Member Info for Cause17

Do they update their pages on time or a day later, do you know?

I have now gone for the method suggested by you. So what I did is add (5.3 million + 39 * 5.4) to the net revenue figures (the ones I guessed from the table as table isn't clear) and deduced the NpV through the formula in the previous link I shared.

I do end up with approx 1 billion higher value compared to the NPV deduced from the figures of the net revenue.

So does this mean the NPV of revenues- shipping cost should be almost 1 billion more than the forecast of JRP?

Incidentally.. I got a NVP os around 2 billion in this calculation. Am I wildly off the actual number?

I did the following
*took the net revenue for each year projected on the table
*divided it by 61 and multiplied it by 100 (to get the net revenue if per ton costs 100 - I understand I am also increasing the shipping cost and not considering different qualities of iron ore but I want to be lazy here) the use that value to calculate the NPV. It works out to over a billion $. I hope I am somewhere close to the correct path. Can you tell me where I am going wrong?

Also do you consider the 18% interest on outstanding debt from 5th year into your calculations (I am too far away from going to that detail). Also do you take 49% of the eventual value as Cadence will only get 49% if 115 million is invested (30 million is 49% so by assuming 115 million investment I am also assuming 49% equity)

Do you think I should just use the EBita numbers as they are on the table?

I got the equation I am using from this link

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wikihow.com/Calculate-NPV%3famp=1

According to that I need to subtract investment at the end.
And when the look at initial investment in a company then it is what you pay to acquire it + any debt acquired with it. That is my understanding of it.

@Maddog - :') (wish I can use emojis to express myself). It was purely coincidental, the use of the word.

Do I need to discount the future value of debts when I am only considering debt because an investment (buy price) in general = how much you pay + debt inherited

Also the table is really hard to read so I am just using whatever I approximate it to be

@Maddog- I did start reading on KDNC around 4 weeks ago. Like I said the first week or two, I was more of an observer. I have been reading as much as I can (bit too much time on hand due to personal circumstances and I am trying to distract myself from those circumstances to the best of my abilities)

Please rest assured that I am genuinely asking these questions (and they are of my own that come up whenever I read articles here or the results of my web searches) inorder to better understand what I have in my hands.

I do read other LSE boards but I just found people on here deal with more discussions and don't seem to shoot people down for asking question - I see in some boards there is a lot of arguments rather than discussions(twitter that I have come across seems to distort/hype the information).

One of the reasons why I want and wanted to know your reasoning is so that I can evaluate that for myself.

One of the reasons why my questions seems to reflect many of the ones that were already on the bb could be because I am new and I am asking the questions that had already been asked (I didn't read the prior history on this board)

Thanks Obs. It is the very first time I am trying to calculate NPV. I will share my workings and results here with you tomorrow.

I used the net revenue numbers on the 2nd table in the JRP document.
The formulae was sum of (net revenue for the year/ by (1.1)^(year - 2020 +1)) - (110 million*5.4) - 1.5 billion

From reading the current conversations I can see that I need to use 900 million instead (if I should be using that number at all).

The reason for using 1.5 billion was that as Dev is absorbing the debt, I considered it in the price of buying out the mine.

But I guess using Ebita would make all this much simpler for me.

I will use Ebita in my next calculation.

Also I used the current exchange rate..
I think the exchange rate works on Cadence's favour too since $ is much stronger against the Brazilian real. I saw that both articles on the debt restructuring had a figure of 1.5 billion Brazilian real but the initial article had 360+ million dollars and the latest one (2020 June) had only 260+ million dollars.

Sorry Obs. I did have some worked out on my laptop before I had to go off and work on something else. I will post my numbers but end of tomorrow hopefully. I used the net income rather than ebita and did come up with some good numbers (not sure if they were accurate or my workings are correct but I will share them tomorrow).

https://br.lexlatin.com/node/74371

This article (I think this was shared here earlier) indicates they were part of the settlement discussions. Maybe they wanted this particular term from the Jindal Group JRP reinstated in this JRP too. But does this article indicate they agreed to the 30% discount on their credit too as they seem to be part of the 90% creditors who have agreed to the plan?

Also should I use the initial investment figure of 6 million for 27%, 30 million for 49% or 115 million (including the last dip finance).

I am trying to be as conservative as possible.

Thanks again Tomcat

Thanks Tomcat. I think I read on one of the articles shared here that indicate what you said (a settlement has been reached with Gerald as part of the agreement with 90% of the creditors).

@obs - the tables at the end on the JRP (the net revenue figures), in that, are the revenue numbers per ton of iron ore calculated at below the current market value?

Have Geralds agreed to execute their guarantee on the stock pile in amapa as per the JRP? If so, what portion of it? I belive they hold a 135 million dollars guarantee? Please correct me if I am wrong..as I am presuming I am.

=============================================

4.5.2. GERALD. Whereas the recovery has failed to judicial recovery plan approved on 4 April 2017, and considering the court decision that determined the inclusion of Gerald's credit in the general framework of creditors, the parties they agreed on the following terms.
4.5.2.1. When requested by Gerald, the Recuperanda carried out the transport of iron ore from the mine to the port for a fair price, based on good faith negotiations, with Gerald and will not create any obstacles to the withdrawal and embarkation of that iron ore subject to availability of infrastructure in accordance with the law. Of the same way, the Recuperanda will guarantee, continuously, free access Gerald or third parties indicated by her, including drive and transport from the mine, to the ore of (including access to the port and the railway) and you may not charge of Gerald any past or future costs for the use of space where iron ore is or has been stored, until its full removal. Any attempt to sell by Recovery of iron ore will be considered a failure to comply with that clause. The recovery should cooperate fully with Gerald for the transport of ore from iron.

Source link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_2GNdDBpqXrb9UszfuVFa63N6s_lHIA/view (courtesy of obs and Dallas)
=================================================

Thanks Obs. I think I am still a long way off in being as knowledgeable as you in this. And tbh all my reads have almost entirely been on Amapa. I will be sure to read on Yanginana too.

Just to clarify, the Yangibana page has been updated to reflect your understanding hasn't it? To include Baldhill North as part of Cadence's 30% JV area?

@jimb2 - Thank you.

I have been reading this board for a while but was a bit hesitant to say anything (personal nature). Over that time I have been reading a lot of what was being posted by the regulars here, especially Obs. Then one day decided to create a log in and find out more by asking questions.

I think Ivybush was one of the first to put me right on my questions with facts and details. Obs also provided me links. Since then I feel more comfortable with every piece of information provided to me from here. So far I have only been concentrating on Amapa and more I read of it here and the links and articles provided, the more I see it's worth.

Apologies if any of my questions had created a negative vibe. I didn't mean to, just wanted to clarify them as I was pretty certain posters here would have the answers to them.

I hope to read more of your posts too. I think I read some of your article links in the beginning.

https://smallcaps.com.au/tin-heading-decade-deficits-technology-demand-outpaces-mine-development/

If anyone is interested. EMH got a mention on this article.

Yes. :) But for me that is not a major issue with the bigger picture.