Member Info for discopablo

Yes absolutely, I was just responding in this way as some posters seem to think that dilution is bad, full stop. I was merely saying that it might not be, particularly if it increases the value of our holding by at least the inverse of the dilution.

Bert, you'd agree to 80% dilution if the resulting assets received directly from that dilution made the company at least 5 times more valuable wouldn't you?

A couple of things there.

1. My understanding is that the company will come out of suspension either once the RTO has effectively been agreed or rejected. I don't see coming out of suspension prior to the RTO being agreed as an option.

2. More shares are undoubtedly being issued, but I disagree with the idea that we're being diluted. I actually think our holdings will be more concentrated, based on the fact that the production value of the mines we're reversing into is in excess of out current market cap, even if the revised number of shares in issue becomes 62.5 billion.

ASI, no I'm happy holding. Based on production numbers this could be great.

Anyway, might as well wait for the document. Pointless hypothesising.

I suspect that Gulf owns the assets and that the income is chanelled through the parent, Bay Square Pacific Ltd. The company is registered in Mauritius. Need i say more?

Have you seen the profit and loss account of BSP?

This is from 11 June 2024 RNS:

As outlined in the announcement of 19 October 2023, the Company will manage the mining and development activities of the mines in the Aprelevka group referenced above for a 5-year period. In consideration, Vast will be entitled to a 10% share of the earnings before interest, tax and depreciation that Gulf receives from its 49% interest in Aprelevka.

That's EBITDA, or are we talking about different things?

Ref Gulf's zero revenue, where are you looking?

Cheers!

Just been lookjng through the accounts and found this:

Revenue comprises of the sale of concentrates of $0.441million (2024: $1.913 million) and services rendered of $0.043million (2024: $0.113million). The Group derives revenue from two customers (2024: two), with one exceeding 10% of total revenues.

Is it safe to assume the services rendered is the Tajikistan income?

Also @asimpleinvester I believe our share is earnings before interest tax and depn, so effectively a share of EBITDA rather than turnover?

Happy to be corrected.

@asimpleinvester something tells me it won't be quite as simple as that.

Yes I was thinking ratio of 6. Call it 80m. Diamonds plus placing monies at 0.1 (tbc) effectively wipe out balance sheet liabilities position. Call it potential m cap of 80m, which on 62.5b shares is an sp of where we are now if my tipsy maths is correct and on 32.5b shares is an sp of circa 0.27. I think it's 62.5b shares but I think that will be clarified.

That's valuing all other assets at nil. I'm not sure this is as bad as some have posted.

Sure, but presumably it'll reverse at a value lower than what it's worth in order to be able to take advantage of that and as such dilution may not be as bad as we think.

H50, what's the p/e ratio you'd apply to those annual earnings to arrive at a sensible market cap?

I'm just trying to calculate a market cap after the deal to then calculate a market cap per share on both a share total of 62.5m and 32.5m

Yes, and it's not as if gulf are getting cash for their company they're getting shares in VAST which is a company with net liabilities. There must be something else.

Markettwins, I think the enlarged number of shares in issue will be 12.5 times 5 won't it, so 62.5 million?

I can't make out if it is 5 times 5 plus 7.5, so 32.5 as per your calculations or 62.5. I think probably the latter because otherwise the shareholders of Gulf will sign a deal and then be immediately diluted.

For me, the whole thing needs investment and new finance. Whilst the mines have been under maintenance, the price and scarcity of what's down there has increased.

Part of the 2.7m raise was putting a team in there to establish ways to move forward with mining. I am hopeful that together with financing and diamond proceeds that the company can move forward.

Amadan, I had a look over there the other day but it seems like proper wild west territory! There are some who have faith and are waiting for news like on here and others who are writing it off. Either way, it looks like the posts are quite personal, which doesn't interest me in the slightest. It seems the days of being able to have a discussion are long gone over there.

I see this a lot.... '2.7m to enhance the diamonds value'.

If the RNS is read properly, only part of that amount was used to enhance the diamonds as the raise was done for additional purposes.

Hey Muck, don't get me wrong, I too would like confirmation that that's what they've done. I simply meant it might not be RNS worthy. I'd love an RNS with an update on everything, but I'm just not sure that paying down debt is RNS worthy from a legal perspective. That's what I was trying to say - really badly!!

Maybe, but just because you expect it doesn't mean they have to. I would personally class repaying a bit of debt the same as proceeds receipt - just another transaction.

I'm not sure actual confirmation of receipt of the sales proceeds warrants an RNS.

I also get the impression that the remaining stones are of different quality to what has been sold at tender already. AP I'm sure has made reference to a different selling strategy to maximise value.