Member Info for Daisan

The 10% free carry is precisely that faramog. It remains at 10% no matter what capital reorganisation takes place. And they don't have to stump up money for it. Considering that half of this is for employees, this should be considered a very generous employee share scheme. The other half is community and should be considered a community engagement scheme. It is manageable as long as it is stable but it will inevitably impact on the capital deployed to develop projects. They are competing internationally and they must understand that the minds of barriers make them less attractive.

Interesting. I have no idea whether BMN will be classed as a junior miner. In actuality it will be Bushveld Vametco, etc. However, the free carry will be most injurious to those companies raising capital which I would hope we are beyond. In actuality the most important thing is stability. If you have a stable framework then you can work accordingly. If not, then this will kill investment completely.

I agree T trades create a false market both up and down, thus stimulating greater volatility. Nasty things!

1onic, Yes, I was being somewhat unfair (although I am not sure that TW particularly deserves fairness). My experience of companies moving from exploration to development and production is that they rarely predict costs accurately and tend to be too optimistic. As such it is difficult to judge how far wrong they are going to get it. I think CEY is one of the smoothest I have ever seen but that is an exception. AUE is closer to typical (OK, that is also a bit unfair!).

YTSS, It is more the case of finding it difficult to understand how they could be bad. The question mark is really around how good they will actually be. If you consider that Vametco was profitable when it was producing less than currently and the FeV price was in the low $20s/kg, it is not difficult to imagine that it is going to be much more profitable with FeV prices running at $50/kg higher. Add to that the fact that the CEO has gone on record as saying that Vametco is capable of producing EBITDA of $150m this year based on a FeV price of $60/kg and I think we are reasonably safe in assuming that results are going to be positive.

I would say it is a sell considering there was a similarly large trade around the same time at 19.4p.

Got our seller(s) I see. This is not the only company with such a thing irrespective of activity. Hmmm.

I don't know whether it is too complicated but the company could certainly report in a way that made it more readily accessible. The Q1 operational update is a classic example. If you look at previous quarterly reports they stated the EBITDA whereas in the Q1 report (i.e. the one where things are getting pretty exciting) they don't. Why remove those figures? It is relatively easy to calculate this based on previous quarterlies but why obfuscate? I would certainly want the EBITDA figures spelt out in the next quarterlies but, if not (and, again, I ask why not?) it will HAVE to be clear in the half yearly figures.

His target of 13p was made with the statement that they expected a fund raise to keep the company going until mining starts so surely the target price should have built that in?

1onic, I would say that there is actually a better metric available and that is what someone is willing to pay! I.e. the Ethiopian government and other investors have actually valued the project currently at over $100m. I think that they overpaid slightly but not drastically so I would be comfortable with $50m attributable currently for this project. Compared to a market cap. of about £15m suggests some upside with more should they reach steady state production without further corporate level dilution. NPV calculations would suggest a not dissimilar figure. Nothing is applied for the Saudi assets here.

Which isn't wildly different to using NPV! The point is to come up with a valuation now rather than in a few year's time.

For an NPV to be achieved you have to have reached a state of steady, profitable production. But even then, you are right that there is always a discount. Pre-funding I usually work on the basis of 20% of the NPV but funding confirmation should see a reduction in that discount as would construction commencement and production commencement. At least a NPV12 uses a reasonable discount rate.

Of the shares issued, I would expect the 48m issued to contractors to be the least sticky. These will almost certainly come onto the market as they are third party wages. I am usually quite cynical about these things so assume the worst and then you can only be pleasantly surprised!

He has been tipping this for ages which is the thing that most puts me off investing. He is unerringly wrong when it comes to positive investments and should largely stick to negative ones, although he got that wrong with my largest holding as well!

I don't believe it is Pablo2. I think this is to pay off the convertibles. We haven't seen anything related to financing Kumtor yet.

Not sure at what angle this drill was carried out. Judging by the map, it is not vertical so the depth is somewhat misleading. The 1000m drill should give us a much better indication of mineralisation at depth. Of more interest is the fact that this drill was the first, I believe to be targeted at the zone between east and west porphyries and indicates the potential that the two are actually one ore body. If that is the case then the resource will increase substantially in size without considering depth at all. Add that in and this could well be Cascabel sized.

There is a significant background seller(s) and has been for some time. Who they are is unclear but what is clear is that they have no interest in the company! I am seeing this pattern across several companies at the moment.

Pdub, I do not disagree.

Pdub, You might want to look again at the placing RNS. It quite clearly states "The Company has agreed to make a full and final repayment of £4.275m, being the outstanding nominal amount of the convertible loan, plus a 5% early redemption charges to Atlas to redeem all these remaining outstanding convertible bonds." Which is just under £4.5M.

Well, I don't see why these should be responsible for the recent price moves as I don't believe that they have been converting them. Or at least we haven't received notification of such. One interesting thing - this has cost more (over £600k!) than anticipated at the time of the equity raise. I see no reason why this should be the case unless someone got their sums wrong as the terms would have been pretty clear. Whilst the funding progressed the business substantially, these convertibles came at quite a price. I hope we never see the likes again!