Member Info for Daisan

Always fun when somebody doesn't get a mathematical joke!

RickKen,

Share prices aren't integers. They are reals.

Ha! Chartist2, you are beginning to sound more like you did on the ARS board. I hope that you are not on the verge of making the more serious accusations on here that you did over there.

I would be careful with expectations at this stage of the 'transformation programme'. The last quarter produced 657mtv. On that basis I would be reasonably happy with 700mtv with a guidance for the year of 2800-3000mtv. That would show progress was expected without promising the earth and should the transformation programme deliver the goods then it should be easily beaten. The worst thing that they could do at this stage is to have a stretch target that they failed to achieve.

Whilst I agree that they are conservative with their information releases, I think if you look back over the RNSs for the last few months there has been a fair amount of disappointing news in amongst the good news items so I do not think that an RNS = good news is an assumption that we can make.

Good to see that Mankayan is on the agenda again. It looks like I may have been in this somewhat longer than most here as I bought into BZT on the back of Mankayan long ago. I had written the investment off and I am not sure that this review is going to significantly change that. The biggest issue from a first pass is the capex of each option and, consequently, the IRR, the latter being nothing to particularly write home about.

It would appear that the best option for the asset remains selling it. It has been so long since I last looked in but is the asset 'next door' still on the agenda for development? They were always the obvious buyers.

knuttie,

It would be inadvisable to assume this although any increase in shipments to the US should obviously be welcomed. I suspect that US shipments as a percentage of total production would decrease as production rises and increase as it falls. This is purely based on that the fact that this has been borne out to some extent by recent history and may reflect commitment levels to that part of the world.

You can see how little we should assume the proportion going to the US by the number of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' in the above statement!

:-)

Judging by these bulletin boards I suspect that they are not the only ones!

It is highly unlikely that the share price is driven down purely on the back of shorting unless they have access to a source of shares to cover the short. Otherwise the naked short position would be so huge that they are going to find it very difficult to cover.

Not sure I agree zeusfurla. There have been a few times when I have been watching the trades and thought 'looks like a significant trade there ' and lo and behold, up it pops subsequently. I do not doubt that there is still a significant imbalance between buys and sells but the trade has shifted. At some point I suspect that all will be revealed but when that will be who knows? In the meantime I sympathise with those who have invested higher. We have all been there I suspect and it is certainly a salutary experience that will add to their knowledge but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow the material damage.

The nature of the selling has changed recently. Down to 40p we clearly had one or more sellers who were dripping sells into the market but didn't want to crash the price. When 40p was approached they backed off. More recently the selling has become less concerned with the impact on the share price. I suspect that this is a different group of sellers or at least they have been added to the mix. The volumes are also relatively low which may additionally reflect a reduction in the quantity of buys despite the fact that they still outweigh sells on a published basis. My guess is that some 'panic' sellers have joined in and tilted the balance somewhat.

Zeusfurla, You are assuming that all of the traded are published immediately. They are not unfortunately and we have seen that sudden jolts down here are often associated with a subsequently published sell.

Dichotomous. Sorry - autocorrect!

Not dichotomies but it does imply that they wish to ensure SA investor participation by ensuring liquidity without shifting the price significantly higher. So 'we don't need the money but we want these people on board'.

Fair enough but unusual to say the least to shift that volume OTC. 'Inefficient' seems an inadequate description.

I confess that I don't know what to think on that as it makes little sense! Who would pump out multiple 50k trades OTC?

OTC trades? Really?

Alfacomp,

Yes, I see that some of these may be rollovers (not a fan of these at all!) but there are others that are not (we have another early 50k sell I see) and the pricing levels of the rollovers are destabilising in themselves.

The trades have been interesting recently. There appear to be a preponderance of 50k trades but it is more the timing of the trades that is intriguing. Late yesterday there was a flurry of sells and we have seen similar early in the morning. Generally speaking these are the times that you tend to want to avoid as prices can be skewed and yet we have seen selling patterns at these times. It is possible that this is just a process whereby a distressed seller is going through a process. If so, then it is the perfect way of destabilising the share price!