Member Info for Daisan

Unfortunately true. It doesn't help having the worst bunch of politicians I can remember. Each time a new lot come in I think that we must have hit rock bottom. I am constantly reminded at the paucity of my political judgement.

I agree that the disparity will certainly decrease but SXX owns a globally significant deposit based in a reasonably stable country :-).

I suspect that most would have thought that the production figures would be here by now but as has been pointed out, they are not an AIM requirement. Some companies I know combine Q2 with interims and Q4 with finals but as BMN has not done this in the past it is only reasonable to assume that they will not in the future. As has also been pointed out, there is a precedent for quarterly reporting being later than 'expected'. Given Fortune's history, it is difficult to suggest that the delay is due to poor performance or good performance but I have no reason to believe the former given the restatement of the annual target at the end of Q2.

I have to agree that these figures would have been known soon after the quarter end although you could make a case for the figures being delayed until after the shipments were completed (I would suspect not but an argument could be made). In which case end of June plus 6 weeks or so would be the obvious time. I believe that this has passed as well.

In conclusion, nobody knows why it isn't here yet but equally nobody can say that it is for good or bad reasons. Personally, I believe that Vanadium prices are the driver here. As long as price drivers remain strong and until such a time as production numbers disappoint, I suspect that the upward trend will remain.

Holding a government to account for putting maintenance in the hands of private companies is in no way clear cut. If the process was rigorous and there are legislative guidelines on maintenance then the private companies should be the ones facing investigation rather than the government. Of course, if the framework is weak or the process is inadequate (corrupt, lacking in robustness/controls, etc.) then certainly the government, and, more particularly, individuals should be held to account.

In defence of Pdub, 'weak holders' is common parlance and is not meant pejoratively. It just means those shareholders whose commitment to hold is not as great as others and may well encompass a short term need to raise capital.

The gold and silver prices are rather odd in that tweet. The only commodities quoted in AUD. Gold and silver are universally quoted in USD so no idea why it uses AUD here, particularly as it undermines comparison without conversion.

I'm not sure why this transaction should attract opprobrium. It is neutral and has had no impact on the price which was falling well before this took place. There is a chart of ARS share price against the copper price which shows a very strong correlation. Miners in general are down significantly as are most metals. Or at least those traded on financial markets. Interestingly those that aren't (Vanadium is a great example) remain strong. What does that tell you about the current metal pricing?

Fascinating sequence of trades from 11:32 - 11:40: 10001, 10002, 10003, 10004, 10005. 10006 and 10007!

It's a very bullish interview suggestive of a material increase in resources from this year's drilling. 12 rigs! The interim statement in September should be very suggestive of what we can expect in the final update and I expect it to be very good. They have managed the tricky step of readjusting the resource to a more realistic pit shell so we should see upward revisions from here on in. In the meantime we should have drill results by the end of August.

Is it something to aspire to? I am familiar with some of them on the leaders board and their opinions are, errm, 'dubious'.

It would not be a surprise to see the odd delayed trade or two!

I am sure that you are right with this. However, logically if Atlas are converting and selling (and, indeed, Wogen for that matter), it would appear reasonable to speculate that this conversion and selling will continue until there are none left to convert. Neither of these companies are investors in BMN and care little for the projected share price performance. It is clear, however, that they are considerate when it comes to crashing the share price so the shares are only drip fed into the market at a rate that can be accommodated. I would happily see this process continue until all the warrants are converted and sold.

I actually prefer hydrogen as a solution to battery driven vehicles but the world does not appear to be moving that way. The last time I looked Japan seemed to be the only country going down that route.

It is possible that you could have a dual system whereby public transport systems are hydrogen powered and private systems are battery powered but I can't see a situation whereby private systems are powered by both as this would require two distribution systems. The cost of implementing this would be very high. This looks to me very much like a VHS vs Betamax situation.

Copper and Vanadium markets are, indeed, very different. But perhaps the greatest difference between them that is currently being played out is the way in which they are traded. Owing to its size, Vanadium is dominated by contracted supply and intermediate traders. To my knowledge there is no way of shorting Vanadium so the price is largely driven by supply and demand considerations. Copper on the other hand is a well established and large market that is almost completely controlled, in the short term at least, by the futures market. As such it can and is speculatively shorted.

The recent activity from our world leaders (I am in danger at this point of describing how poorly led the world is) has resulted in a situation where traditional theory would suggest that shorting the metals complex is a 'no brainer'. Trade wars tend to hit commodities hard. The short positions on copper are widely publicised and recently hit a post financial crisis (part 1) peak. Copper and other base metals have fallen hard at a time when inventories are certainly not rising. Such a precipitous drop is most easily achieved by large scale futures dumping.

I actually believe that the long term outlook for copper is very favourable and price rises over the next decade or two are inevitable. I can certainly make a similar argument in the short to medium term. Long term there is the potential to satisfy demand from known resources. The real question for Vanadium is at what price ultimately is the balancing point achieved for supply and demand.

A slight error in the calculation as stated. A PE of 10 based on the profitability as stated would give a market cap of £1700m rather than £1170m. However, I suspect that the suggested profit is not after tax and PE ratios are calculated using post tax figures so it probably evens out.

Hold on. Having looked at their figures a little closer, their eps for the quarter are not fully diluted and include a rather large exceptional item which doubled their earnings. Strip out the exceptional and dilute the earnings and the underlying eps is more like C$0.068 which gives a PE ratio of 8.35.

The easier way to do it is use their eps figure of C$0.17 for Q2, multiply that by 4 and divide into the share price, which is currently down 5% at C$2.26. Which does, indeed, come to 3.3. There is no doubt that this is undervalued, although I am not sure whether these figures include the debt/share restructuring into account which would either make the PE ratio higher or require use of EV as the measure rather than sp/mcap. A similar process could be done for BMN to give a low PE ratio. The issue, if course, is the Vanadium price which has risen so strongly. It takes some time for the market to adapt to the new pricing and longer still to accept that this represents a new paradigm. The realisation is gradual and will take many months but provided production volumes, price and costs are maintained the price will eventually reflect the new situation.

Price sensitive information should be released when available rather than judged to be the optimum time. I don't see anything in Bushveld's reporting history that suggests they are trying to finesse the market. If I had to describe their reporting I would use words like 'tardy' and 'dramatic'!

For whatever reason, the CoT report has not proved to be very accurate in recent times so I am not sure that the speculative short position is necessarily a contrarian indicator. In addition, there have been periods in history when short positions have remained very high, sentiment has been very depressed and gold very oversold only for it to fall much further (usually these conditions indicate the potential for a bottom in pricing). All of which suggests that it is actually very difficult to call a turning point!

Not sure where you are looking but I can only see 3 buys this morning on LSE so 'sells' appear to be outweighing 'buys' currently. Owing to the nature of reporting you need to make your own judgement as to whether trades are 'buys' or 'sells' rather than going by LSE's assessment.