Member Info for Digittt

Cheap, no worries about your decisions, you have a clear strategy and nothing wrong with that. But I don't follow some of your comments. As I read it, there is only one note holder (Mint), and the notes are not transferable, so the most they can ever hold through the notes is 30% of the company (+ the shares issued for the £3m, so max maybe your 40%). If there were multiple note holders it would be different. So the maximum shares that can ever be issued for these notes to me is 30% of the current shares (again ignoring arrangement fee). Have I got that wrong?

Agree B1ll...and I presume with some cleverness they can mess around with shorting and converting their shares. That can absolutely bugger the price around. But...as I said, these have to have been risks knowingly taken.

JHFH I think you indicated in your one post that Mint will only be able to convert their shares 3 years in the future. That's not how I read the terms. They will be able to convert them at any point shortly and if they aren't converted in 3 years time, if they haven't converted they mature and have to be repaid. Can someone confirm which of us is reading this right?

That's my understanding based on what we saw and highlights the risk of this type of finance. But...it's £60m of cash we needed, so that's the risk that knowingly has been taken. There may be some restrictions on Mint trading the shares that aren't outlined in the T&C's in the RNS, or that I missed....I'd feel happier if there were, but I suspect they aren't as they would have been noted.

There are plenty of games company's can play with convertible notes and listed shares, but Vlad would have been made aware of that. And if Mint was in the business of doing that, they wouldn't last very long as funders to start-ups.

I think that's roughly how the maths works (ie ignoring simplifications). Not an equity advisor, but have some exposure to it, hence my commentary. £140m value to us (ie ignoring convertibles) does feel reasonable enough in the time period. If someone is going to take a run at the company they'd likely need to be offering more than the 32p which is good.

Someone more knowledgeable shout if I've misread / misconstrued. I'm simplifying in bits here perhaps incorrectly (ignoring arrangement fees for a start).

So the convertibles are capped at 30% of the company. 30% post money = £60m...so £60m / 30% = 100% post money = £200m. Or £140m pre-money. Ie if I understand right, that's the worst case pre-money valuation if full £60m goes. You can divide by the number of shares in issue to get to the £/share that's the floor in Vlad's valuation calc. His hope is that the £/share is much higher and so the convertibles don't get as much ownership and hence it's a lot rosier than the £140m.

It does come at a £3m arrangement fee paid through shares. I'm on the fence Purple...0% coupon tells you it's nothing at all about being debt.

Rushed to see the trading activity after the (2) extensions...I think there's more activity in the sauna at an old age home.

Not my best analogy for many reasons, but also because it ruined my coffee.

At best that can be described as information. It wasn't negative as it didn't say the Argies weren't refunding. But it's hardly positive when it's only $49k. How much work is required for each refund and are we comfortable we will get the full amount? It would lead to more questions my side given the payments are in such small increments. That's what I would like to know...and also... what's with these price monitoring extensions?

I've watched almost all my risk bets crash and burn. Help me Hemo, you are our only hope.

But why male models?

Sorry...at this point a Zoolander reference is appropriate.

Not a problem...although you've missed the very exciting earlier days of the board where people used to Terry Tate tackle anyone who made the mistake of calling it AIM...thankfully I think we've moved beyond that!

Will say it for old times sakes....not AIM...

Thanks, that's helpful. In a conversation that was dumbed down for me, it was outlined that the sulphate can effectively be dropped straight into batteries...well so to speak.

Shuggy, it's not a competition...but you missed my message earlier I think. I'm at 1.35m now.

I am aware of these premiums on Nickel Sulphate not Nickel Sulphide. But am not a chemist so don't know the distinction between the 2.

If you want to nudge us over 12, update me to 1.35m.

You should look for the chart from [2] year ago when he tweeted "a major breakthrough in the lab"...

Hopefully he's just being a lot more subtle now, but my expectations are he's just woken up to Satchmo and felt the need to share.

Geng - Assuming some of that may have been targetted at me - I'm working on multiple mining M&A transactions currently, which is the reason I haven't had time to completely track down and read up the full history. I am also a project finance specialist. So really not sure what I could add to the board once I get up the curve.

Yep...but I'm still quoting their LT pricing - I saw their latest ST and LT numbers around 2 weeks ago I think.

But as I said...their LT price swings between $7.50 and $9.00 on what feels like ST issues quite regularly. Been tracking Nickel and their version of it for a few years now. I also have seen some other independent economist type views showing Nickel at ludicrous levels. Too high to believe, but still that was derived based on a simplified demand analysis if memory serves).

Thanks very much... $7.00 to $7.50 is what I tend to see used at the moment. As reference - LT Nickel based on WoodMac is either $7.50 or $9...depending on the economic cycle they tend to swing rapidly from one to the other (which I think is weird as it's the short term issues that tend to lead to the large large swings in the LT position in my view). Their 5 year view is dire (under $5 2023-25), so I ignore that as well. Brokers are currently around $6 trending towards $7.50 by 2024/5. $8 a little punchy but not unreasonable to run it at.

On the final Nickel product, I need to read more still when I can, but based on the quality of the product I've heard views elsewhere of significant premia being considered to the Nickel price. In simple terms for me it was presented as depending on it's suitability for simply being dropped straight into batteries it can lead to chunky premia. I'm a relative layman in this, but I get limited visibility occasionally of some interesting industry info, hence above commentary.