Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Somebody can't answer the question.
"As for electrolyte, no contracts have been agreed yet so you can't assume higher margins as no one knows what they will be."
Or even how much of BE will be owned by BMN post carve out. That's what makes these comments so ludicrously deceptive.
No SIPPmeister, I'm asking to what extent it impacts the bottom line in order to justify claims it will have legitimate effect on the SP. Come on, an eight-year-old-child could grasp this.
I'm not debating whether it's positive you moron, I'm debating whether the impact of the exchange rate on BMN's bottom line is worthy of claiming it will legitimately favour the SP - or whether that's deceptive.
For the last time Pdub, what's the effect of the $ZAR exchange rate on BMN's bottom line in monetary terms and how will that offset the negatives impacting profitability?
If you can't answer the question, just admit it and we can accept that using the $ZAR exchange rate as a means to inflate the value of the share price was deceptive on your part.
But you don't give numbers, just a load of waffle about ARC's pointless valuation. I say again, give the numbers in MONETARY TERMS. Of course, you won't because you have no idea.
And as Trevor brooking said, you don't offset that positive with negatives like rising electricity price, increased load shedding and inflation. In other words, the whole basis of your analysis is nonsensical garbage.
I don't have to give numbers because I'm not trying to delude people into believe the $ZAR exchange rate will have a positive effect on the SP. If you had a conscience you'd stop posting unsupported drivel in a lame attempt to deceive people into buying stock.
@JP8891 - that's because you're misinterpreting the point of my post.
Just like I'm happy to see the SP rise, I'm also moderately pleased to see a healthy $ZAR exchange rate. However, the point of my post is nothing to do with the rate itself, but the fact that people who criticise others for being deceptive are themselves deceptive.
Notice how HarChris always 'filters' when someone makes him look a bit silly - even though it's patently obvious he's still reading and responding to posts on his 'filter' list.
The real reason he pretends to filter is because he doesn't want to be made accountable for the baseless crap he keeps pumping out.
The real point is that HarChris/Pdub have no idea of the effect of the $ZAR on the bottom line in monetary terms. If they have no idea what they're talking about, why do they keep telling everybody about it? Because they want to mislead people into buying stock. Then they have the cheek to claim others are deceptive.
I'm happy to see the SP rising, but a lasting re-rate is only achievable through the words and actions of the company.
Once again, due to your arrogance you completely overlooked the point of my post. Everybody knows the problems SA has with load shedding and understands what the solutions are. The POINT is that nothing ever gets done in SA because the Mineral Resources and Energy minister is utterly corrupt and doesn't want anything to do with renewables. He wants coal and nuclear and to keep the brown envelopes coming in. So BMN can get their mini-grid project off the ground, but the chance of them rolling out the technology across SA has major obstacles. Obstacles that IES doesn't have for obvious reasons - the comparison is therefore ludicrous.
@Pdub
"Recently one of the negative posters on BMN dismissed the minigrid at Vametco as a “pointless project” yet here we have IES planning a demonstration model for similar reasons"
IES is primarily London-based and an exporter, BMN's mini-grid project is intended as proof of concept for the mining industry in South Africa. An industry that is mired in corruption, fraud and criminal activity. Therein lies the difference and maybe you'd realise that if you weren't so ignorant.
As Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede Mantashe said himself "Corruption is everywhere, including in renewables.” And he should know as he is the reason the mining sector is so corrupt. Can this crook be trusted to pass the necessary legislation mini-grid projects in SA. Even if he did, would BMN be overlooked in favour of backhanders from South Korea and China, re: BESS?
It is worth noting, however, that shareholder approval doesn't automatically mean the refinancing will approved. Shareholder engagement merely contributes to the decision-making process.
One of the main reasons people kept buying in the 30s/40s is because they were seduced by Alfachump and BBN telling everybody that Eskom would be using BMN's vanadium for BESS projects and that contracts were a virtual dead cert.
Of course, they were completely wrong because BMN scuttled away with nothing.
We all known Alfachump has no backbone, but as it turns out BBN is also simply a trader who got very lucky with BMN in 2018. It all went to his head and he started to think he was some sort of genius, when in fact he had no idea what he was takling about.
This is precisely why people who hype the share should be treated with extreme caution.
Stop pretending you don't read my posts. You don't have the self control.
Skibba, it did destroy the share price because investors don't want to invest in a company that they can't be certain will exist in 12 months' time. With no buyers and IIs/PIs scrambling to get out for other reasons, there was no support.
But I agree, that wasn't the only reason. Mojapelo then decided to give the SP another massive kicking by declaring that the company would split in two, with BE being "carved out". Despite the uncertainty he must have known that would cause, the idiot has never bothered to clarify that decision since.
I'm always pleased to see the SP rise above $40, but as I'm sure you realise that was only for a couple of months of that year and therefore no good to BMN in terms of paying off the loan. Maybe you should have praised me for being an optimist for once.
Night Pdub.
Pdub, BMN had a VRFB sitting with Eskom for god knows how long. So much for proof of concept.
Skibba, I've provided my statement. It's obvious the loan was not repayable unless the V price hit $50-60 all year round, which it didn't. I have no idea what guarantees Mojapelo gave to Orion or whether they thought the loan was ever truly repayable, but the fact is it wasn't, it was never likely to be and that has destroyed the share price.
If you think that's good business, fine, but shareholders have been sold down the river by a terrible deal. Mojapelo likes to witter on about lack of dilution, but the effect of that deal has been more disastrous than any dilution.
Perhaps you can tell me Skibba. Under what circumstances do you think that loan was repayable bearing in mind V prices have been far higher than expected over the past 12 months? Orion would get their money no matter what. If needed they would just take over the company and flog their assets.
Btw, I haven't called for Mojapelo's head for years, only in the last week actually. I have lost all confidence in him, what others think is their business.