Member Info for casapinos

For those wondering what Myo and sheps are on about, it is a reference to posts made by me between early 2016 and 2017.
And yes I must confess that then as now I though SXX had a sound long-term future and said so.I also freely confess under no duress that in mar 2016 I said I might "have a nibble in again in the low teens and await funding details before adding substantially".Does that ring any bells?
I also bought some further SXX shares at about 24p in Nov 2016.and said "I am willing to wait for the long term payoff"
If they had scanned back earlier they would have seen that I also sold in july 2015
I have been rumbled.As an intended longterm holder I sold and took a profit - three times!
.But then again an eminent economist and very shrewd investor once said"When the facts change I change my mind what do you do sir?"
The only thing that I find a little disconcerting about this is the fact that a couple of fellow posters feel the need to examine my posting history some years ago on another site.

Slurms Apols I think we agree but i'm in pedantic mode this morning!
Even after the commencement of sales I think the company's debt ratio will continue to rise as further works and interest charges exceed income, P17 of the NOV presentation although not entirely specific, implies a year or so of still rising debt . What the presentation says is "the greatest driver of value for the company is successful project delivery " which must include financing and engineering.

HI Fred I too value my house though as it happens we're about to complete on a "downsize" this morning!
An investment that I am equally comfortable with over a 5 year period, I have no fears for the long-term value of property.

Myo The RNS wording will have been very carefully chosen to reflect the situation as SXX perceive it to be.CF 's use of "contemplated" , may have been merely incidental or again carefully chosen so as to not be misleading.I believe he was reflecting a wish rather than a certainty, and is , of course right to do so.

As to how to value the Company's assets , market cap is a"rule of thumb" current measure of what the market thinks the company is worth, including, but not limited to, its assets,and is widely used in debt:equity comparisons. Of course, in many cases this can vary considerably from the actual value of the underlying assets, BUT those underlying assets are very hard to value and subject to factors invisible to the market, analysts and investors so we must make do with the only figures we have.
Sheps thanks again , my apologies if you think my posts imply a superiority, I try to couch my input in terms that both the better-informed and less well informed readers can understand and that no doubt means offering explanations which you find unnecessary.

Slurm I think your point actually underlines mine , early lenders are lending against an entity with a MC of ~£1 bill, which will by then have spent $400-600 of its "new" money and thus should be worth , in theory, at least £1.3-£1.4 bill, ie the debt will be LESS than the value,for this to be true when the later debt is drawn requires the company to be valued at about £3 bill, even before production,that IMV is less certain.

Cherokee - very probably.

Sheps - first thanks for the reply . I noted that 5 of your last 8 posts had started with my screen name and "rubbished" my views but none until last night had attempted to offer an alternative view.I welcome that.I will do you the courtesy of accepting that you have some familiarity with business financing, but is suspect others don't so I will respond point by point.
1 My opening para was not specifically about ST2 , it was an attempt to explain , in simple terms, the difference between "secured" and "unsecured" debt and the implications for the lenders.
Your response is broadly accurate , though in the second line I think you mean liabilities, as all debts are not assets.
However I would refer you to the exact wording of the quote relating to ST2 from CF offered by myo ie "Our new structure contemplates...contemplates is an interesting word and doesn't I think translate directly into your "As clearly stated by the company....about ST2.
As to pari passu there is a problem , even if the tranches are agreed together they are to be drawn sequentially , so the earlier lenders are lending when the lent sums are in all probability LESS than the asset value , in real terms and as perceived by the market cap(ie there is the likelihood of near full recovery in a fiscal failure), the later lenders may well find themselves lending when the sums lent are GREATER than the asset value and/or the market cap(hence a greater risk of less than full recovery). There is I think , implicit in this the hope within the company, that MC rises at a rate equal to or greater than debt.

2 I don't actually think we are that far apart , you are correct in saying that it's not a straight comparison and that it is possible that the company can raise 3X their market cap , your view is that" ST2 will come as package with all debt pari passu ," I have explained above why in practise, unless the market cap does rise as hoped the level of security is less for the later debt.I would also suggest, from experience that the strictness of debt criteria rises as the absolute value of the debt.I doubt you would do as much research to lend a few hundred quid than if you were lending many millions.
Your third point is to dismiss my "conjecture" about the reasons for a change in approach as defined by the recent RNS , that is entirely your right.BUT there has been a change and there is still no agreed ST2 plan , and CF still "contemplates" a solution along the lines suggested, had he said "comprises" we would have known the funding was in the bag as described, but he did not , the company is still seeking to reach an agreement with its lenders and as you say many options are open. We must wait and see what emerges, for my part i am happy with my position as a bystander for now.
Once again though, thanks for the detailed response, it is much more valuable to me and the rest of the board than name calling,or (as it happens) a misplaced view that I don't know what I'm talking ab

HI Fred I have no intention of saying you're wrong to invest here, its just that we differ on the best way to do it. I have as i said, traded in and out of this share and that's unusual for me , having held some shares for many years.
(though as an aside I am almost entirely in cash and fixed interest at the mo. and holding my fire on equities until after 29 mar!!)
SXX is untypical of my investments 'cos its much more volatile , look back at the 5 year SP chart to see the extreme ups and downs.and note that properly timed there were several occasions to sell and buy back later at a lower price. Now not everybody can correctly predict high and low points and that includes me, but I have found it possible to buy in the troughs, sell somewhere on an upslope and buy back on the other side of the hill and at a lower altitude!.My decisions are mostly driven by the obvious critical points in the company's life , and as we all know one of those is due sometime in the near future.
If you are not inclined to do that then good for you, we all hope that the next peak will be higher than the last and certainly much higher than today!
I can only repeat that my input here is intended to offer a long-term investors view of the possible outcomes and to balance the often feverish optimism which pervades this board . Despite the criticism my appearances here generate, I still find that, with the exception of some reasoned comment from Cranleigh, there is seldom any attempt to refute my analysis.
I fear that the focus on the development of the mine , blinds some to the IMV more significant issue of funding , which again IMV is driving the SP
As to having to buy back in at 30p after a successful ST2 outcome that doesn't worry me at all. At that SP with a secured funding stream, my conclusion would then be that risk has fallen to the point that the share once again represents good value and that 30p might not be the next peak!!

Sheps fine, then explain in simple clear terms where I am wrong.

HI avo I post about a share to which I have devoted a fair amount of analysis and have twice invested and sold at near 100% profit so it has been a good investment for me . I still expect to invest again and make a handsome profit, but have set out the case as to why my next incursion will not be until after ST2 is, hopefully, satisfactorily resolved.
As suggested in my original post I would actively welcome constructive argument against my case, after all, I may be wrong , and I am happy to benefit from evidence to that effect.

Cranleigh I fully agree that the project is likely to be successful, as to whether it will be a good investment (in equity terms) I am less sanguine.

Cranleigh I agree that a degree of subjectivity will come in to play, but cannot see any possibility of that providing secured funding to the tune of 3X the current MC . Indeed your point that in extremis the value of the asset diminishes as compared to a functioning company, makes the probability of secured funding of the order required even less. It is true that secured lenders are at the head of the queue but if the saleable value of the asset is less than the debt everyone loses to some degree, including secured lenders. There have been a number of high profile failures in recent years where equity holders are wiped out and lenders take a sizeable haircut.

Been away from this board for a few days but have read a lot of confused posts about debt and ST2, so at the risk of raising the usual ire from my posts I seek to offer some clarification.

First, as work progresses SXX will have some "secured"debt and some unsecured debt. The former will consist of well-defined debt entered in to under contract and "secured " against the company's assets so if SXX default the lender can attempt to recover some cash by seizing and selling the assets.
The latter in the main, may be working debt which is essentially the (very large ) bills to pay for services rendered , goods provided etc.Depending on payment terms(which might be 30/60/90/120 days) these may well run into many millions . However, if SXX fail to pay these the suppliers have no recourse to SXX assets.

IRO ST2 it is , I hope self-evident that SXX cannot borrow $3billion of "secured" debt as they don't have $3billion of assets to offer as security.So all the posts rattling on about various tranches ranking pari-passu are flawed , once SXX exceed the value of their assets in loans they become by definition, unsecured and more expensive, if available at all.
That is fact , this next is conjecture.
Last summer when the companies market cap was ~£1.5-1.7 bill. it would have been possible to offer that amount
(or certainly $1.5bill )of "secured"debt, as by implication, the market valued the assets to be offered as security at that level. An additional $1.5 bill of unsecured ,but IPA guaranteed debt, could have met the perceived ST2 funding need, which was I think, quite clearly, the CF plan.
That is no longer the case, as evidenced by the recent changes to the ST2 strategy , the fall in market cap and the reluctance of government plus the additional $400-600 have considerably complicated the funding issues.
We will not know what the outcome will be until it is made public , but if we can glean anything from the latest RNS it is that "sequentiality"is the key, raise some funds for what is essentially a precursor to ST2 and spend to progress work,raise as much secured debt as the market cap will allowand continue , keep progressing in the expectation that the nearer completion the mine becomes the lower the risk, the higher the MC,and hence, the better the prospects of further secured funding.
IMV recognition that this higher risk ,higher cost, but perhaps only available, strategy is required has affected the SP, and may now do so for a while .
As ever happy to have a debate about the content of my post but have given up replying to abusive , sarcastic or personally offensive posts.

I've been an investor for a long time and have never quite fathomed how some stocks move in the short term. Is it random?, is it market maker shenanigans?(never thought it was). Is it the "wisdom of crowds"?
The last few weeks here have given me an answer, at least for this share at this point in time. It is clear to see that something around a 5-10% change in the SP is driven by the "news" (actual or anticipated)The correlation between goings on WOS , chatter and opinion on this and perhaps other boards and the SP is surprisingly close. Even though only about 10 mill shares are traded daily (out of almost 2 bill in issue)the tendency of some people to buy or sell in the hope (presumably) of a short-term profit is causing the SP oscillations we are seeing. Next step is for us to organise ourselves , coincide our buys and sells and make a killing!!

the street do you read your own posts?
24 jan you said "short term could get messy glad I sold out at 47p....".

Slurms -despite your somewhat alarming cross-dressing predilection you win "sleuth of the day"

However the story is not yet complete, there is another story in today's FT from the Dan Mcc. citing legal support for his allegations(which are about the german domiciled,payments company, Wirecard)

Another little teaser for readers.
Question is- spot the relevance to SXXin the link?

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOhLihVd.png?source=Alphaville&width=675&fit=scale-down

Come on folks - as with all Myo 's posts(see my 10.42) the subject is ............SIRIUS!!!!

MYo are you SIRIUS????

Ilike - no reallyAn asset is a resource controlled by the entity(ie company) as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity. It is the result of a past event or transaction.[5] IFRS for SMEs. London: IASB (International Accounting Standards Board). 2015. p. 15.

Ilike .....sorry but you are wrong. An asset is an asset regardless of whether it is profitable or not.Even a "wasting" asset ie one for which the value is falling, is still an asset, it may need to revalued at times but that matters not . A liability is in accounting terms an obligation , ie a current or future debt.