Member Info for Daisan

We do indeed. In fact, I would extend that to 8:00 on Monday as that would be before the first trading day of April.

I am sure that we would get over it Pdub but a target is a target and each one missed gradually chips away at investor confidence.

I am sure that things happen within companies to cause delay - we must surely have all been involved with these situations. However, should there be a delay I feel that it is always worthwhile communicating that this is the case rather than see the date come and go without acknowledging the delay. It is a simple matter but one that goes a long was to ensuring that trust between the company and shareholders is maintained.

Well, the month is not yet over and I am happy if the announcement is made at some point before trading starts on the 1st April. After that I would be less happy as it would mean that a target had been missed. Sure, having it announced at some point will always be good news but I am a believer that targets should be adhered to when all of the aspects are completely in your control. They are in this case so I would expect adherence.

I also feel that it is good practice to inform shareholders if a target is going to be missed e.g. the resource statement now shifted to mid-April.

A dividend policy announcement would certainly transform the mood!

Given the history, I suspect that the corner, around which tranformational news is lurking, is probably as long as the Pan American Highway.

On the face of it, anyone new to CGNR will look at it and come to the conclusion that it is priced extremely lowly for its assets. I am sure that everyone would agree with this when looking at the resources and exploration target. But what has to be then considered is whether anything will ever be done to realise that value or whether the BoDs is simply going to sit on it and gradually dilute to support their retirements. The evidence suggests the latter unfortunately.

One day something will happen here and the people who have jumped in at that point will think that they are investing geniuses (Note to those people - you aren't). The problem is that it will be almost impossible to time. Get it wrong (the most likely scenario) and you will likely see your investment lose 99%+ of its value over time.

I thought that I recognised the name of the CEO. Used to be CEO of Hambledon Mining (latterly known as Goldbridges and, now, Altyn).

An interesting one and difficult to value currently. The main project when fully complete is potentially very large indeed and would make this the largest Vanadium producer in the world. However, moving to it immediately would collapse the market so it pretty much requires VRFBs to take off to achieve their ambitious plans.

Interestingly they suggest that their target is both V2O5 and FerroVanadium at various points on their website. Given the deposit, V2O5 would seem like the more sensible option, possibly even electrolyte manufacture should VRFBs establish themselves sufficiently.

The money raised will be used (with retained earnings) to increase production from their reprocessing plant which is planned to provide a significant amount of the funding for phase I of the larger project (capex $100m with $28m equity component) which will provide funding for phase II (capex $225m). If all goes to plan they will be producing more than Largo at that stage.

One to watch but I tend to agree with the consensus currently - the IPO was overpriced. It will be interesting to see where it settles but I wouldn't be surprised to see this go sub-£100m mcap. A key value driver will be development on their reprocessing plant.

There has been onefcc but it is the nature and timing of the selling this afternoon that is interesting. I don't call this manipulation but it is coordinated.

I suspect that it is no coincidence that there has been discussion (nervousness?) around a meeting at 2-2:30 and 'hey presto' there is pressure on the share price then.

I wouldn't necessarily think that. Normally these things would be a discussion between management and unions with the latter informing the employees of any agreement. The second meeting does not imply non-agreement.

Very interesting indeed and, on the face of it, highly confusing. But looking at the evidence based on this we have:

- the Chinese have moved to the new rebar standards
- they are being policed
- demand has materially increased
- there is a supply deficit
- there is no new production currently to offset this deficit
- the stone coal production enabled by the end of 2019 will not offset this deficit
- there is no inventory available to satisfy demand
- there is a continuing shortage

- the Vanadium price is going DOWN

Now, clearly these statements are not consistent with a falling Vanadium price so something in the picture is not accurate/true so either:

1. Supply has increased
2. Demand has not increased
3. There was inventory available to satisfy demand in the short term
4. A combination of all of the above

I suspect that it is likely 4.

I have not been aware of new supply on a significant scale but there has been evidence of bits and pieces outside China. Inside China, who knows? I suspect that there has been a small scale increase.

If the rebar standards had been widely adopted in China I don't care what supply has come on line or inventory was available - this would be reflected in the price and it is not. So for me, at best the standards have only partially been adhered to.

I have felt for some time that the latter part of 2018 saw some build up of inventory whether amongst end users or, more likely, traders. If the demand didn't come through as anticipated it is highly likely that the traders would panic sell, driving the price down.

Now, I will be the first to admit that Largo's CEO is more plugged in to the supply/demand balance in the Vanadium market but it doesn't take much looking into the pricing dynamics to realise that something in his reading of the market does not quite add up. What I would say, however, is that the price coming down on the back of either subdued demand or inventory rather than supply will ultimately result in a strong increase at some point.

I just noticed that TW is backing ALTN. What a shame as he has to be just about the worst share tipper that I have come across.

woody2002,

I don't disagree that having more than one exploration project is a reasonable proposition when none of them is advanced but when you clearly have a project that can be pushed forwards to production that is what you should run with. Otherwise you continue to dilute for secondary priorities. Molyhil and the surrounding area is priority one and should be the focus of attention. Until it is in production it has not gone as far as it can go.

Troajan,

I believe that Andrew Bell is linked to all of those so probably not great examples as they didn't require any further reason for failure than his involvement.

woody2002,

In my experience of AIM miners/explorers the successful ones tend to be the ones that focus primarily on a single project and bring that to fruition. At that point there is an income stream and, one would hope, a higher share price that could enable additional projects to be acquired with more limited dilution. My comment was merely a suggestion that they should focus on Molyhil.

Hmmm. They seem to be stretching themselves over too many properties for my liking. It would be great if they could focus on bringing one through the development process (i.e. Molyhil) before issuing shares for exploration level projects.

Curious. Just printed a trade at 37.06 (presumably a B&I) followed immediately by a rise in the bid. I suspect that the published bid was kept there for this purpose.

Presumably the opposite of a 'tree shake' is a 'tree hug'.

Well, Alfacomp. Whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant. The market chooses to value brands very highly.

As suspected. We are toast.

Fevertree is valued as a brand and creates its own market and pricing. Considerable value is given to strong brands in the market as they can charge a premium, are perceived as having further growth prospects and are resilient in a downturn. Bushveld, as a miner, are not in control of the pricing of the product and, hence, will never attract such a premium.