Member Info for Daisan

There is no doubt that confirmation bias exists and it is something that we should all be aware of as is taking a jaundiced view of posts on bulletin boards. But I think with any investment you need to stand back and test any assumptions made on a regular basis. The more 'ifs' there are, the more it should be tested. There is no doubt that in the early, 1-3p days that there were a huge number of 'ifs' and investing was far riskier but the rise since has been commensurate with the reduction in that risk, principally on the back of the Vametco purchase and rising Vanadium price. The risk is far lower but the potential reward is also (I sincerely doubt that we will rise 30 times in the next couple of years). The assumptions are few now but it is always worth challenging them.

It hasn't been this quiet since...... well, the last time it was this quiet. Spooky!

It's the end of the week. They don't need to drive it down as traders tend to exit positions so anyone here for the short term will be reviewing their positions.

Shhhh!

Interesting moves today. Low volume but feels like natural price discovery.

I don't disagree on this, I just don't think that the real move will happen for another couple of weeks or so. Don't get me wrong, I am expecting strongly rising prices across the board at that point with a real potential for further record highs.

It's a bit wobbly at the moment with no definite trend (Chinese Vanadium prices were up then down for example). If I look at Twitter the number of #Vanadium tweets is running at about a third of the number when it was at an all-time high which shows that this is not rampantly bullish. Still in the bottoming phase I believe and I am not expecting significant moves until after the Chinese New Year.

I don't think that they would get anywhere near $200m for Lemur. If they got a third of that I would think that they have done well. More likely it will be spun out on the back of a JV deal in my opinion. I would not look in that direction for any source of funding

If UET didn't provide direct support to get this up and running then they are mind blowingly negligent. There is an obvious large scale project to be won here and this is the first demonstration of their product. I am amazed that they didn't put in all the necessary resource to make sure that it worked in the first place but to repeat that would be unbelievable.

The same every day and has been for some time. If you are unable to sell during a 'walk down' then there is a real sell going on whereas unable to buy is usually referred to as a 'tree shake'. At some point we will have greater clarity as to what has been going on over the last few months viz a viz the share selling. Until then, for those that wish to buy it creates an opportunity at the expense of those who wish to sell.

I think that this is a reasonable assessment. Anybody investing in AIM companies will be used to dilution and it is generally considered a bad thing because it is usually for 'working capital' purposes. This is not the case with BMN so any dilution will be used to grow the business. Given the ambitions, not to mention the stated investment plans presented before the SA President no less, the amounts required and the time frame in which they are required would be a stretch to guarantee from cash flows. So it is a question of how they will raise the money.

I don't think that there is much doubt that BMN could debt fund a fairly serious amount given the cash generating reality of Vametco. But as somebody on here posted, representatives of the company have wanted to make the opportunities available to a SA audience so it makes sense to have an equity element available to SA investors. I say 'element' as it does not have to be all equity but a combination of debt and equity.

Whilst on this it is worth considering where dividends lie in this. If an investment was funded via debt then dividends still make sense (this has become an efficient mechanism for companies in recent years). Less so, however, when there is an equity raise. You would have to question the logic of dividends at the same time as an equity raise and that questioning is likely to be answered by the fact that there is a more complex rationale for the raise than just access to more capital.

So, to clarify, my personal stance on an equity raise is always I would prefer not to have it but if there is a value accretive opportunity and equity is the best way forwards for long term capital growth then go for it.

Nearly correct. The real name was Aragorn.

It depends on what timescale you consider for the narrative. In the short term there appears to have been de-stocking coupled with a reduction in steel production (over winter in China this reduces by approx. 35% as I understand) and non-conformance to revised rebar standards. In the longer term, steel production will recover, there is likely to be greater policing of rebar standards and there is no real new supply of Vanadium for a while other than increases from existing producers which is unlikely to cover the deficit.

Rob1967, It really depends on your timeframe. If you are in a place for the very long haul then it certainly makes sense to do a whole range of these upgrades. If not then a lot of them are not worthwhile from an ROI perspective.

Technically copper doesn't look too great with a head and shoulders formation on the chart. Let's hope that this doesn't play out. Actually, if you have cash on the sidelines then if it does play out then this could create a spectacular buying opportunity.

But that would prevent the market makers obfuscating the buying/selling which doesn't help them. Logic suggests that accurate trade reporting should occur immediately. There is no technological reason why it shouldn't. There is, however, the potential for greater volatility in such a scenario.

I was contacted by my electricity supplier a year or so ago regarding implementing a PV/storage solution. I confess I bored him to death about VRFB v Lithium ion but engaged with him for quite some time. We went through some numbers and the upshot (for a Tesla storage solution) was a payback period of about 7 years. Considering I come from an industry where payback of less than 12 months is desired, a payback of 7 years just did not seem worthwhile. I expect that many others would feel the same which is why driving down the costs more is key to mass adoption. Give me a 2-3 year payback or a leasing option and I would certainly consider it.

I appreciate that they understand the issues and that these are being addressed. I also appreciate that the Q4 results will be sparkling from a financial perspective even if the production was at a record low. However, the aspect of the process that the company has direct control over, i.e. production, should at least begin to reflect the operational improvements and whilst 700mtv may be adequate for Q4 (and I would hope that it is not considered the top of the range considering the revised targets), I would hope to see considerable improvements in Q1 and Q2, especially if the nameplate is once again being raised.

Well, at some point we need to see evidence of the production improvements coming through to the bottom line. When we acquired the Vametco operation it had a capacity similar to 700mtv per quarter since which we have improved nameplate to 3000, 3200 and 3750. So far the reported production figures have not reflected the improved capacity.

This is not like selling the same car as everyone else and getting a little less though. It is like shifting 100 cars and for that you accept a lower unit price. I don't see why the activity we have seen over the last few weeks is not explained by a large background seller who has instructed a broker to sell.