Member Info for Cherokee101

£1bn profit divided by £10bn shares gets you 10p dividends?

A 100% payout ratio? That will never happen. You have debt payments to contend with, which will last for what, 10 years plus? Not to mention share buybacks, capex, one off costs etc....

Sorry to burst any divi bubbles!

The BoD have frequently said they would like more institutional investors... it wouldn't be a stretch to think they may occasionally rattle PIs.

BoDs have done far worse things in history.

You can believe what you want.

But if you want proof simply head over to Jupiter's website, pull up Jupiter Growth's annual reports and happy reading.

Sirius was a top holding about 3 years ago, so grab that report and read what Steve (the manager) says about the company.

KOH

Whilst this may be a speculative play for some, it certainly isn't the case for Jupiter.

My pal knows a sales guy at Jupiter and he told him that the manager has nailed his colours to the mast. It was a top holding in his funds for ages and is still a top 10 position today. That isn't speculative. (It might be insanity, but it's not a small crumb).

Qataris and Norges both released their ownership rns's at a very similar time, which I doubt was "a good entry point". My guess is they have obviously been building positions for a while...

Again, I could be wrong... Jupiter et al could be wrong, but the institutions rarely gamble on non-flow flow, pre start ups, venture capital stuff, no matter how small. Why? Because they usually have a stringent mandate and go after stuff with cash generation.

I've said this for some time, but it still holds true today. There are a few reasons I continue to hold, the major one being:

Far more intelligent people (and some that arguably have access to much higher quality information, and dare I say it, inside information) continue to invest today. Qataris, Norges, Jupiter etc... I wager that at least one of them know the deal. They are all in bed together at the top end and JPM will be right in the sack with them.

Jones richard

Why do you say next week the major re rate will begin?

Thanks

Past*

Jeez, I should be asleep already.

Batalyst

I may have my issues with the BoD. But the reasons the mining majors might be interested are quite obvious.

Not to mention, shareholders are gradually shifting their stance towards ethical products.

Far weirder and stupid acquistions have been made in the past, so I wouldn't put it passed the majors.

By the way, Rio Tinto used to make the most ridiculous acquisitions to the point of neaely putting itself under (that was only 5 years ago).

Cheers
Cherokee

Thanks to Myo and GK and all else who have responded, appreciate you taking the time to do so. I will read through all suggestions.

We are all permitted to disagree, no harm taken, thanks for your views.

Myo, maybe you are right. My gut and review of the hard facts tells me two things 1. I should keep holding because;
A. Bigger and smarter folk than myself, continue to invest
B. The build rate isn't slowing down
C. The bond market was weak and is likely to improve

But I have a balanced view of things and it isn't rose tinted. Many people here say the same things with words such as "trust the BoD, I hope we will get there, believe in the project". that is the emotional side of things which has no impact on the share price.

The facts, equally to the above I have noted for reasons why, on balance I remain invested, are contending with other issues... which I seem to be factual. Such as that list. It is a fact CF didn't take up additional equity, it is a fact we are running out of cash, it is a fact the Government is too busy with Brexit to see this gold mine and help it in any way it can. It is a fact also that JPM are playing both sides... is it not?

But again, on balance I think the pendulum is just in the hold camp for me, on a 5 year view.

But I could be wrong and I am kicking the tyres.

Scotman,

Debated to death, but no solid truths in the outcome.

I love the project, I love the product, but the BoD need to be more transparent, that's a fact.

I am not asking for intra day reassurance on every minute detail, I am simply asking for a few home truths.

Why not release an RNS refuting the major issues? That would be prudent governence. We would all take it like grown ups. Instead, the media and shorters are allowed to wreak havoc on the share price and we get radio silence from CF.

Meanwhile, Burford capital gets one major accusation and within 24 hours a massive rebuttal is formed and wrongs are put right.

Again, open to constructive debate instead. Happy to be put right if I am barking up the wrong tree. PAAA, GK, Myo.... the three sages, am I wrong?
The original Villain of the show, Casapinos, am I wrong?

Have PAAA, GK, Myo and Casa investes heavily recently? If not, why not?

About 30% down on my average.

Thanks.

The truth is Scotman, I'm down well over 50% on my initial investment, and I am now treating this as a long term punt.
If it goes t*ts up I won't be on the streets, and if it works out I may just double my initial.

Instead of telling me to sell up, why not seek to discuss my concerns as a fellow long term holder and serious investor? We should always, always! Seek to re-evaluate the facts as things evolve.

So tell me, am I being paranoid? Or is it worth the punt?

Alan,

I agree with your comments about what CF has overcome, but the biggest problem with this company is transparency.

The reason most have freaked out over the last RNS, is because many no longer trust what the BoD is saying. Even going so far as drawing up massive conapiracies.

This all started with the tunnel RNS. Ever since then we have been on a merry go round of smoke and mirrors, under the guise of "it's too sensitive for an RNS".

The BoD "could" very well have explained the liquidity and volume issues they are facing with the HY market. And whilst they are at it, they could iron out some other issues, namely, but not limited to;
1. How do they feel about JPM both raising the capital and shorting us?
2. What is the real problem with the China ToPs... should we be worried?
3. What happened to the stage 1 deal structure? Why didn't we get most of it as senior debt?
4. Should we be worried about a hostile takeover... from Gina and your other Ozzy pals?
5. Have you done work to show there is a market for poly4 outside of our wholesalers?
6. What is our daily cash burn rate... for real?
7. Why didn't Fraser really buy more equity... really?
9. Why did everyone seem uninterested at the AGM?

Simple communication, can be effective.

Net flows into high yield bonds outpaced investment grade last week as yield hunt intensifies.

This is a good sign for us.

First poly isn't production. It's when they hit the seam.

Don't know if this has been posted -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1TJ1Q4

Basically highbride hedge fund (the one shorting us) looks set to change ots objectives to a pure credit play.

Interesting.

I went through a down period blaming Fraser for all sorts. But it's a tough call to make without knowing all the details.

How many knives are in his back from various parties? ... we just don't have all the facts.

The bond market is massively distorted by QE.

There is a great report by the Bank of England from 2018 discussing in some detail the level of impact QE has had on the yield curve.

Negative yield curve doesn't quite have the same predictive power.

If I may make one observation on bearish views.

They generally appear "after" a share price decline, and often consist of finger pointing at the bulls.

Rarely (note, not "never") do the bears post constructive advice, backed by evidence. It is often gut feelings.

I think Casapinos is the only bear worth hearing. Superleggera got a bit tin foil hat for me.