Member Info for BigBiteNow

The latest HUD video helps compound my argument.

Fantastic growth on the cards here.

I would also add that since the mine secured funding to ramp up in early 2024, the guideline was for the 1,000 oz target to be hit by January 2025 (See 8th July 2024 RNS).

Other than gold grade, by this target date, the company had hit all other targets in terms of stacking and pad expansion. Further pads are coming, and a move to pit 1 is a valid argument for grades to improve. So the reasons for the delay are for me acceptable although we do need to start seeing some improvement in production in the coming months.

We must not forget that stacking and leaching take time, and so the impact of improved grades is not an instant process.

That said, the pad extensions automatically lead to more ore being leached.

I would think that the May update would be the most telling, although infrastructure progress remains a significant ingredient here because it signals what is coming later in terms of production increases.

@Kingfisher68,

My understanding of the original gold loan agreement wording is that the principal amount of 1,871.43 oz is actual physical ozs, no matter what the price of gold is at the time they are delivered. This is a similar arrangement to the one THX has in place.

The interest element is different because it can be paid in cash and is simply measured in ozs to determine where the total debt sits at any one point in time.

Correct, the interest is running at 14% per annum, but it is based on the original value of the gold loan, which was $3m + the outstanding interest. What the recent conversion did was remove a large chunk of interest, but it is important to appreciate that this conversion was already agreed back in May 2024 (see 21st May 2024 RNS), but the most recent element could not be converted at the time because it would have taken AIMSL past 30% holding.

The convertible loan conversion agreed on 23rd December 2024 reduced their holding, giving them headroom to complete this conversion.

So long as GRL achieves sufficient production growth the interest element can be covered as it has been in previous years prior to the mine halting production.

The principal amount is currently under a "standstill" agreement until the end of this year. In the period leading up to this we have so far been told that a repayment schedule is being negotiated. During the standstill period GRL is not obligated to pay anything back, but interest will continue to be accrued at the agreed interest rate.

If one believes that GRL has the correct tools in place to achieve their first target production level then this loan isn't a big issue. AIMSL have so far proven itself to be a solid and fair lender (they could have foreclosed on GRL in early 2024) with no interest (at the moment) to push past a 30% holding and ignite a takeover.

I do expect AIMSL to be well rewarded for their patience and support, but there is no reason to believe right now that the payment schedule will involve substantial dilution. This view will be compounded by any improvements made in production which may well allow the principal to start being paid back.

Hope that helps.

I'm not asking anyone to buy HUD. I am simply arguing the case of my investment, which I think (over time) will be a very rewarding one. Anyone is able to debate or challenge what I say with facts, and I will gladly discuss it.

The HUD team, inside 4-6 months of trading, has moved Boop from a £2m per annum business to a near £5m one. One doesn't need to be an evangelist to see what that should mean for the future.

@wizardoz careful there. For a start GRL accounts are in dollars and it is actual cash burn we are interested and not the documented loss.

Cash burn was c. $1.25m in H1 2024 when discounting the funds raised in the period vs $2.6m in revenues.

Also if there are to be tariffs directly applied to STX then they will surely seek out US contracted manufacturing which realistically could be concluded within 6 months. That is if they aren’t producing there already.

I would love for someone to show me where STX produce their US Accrufer supply before I consider any potential impact. All I have ever been able to find is that it is contracted out.

Also far more detail is required on where these tariffs (if they indeed materialize and hold) will be aimed at. The initial noise seems to be around India and China.

I am not saying that there isn’t risk more that further info is required across the board before we all start running around with our hands in the air.

As I just explained elsewhere, the true prize is what is under the ground. Current gold prices help unlock an exploration budget to commence testing it.

The level of success there is capable of deciding GRL's valuation fate on its own.

https://x.com/BigBiteNow/status/1910617578432504313

Nothing is ever guaranteed in investing, but this sort of gold price level offers GRL significant financial protection as it builds production. The company isn't perfect and PR could certainly be improved, but if they deliver substantial production growth over the coming months, then the risk reward is substantial when coming from a c. £10.5m MC.

The core goal here is self-financed growth to something close to 1,000 oz dore per month. Once that is achieved, then what has always been a fabulous resource opens up because exploration will be on the cards.

Interesting times ahead.

Nothing to do with sensitivity, but everything to do with challenging wording that I feel misinterprets the effort being put in by management and the progress that has been driven in Q1.

Take Boop as an example.

Management just reported that March revenues have equaled the combined revenues of January and February.

The data provided in the weekly updates points towards a business delivering over £400,000 in monthly revenues, which is £4.8m per annum moving forward.

To place that in context, Boop achieved c. £21,750 in Q2 2024 orders for a yearly run rate of just c. £87,000. That being the period immediately before the business was acquired.

But the fact that Boop has already matched the previous two months of trade indicates that each month should deliver even more. That is fabulous growth from a brand that is already delivering "a decent absolute margin."

Now add new advertising and significantly more stock choice fronted by an influencer with 3m followers, many of whom will be your targeted market = next leg up in growth.

It is these factors that matter in the end, not the minor issues that HUD, in its warts-and-all approach, decides to share with investors. Yes, they need to stamp out loss-making issues where possible, but they are nothing out of the ordinary for a new business and will be overwhelmed by the growth at its current speed.

Lastly, Q1 was never about reaching profitability but demonstrating that profitability is within reach. I trust management will find a way to demonstrate that because Q1 is much more about how it finished than how it began and I expect the same to apply to Q2 also.

With all due respect horsetrader2 I think your take on the latest update is wrong. I believe it is important to appreciate that the CEO is restricted with what he can say in a closed period. Plus he is naturally cautious and is open to talking about positives and negatives.

But reading between the lines, HUD is building up for the next stage of growth against a plan that we only know small parts of. They didn't just pluck a reality star out of fresh air. They are applying marketing strategies in line with their logistical limitations, but these limitations will change very soon.

Hence why stock levels for their currently leading two brands have been increased substantially and new adverts have been commissioned. Q2 is set to be a big quarter.

https://x.com/BigBiteNow/status/1909498252782694599

This morning I posted this,

"Everything we see unfold here with these tariffs and yet more cost-of-living expenses inevitably will lead to consumers choosing cheaper options.

That makes #HUD very well placed to benefit.

A company that buys excess stock in the UK for resale to the UK market."

As an investment, Huddled was built for this part of the business cycle.

@Theoldtrader1,

You are sharing some very insightful information, and I want to say thank you for doing so.

The Dairyland waiver is a big one for sure. I note the waiver states battery packs, but I wonder if that also includes the vanadium or will that come from US vanadium in country. With the new 10% tariffs on UK imports and Canadian ones being much higher, I find myself thinking about project costs for this project increasing and what that means. I can't see the projects being cancelled so it is about how that is dealt with if indeed it is deemed necessary to do so. One of the questions I have asked today is around tariffs but it is likely too early for the company to be able to comment.

What this waiver also clearly indicates is that this US DOE project is going ahead. If the project hits its timelines, then IES can expect initial funding to come through by April 2026. That could be yet another supportive signal for IES working capital levels.

May I ask if you have come across any similar waivers for the other US projects being carried out under the DOE funding?

Thank you in advance.

Hi Shandypants2,

I first invested in STX in early 2023 off the back of the Viatris deal, so I know all about the missed targets and the performance of the last CEO.

While I agree in part that a sales force has been in place in the US since 2021, the clear difference was the Viatris deal and the expanded sales force, expertise, and geographical reach that it brought. So I see it as fair that they pointed this out.

My interest has been reignited by the change of leadership, starting with the new CFO and compounded by the new CEO appointment. These changes allow me to temporarily park previous poor performance and wipe the slate (mainly) clean based on successful material improvements in performance, led mainly by work on the NSP. When I first saw the Q4 numbers, I was sceptical and busy elsewhere. It wasn't until I watched the 6th Feb update and dissected what was being said that I added more.

I take on board your points around the wholesale price, but in essence, this is firstly about enough sales at a healthy enough NSP to first and foremost ensure the covenants are met (I think they are looking safe there) and then protect cash on hand as we move to positive cash flows. I have no doubt STX will reach that point eventually; it is just about when.

The question you appear to be raising is around trust over the reported NSP. How accurate is it, and will it change?

However, the figures are reached the new BOD came across as very confident in their figures and future growth prospects. They were also keen to tell us that the cash positive by YE comment would be heard a lot in the coming months. Given my confidence in the new leadership team, I took that as bullish at these sorts of valuation levels.

Your response encouraged me to review previous quarterly reporting periods vs. actual accounted US sales. I note a $0.54m adjustment in actual H2 2023 sales lower vs. the quarterly guidance.

Notably, in H1 2024 (so the new CFO's first full period having started work on 16th January 2024), the half-year reported US sales figure was $11m vs. $10.9m reported in the quarterly updates. I accept that the half-year accounts are unaudited, but still, the discrepancy was mainly removed. This is just one data point, but if we have had follow through then the reported NSP and wholesale trade figures look accurate enough to trust.

If trust can be placed in the figures and the BOD is bullish about growth going forward, then I am prepared to wait because I see the most impact coming in Q2/Q3. Upon review of their costs, I also see a stronger cash position (again communicated in the call) than the market currently trusts. I get why. STX is branded by its performance as a business but as should always be the case, it should be judged by where it is and who leads it today, particularly if those factors make a significant difference.

I've added a few chunks these last few days, including a 260k buy which hasn't shown up yet.

I will admit to having had concerns over Invinity's ability to stay afloat long enough to realise its potential + the US change of policy. But I see the LODES project win as a major milestone and a very sensible move to unlock a significant amount of grant funding.

As I talked about in this post, Invinity has a very assured path to winning significant project valuations in the upcoming Cap and Floor bid window. I am also intrigued to see what "a pipeline of other opportunities which the Company is in advanced negotiations to close."

One or two more significant project wins could really turn this ship around sentiment wise but even without that I think the market has failed to appreciate what the LODES project means for Invinity's cash levels + just how big an opportunity Cap and Floor could become. So I've moved now and am happy to wait.

https://x.com/BigBiteNow/status/1907063614621557074

This is mining, and it has to be done right.

Also, since the new BOD took over, ECR has been operating in a terrible capital market that has already finished off far more advanced companies than them, even though the two main commodities it seeks are surging in price. Despite this, they now have a concrete plan for delivering millions of dollars of revenue per annum, which in turn opens up a scalable development plan. All they get in return is armchair sniping and criticism.

The plan was always for ECR to commence production in Q2 under an advanced exploration license that allows them to extract 1,000 tons of material. This can then be processed and any gold recovered sold if the proceeds are then invested back into the project.

This allows the full production process to be tested and proven to the authorities to enable full mining licenses to be granted. 1,000 tons of high-grade ore at 91.7% recoveries could provide enough cash (gold price dependent) to pay for the majority of the 25 tph plant set up.

The timelines presented today say the full set-up could be online by the start of Q4. if they can achieve that given where they started it would be a fantastic achievement.

I just notesd that my numbers are overstated.

DD at 10 picks would save 195,000 picks per month.

DD at 20% growth would require 65,000 of these.

That leaves 130,000 which is 23,600 additional orders which if shared equally, would be 11,800 additional orders each for Nutricircle and Boop.

That would equate to c. 82% growth for Nutricircle and c. 142% for Boop. But as I said, Boop was likely running higher, given orders continued to grow in the month.

Still, it's still a lot more order capacity and then we need to add the second warehouse floor.

Based on March figures up to the 15th of the month, HUD is running at c. 650,000 picks per month, which equates to around £21.5m in yearly revenues.

Of these DD takes up the lion's share at c. 520,000 for 32,500 orders

By April, HUD expects DD picks to reduce from c-16 to sub-10 per order. But if they only achieve 10 per order, then they save c. 243,000 picks per month.

If DD were to grow by 20% a month, it would require 65,000 of these spare picks.

That leaves c. 178,000 picks for the other two brands.

If they were shared equally between the other two brands which average 5.5 picks each then that would generate up to 32,363 more orders per month = c. 16,000 each brand.

To place that in context, Nutricircle was running at c. 14,466 orders in March and Boop at c. 8,300 (although its run rate was demonstrated to be rising between the 7th and 16th March updates).

What that demonstrates is that with this one strategic tweak, DD can grow at a healthy rate, but the other two brands can double and triple their monthly orders, respectively.

Then we have to consider that this is based on one floor of warehouse space shared by all 3 brands. By May DD, another floor will be in play and although we must respect any limitations of the goods lifts it is still difficult to conclude that a further sizeable uplift in picks won't be achieved, as each brand moves forward with its own dedicated picking team.

Now it may be that they cannot achieve the full usage of the spare picks generated by DD moving to 10 picks. Or that DD, over time, settles on a slightly higher figure per order. But there is still no getting away from the potential vs. current orders.

Furthermore, the more of these additional orders that can be directed towards Boop the more profitability that can come through. In early March, Boop's AOV was running at c. £41.50 per order vs. £33 for DD and c. £29 for Nutricircle.

It was only a short time reading (6 days trading), but it reflects what Boop can do when selling large ticket items like perfume for less work (number of picks). So even if it were to fall back slightly or the other brands catch up it still makes a material difference to drive more growth at Boop.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is how much growth potential there should be for Huddled when running at full speed in this current warehouse space. Such that additional warehousing can come later down the line and certainly after the business enters significant profitability.

Remember the CEO's words in the last update,

"This isn't about is there demand for the products or can we scale the business. It's not about if, it's just about when."

But it is about achieving it in "edible chunks."

What the above should demonstrate is that significant spare warehouse capacity is coming online along with substantial opportunities to drive efficiencies. So, as I said earlier then it will be about how fast HUD is willing to take the handbrake of,f b

@Oscar1210 My initial marker, because it is nice and round is 10p a share. At their current trajectory, I think that sort of level is possible between Q4 2025 and early Q1 2026 (Q4 reporting time).

That would be a c. £32m MC and I have them (at their current trajectory) hitting a forward yearly revenue run rate of c. that amount by Q4. Then it will come down to what margins are being achieved and market interest in the stock.

I update my calculations regularly we also have a broker note due, which I think comes post the Q1 update.

We need to see the business move into operating profit (which I think comes in Q2), which should then act as a marker for how much yearly revenue is required for positive cash flow.

As of March, I have HUD running at yearly forward revenues of between £21-£22m. That is 50% growth vs. 2024 and has been achieved with limited warehouse space and logistics whilst bedding in two still very new brands.

As of May, they go to two floors and increased picks due to savings at DD + advertising (particularly at Boop) moves up a good notch. So predicting a further 50% growth from here over the next 6 months isn't very sporty. It will simply come down to how much HUD management is prepared to let the brakes off.

Hope that helps.