminent or on the horizon though & as you say 'kick on' & one hopes that our bridging loan will earn brownie points & some return at least.

Or maybe a veggie LoL

It's a Fruity TC

....as I'm not sure anyone's mentioned it but in addition to the PMP EMH announced they also announced their quarterlies on ASX last night.....

If anyone's interested .......

....... maybe however whatever made me think we'd get a pre-elevensies announcement ..... Mrs Padovsky probably hasn't even finished dressing them yet & making them breakfast !! LoL

LoL MrsB ....Indeed seems I've had a bit of a brainfart myself ... I shall flagellate immediately .....

Ooh... Ow .... Ooh .... Ow ... Ow

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/KDNC/14514421.html

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02228852