David Paul, Managing Director of VectorVest in the UK joined us to talk through stock picking fundamentals, technical analysis and more. Watch the full video here.
Sanchez - Don't Abandon This BB!
Your excellent post summed up precisely what a lot of us felt (70 at time of writing) but were either not inclined to share or unable to articulate so well. I was surprised when Alfacomp stopped contributing but as a 7.5 year holder I honestly feel this BB has been a better place; people with fears, uncertainties are less intimidated and feel free to post. Sure, it's not an uplifting or celebratory place to be at the moment but your with your presence we are holding the company to account - albeit indirectly.
I fully respect your decision to step back but if you have further relevant insights or opinions I would love to read them.
your final comment was interesting:
"I'm expecting the corporate structure to be simplified by the merging BE & BMN to give 100% ownership of BE assets by BMN"
Why do you expect this will occur? Or is it merely something you just hope will happen? It would certainly be easier to follow our sometimes tangled ownership percentages.
Patience Knuttie, rather than a sensible offer I would welcome Siemens taking say 10% to 20% of our stock which would send an powerful message to the market (unlike, for example Duferco who against our hopes were quick profit takers). Give Siemens a seat or two on the BMN Board of Directors and they'll bring experience and professionalism that we lack and will need going forward.
All possible - re-read the IES RNS and SGRE (Siemens) have the option to take 9.99% of IES's stock! This could end up being the vertically integrated BMN being swallowed by a the vertically integrated electrical powerhouse. Patience Bubby.
@Investor1977 & @tryingtomakeabit - Respect!
Seems you guys called it right and certain investors have voiced this to the board (or just Raven / Cooke) leading to what amounts to an a hugely embarrassing reversal as per today's RNS. Well done you (and ADVFN) for voicing concerns.
What's really worrying is the lack of judgement from those at the top running this company - I think this might trigger some changes in the boardroom.
@Alfacomp, you mention 40 IIs have invested in the Invinity placing - where does it state this? I'm missing the detail and would be interested to see the names if they're mentioned and obviously curious to see if BMN were active . The RNS does name Schroders because they are already their largest shareholder.
Apologies if it's staring me in the face but just can't see it. Thanks
I note that some have said Yellow Dragon have been selling down their holding (I'm not up to speed on this so take the BB's word). It got me thinking: since they have been long term holders assisting in BMN's growth maybe they are not deserting altogether but redirecting investment closer to the higher growth potential of the VRFB itself.
In the RNS dated 4th August 2020 it gives detail of the terms of the Enerox acquisition. It states Bushveld Energy (BEL) wishes to become a minority investor in EHL and is actively seeking 3rd party investors to enable Enerox to reach 'sustainable commercial production' (this agreement is part of the SPA).
Idle speculation and no idea whether this might be happening (with YD) but someone has to fund Enerox and it would get the potential investor(s) away from old sector mining and into the heart of the real prize - battery sales.
Checkout the RNS for insight (half way down from "Renegotiated Investment Terms")
Thanks for that FB. I get confused routinely with Bushveld's ownership structure and know others do from posts on this BB. To expand on Fatbanker, Mcgrco, Lindon's comments I re-read the RNSs and check Bushveld Minerals (BMN) and Bushveld Energy Limited's (BEL) websites and thought I'd post the following. It's worth looking at because it's easy to casually assume we (BMN) own 100% of these subsidiaries but it ain't always the case. Certainly worth re-reading the relevant RNS as it will make more sense.
Enerox Holdings Limited (EHL) an investment consortium comprising investors in equal parts. It was incorporated 24 March 2020 presumably with intention of completing the Enerox shares purchase. We don't know "our" (BMN) percentage ownership because the details (afaik) are not public.
Bushveld Energy Limited (BEL) is part-owned subsidiary of Bushveld Minerals (BMN). BMN owns 84% and Mikhail Nikomarov owns 16%. It would be helpful to know the ownership of EHL. I found this site stating incorporation date but can't get any further right now:
So how much does BMN own of Enerox?
84% x Bushveld Energy's mystery % of EHL.
For illustration only, if BEL holds one quarter/25% of EHL, BMN owns 0.84 x 0.25 = 21% - a bit different from the 90% this BB often quotes.
BELCO (Bushveld Electrolyte Company)
On a similar note, the creation earlier this year of BELCO who own the new plant and production at Port Elizabeth which will produce the jolly juice that powers VRFBs is not wholly owned by BMN. It is owned jointly between Bushveld Energy, 55% and the IDC (Industrial Development Corporation) 45%:
So how much does BMN own of BELCO?
84% (Bushveld Energy) x 55% (BE's share) = 46.2% [ very decent but we must be careful not to casually quote 100% as "our" (BMN) share.
I believe the 8.71% share of Invinity is 100% owned by BMN. Same applies to Afritin and, ahem, Lemur.
I too would like Duferco retain their CLN shares (say, 43m / 3.6%) for more at least mid to long term. Has anyone here considered whether Duferco has this last few months been acquiring shares on the open market? We'll find out when the first significant holdings are published after they get the CLNs sorted - I'd love to see that they'd already trousered anything up to 2.99% - wishful thinking and far from essential but wow, that would be a huge vote of confidence
The depressed sp may well be the GS overhang but we can never be privy to when that sell off might end. What's certain is that Duferco will benefit directly from this depressed price - are they simply lucky that GS has chosen to unload on the run up to the CLN conversion to shares or are other factors at play to keep the price low? We will make our own inferences.
Someone commented a week or two back that the price would drop and he was predictably chastised (at the time Libero and others were looking to 20p in rapid time). I agreed with the low price view on the run up to conversion date which I believe ends next Friday; the lower the price the more shares Duferco will claim. If there are any shorts held I'd predict a rise into next Thursday / Friday but only if the 10 day average stays on the low side.
My rough calculations for Duferco after next weekend are (please correct me if I'm getting this wrong):
Daily weighted average over 10 trading days to Friday 6th Nov say 12p, less 5% discount = 11.4p
$6.5m CLN @ say £ / $1.30 = £5m divided by 11.4p = close / approx. 44million shares or 3.7% of company.
Certainly lucky timing for Duferco as this time last year when the deal was RNS'd $6.5m would only have got them around 20m shares!
So in my view this will remain rocky through next week but for my wellbeing things better start looking up from 9th Nov. Please.
Like some others on this BB I believe our share price is being suppressed, I'm not really sure why (maybe the JSE listing?) but it's a fact that Duferco stand to benefit massively from a low price as their convertible loan note to equity option would equate to a much larger percentage ownership - at these prices it could rise as high as 14%.
This is worrying because, understandably, their intentions are unknown.:
Do they sell off in an orderly manner for considerable profit leaving us PIs an Erongo like persistent overhang for months?
Or, are we welcoming a committed long term II whose interests align with ours? The latter would result in a significant share price re-rate.
Also, I reckon Fortune must be aware of what's going on behind the scenes especially if it involves Duferco.; I just hope Fortune's cool with things and an II's interests won't prove detrimental to the loyal long term PIs. The next few weeks before the CLN date will probably remain jittery.
Incidentally, does anyone think Duferco might already own a large holding of say 2.99% or below not eligible for reporting?
On another company's LSE BB page I was reading posters' frustrations at the seeming manipulation of their share price along with all the usual speculation (MMs, shorts, controlling for low ball takeover price etc.). One poster said that he'd mentioned this to a broker acquaintance who'd said this was entirely predictable and was easy for controlling parties to manipulate that company. Why? Because of the unusually high proportion of PIs on the share register - we're spooked, have little influence or clout!
Bushveld does have a very high PI base and at the moment this may not be serving our best interests. So, we need strong corporate investors who are in for the long term - will that be Duferco? We'll know soon enough when their CLNs are up for conversion to shares.
I tend to take UKSteveg's line that this is Duferco related. I've re-read two RNSs from late last year and would urge you to do likewise. There's one on 7th November 2019 announcing the completion of the Vanchem deal but to start read thearlier one dated 23 October 2019 - specifically, read the amended purchase terms, yes, a lower price (which we all loved at the time) but the CLNs paying 5% and crucially convertible to stock EVEN if Fortune does settle them ALL for cash.
It's going to be interesting to see whether Fortune pays off all the CLNs in which case Duferco can purchase $11.5m of stock. If Fortune clears none of the CLNs then $23m of stock will need to be issued. Now (very very rough figures as I'm off out for family birthday dinner) if all CLNs are converted at the stubborn price of 13p it will land Duferco with roughly 135m shares at around 10.5% of Bushveld. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing for us shareholders, apart from the dilution of newly issued shares because we may acquire a much needed and credible Institutional Investor, something Fortune has often stated as a positive.
Now me, I'd prefer a major energy company to buy in but mightn't Duferco be better and more transparent than the anonymous Yellow Dragon or all the IIs that have previously held and sold.
Whatever, this may have been a good deal for BMN but to me the revised terms of the deal look pretty good from Duferco's position.
Apologies if I've misunderstood the terms and I'm sure you'll let me know but do have another at the linked RNS.
I fully support your right (and every other) investor to manage your investments as you see fit for your own strategy / risk profile; it's your business and hence generous for you to share those details with us.
I've always read you as a kind, considerate and honest man so if you're prepared to comment - Do you feel your relentless postings here of the BMN positives and ludicrously high share price predictions / timeframe were naive or was it calculated to encourage less savvy investors (ramping) into buying to further your own investment?
I've no idea if our low share price is because Vanadium has fallen significantly, BE is not yet a revenue producer or if SA's politics are a turn off. Or, if as is frequently stated on this BB it's the MMs manipulating and shorters shorting it doesn't explain how it can go on for so long. So, in an attempt to make sense of our stubbornly low market valuation I was considering the idea that it was in certain current shareholder(s) interests to have the share price held within a low range until it suited them otherwise. So, I wondered whether anyone with a better understanding of the workings of the stockmarket could comment on this scenario:
Say a holder(s) with a substantial number of shares sold down a large part of their holding every time the market price reached a certain point thus depressing it and then if / when the price was lower they bought them back thus lifting the price and then, rinse and repeat until they were happy to desist from manipulating and let the market take its natural course (upwards please). Now, I couldn't do this but if a very large holder was involved would it be possible to keep the price locked in a given range? In terms of numbers I figured that somewhere around 10 million shares because this is just less than 1% of the company and a 'significant' holder wouldn't be required to issue a holdings RNS. If the shareholder was below the notifiable 3% holding the number of shares used could be closer to 30 million (<3%).
Given the speculative numbers above of 10m > 30m shares at approx £1.3m > £4.0m could this trading volume have the effect of locking our price in it's current range?
Don't worry, I'm not looking for conspiracies just trying to find an explanation for this prolonged stasis
Alfa, that's encouraging so let's hope VRFB's are on Shell's radar. Shell's 'New Energies' wing is investing in renewable energy and buying into companies. As yet there's no mention of vanadium batteries but they're looking across a whole range of new power so I would imagine they have an open mind. Last I heard (circa 2016) they were investing between $1.5b and $2b a year in young companies but I'd be surprised if this hadn't been significantly raised since then.
[ https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.html#iframe=L3dlYmFwcHMvMjAxOV9uZXdfZW5lcmdpZXNfaW50ZXJhY3RpdmVfbWFwLw ]
I've always hoped a giant like Shell could take a sizeable share of BMN, say 20% and a seat on the board sending the market a vote of confidence even the MMs couldn't ignore.
I've been invested in BMN and reading this board for six and a half years so was shaken to read your post from last night. I hope somehow you are able to find unexpected fulfilment from this difficult next chapter in your life. Borrowing a term from the eternally optimistic investor, I pray you remain 'long and strong'.
I believe Acacia is owned by original / very early investor Jose Roy Borromeo. He has used investor names / vehicles to hold BMN shares including Splendid and Spruce. A scrap of paper I'm looking at shows the top 10 holders at 31st August 2017 include Acacia at 10.88% AND Jose Roy Borromeo at 7.26%. He might still hold in his own name but below the notifiable 3%.
From next Tuesday LSE will admit Yellow Dragon's shares to market for trading. Conveniently just below the 3% reporting level as significant shareholder. So, will be interesting to know whether YD had previously completely sold out or whether they were still in possession of a sizeable holding - if it's the latter then they'll be revealed as a published significant holder when Bushveld's capital structure page is next updated (1st November?). Wouldn't surprise me if these investors remain on board for the next big chapter of our growth story, albeit anonymously.
Enjoyed the informative posts since yesterday that seem to point to a persistent 'tame seller' providing cheap shares for shorters to use to get out in profit or at least unscathed. But I still have a problem understanding why they would sell cheap; I understand why they might have to sell (Daisan's post at 12:13 today) but can someone help me on this:
If the 'tame seller' has such influence in suppressing the price why don't they stall selling for a short prolonged period, say 3 or 4 weeks and let market forces take the price higher into say, low/mid 30s. Then, resume their 'tame' selling status. Wouldn't that increase their sell price, by my example, to at least 25% more than they're currently getting.
Advance apologies if this is obvious but I don't get it - as a PI if I wanted to sell out I'd sell gently into a rising market.
@mgcro - excellent and insightful post on TPEP's "short'/ hedge versus VanEck's holding. I'd been thinking along similar lines but without a proper understanding just couldn't join the dots. You acknowledge it's a theory but its compelling. I get frustrated when folk ridicule shorters as complete chancers when the process demands great market knowledge and skill regardless of ones views to the ethics.
Also, informative posts today from Uksteveg and Expert and ophidian - learning stuff - just don't let it get spiteful! Opposing, well argued views tolerated by both sides makes for a stronger and less sensitive BB.