Member Info for dyresearch

@mcsquares My motivation is to offer advice to fellow PIs. 90% of investors lose money on AIM. The main reason for this is they don't know the rules of the game. CLNs are a great example. You need to look at the detailed terms very carefully. Correctly structured, they are a one way bet for the provider at the expense of the shareholders. The only thing that stops this is that they "agreed" not to forward sell (note, not a contract) They've been forward selling, that's why the price has kept falling these past two weeks. But hey, believe what you want to believe. I've given my honest advice and people can choose to take it or not

@BezzyBushFire It won't bounce, STZ is wrong. Atlas make their money like this.... They knew about the Half Year Results and, despite agreeing not to forward sell they did. Sold in the past couple of weeks at T+20 in the knowledge that the price will tank on Tuesday, allowing them to buy the stock to complete the trade. Sold at (say) 1.60, buy to complete the sale at a lower price I said that there would be a fundraising Feb/Mar....I was right. I said to all holders, sell at 2p (I think) when the fundraise was announced...I was right. My current advice is that if you can get 1.2 on Tuesday, take it. If you can't, wait and see if you can get it later in the week as it may get oversold on Tuesday As for my motivation in offering advice, I want a clean honest AIM. Frankly, Eric is only in this for what he can personally get from you, the investors.

You're right...but this is a business model predicated on growing sales quickly enough to get to break even. So the fact that the current sales rate is lower than that in Oct-Dec is a worry, no?

I said I wouldn't post here again but the results pinged up on my email. In the spirit of trying to help fellow investors, I took a look. The most important thing for me, by far, squirreled away in the detail, was this Revenue since the beginning of the second half has been similar to that seen in the first few months of the financial year, During the "first few months of the FY" revenues were 135k pm, they increased to 171k pm in Oct-Dec. What they are saying is that the sales have fallen from 171k pm back to 135k pm in Jan - Mar They then go on to say they expect the total revenue in the second half to be more than the first half. But at the moment, sales are lower than they were in Oct-Dec period So why would sales be falling?

Not invested here but some friends are so I offered to do some analysis for them Cash end September 2017. 21.3m Cash end March 2018. 13.0m (mid point of the range) Reduction in 6 months. 8.3m Non acquisition cash burn 1.8m (as per previous six months) Other expenditure. 6.5m Additional Marwyn fees. 0.2m Undisclosed. 6.3m So more than 1m per month. Someone, somewhere has profited massively from this failed transaction. To a much greater extent than could ever be considered reasonable. If I was a shareholder the first thing I would be doing is requiring a breakdown of the 6.3m (it's actually in the 5-7m range) from the Directors because there is zero possibility that this is as a result of a normal, arm's length commercial transaction

Agree and I think it's a combination of factors. Company has been working it's media presence as hard as possible to get the message out But I think it may be that Winchester South transaction that's caught the eye. It's one thing for Altona to say they plan to prove up and sell the asset. But to be able to point to another similar asset actually sold yesterday is exciting Realistically, funding isn't an issue. The gap is so small that it will get plugged easily. There is now an example of a similar asset getting sold (for very big bucks). What's left in the middle is the risk associated with proving up the asset. I suspect everyone will be keeping a very close eye on the results of the Initial Exploration Phase. If that comes back positive there is no way investors will see an entry point like this again. That ship will have sailed

Guz....my understanding is that we submit and he responds (or not) in real time. Obvs he can't say anything price sensitive as it will all be written down and recoverable by anyone in the future

@reggie72 assessment is spot on. The business needs very little additional cash to get to an exit. Whether the cash to get there is in the bank now or in a few months time is neither here nor there. What matters now is the results of the initial drilling Folk who were hoping for "multi bagger" when cash was in the bank....all we are talking about is a few hundred thousand to complete the whole project. Why would the company accept AUD 30m of finance when all it needs is about AUD 1m???? That would be incredibly stupid and dilutive to us all. The operational strategy is spot on. Squeeze the costs to exit, then find the least dilutive way to finance it

Correct Reggie, why rush into funding when it's not needed immediately. All that does is dilute shareholders more than is necessary The amount we are talking about is small enough to mean that the funding risk has gone and we are now down to assessing the operational risk/reward

Looks like your rumour is correct @AltonaEnergyPlc twitter has uploaded a photo of him meeting Sino Aus and Wintask in China last week

Company has failed to conclude transaction during its suspension period so must come out of suspension and be recognised as Rule 15 Cash Shell Rule 15 Cash Shells have 6 months (from today in this company's case) to conclude a transaction that qualifies as an RTO, otherwise they delist So in this company's case, resume trading tomorrow and they have 6 months to do a deal. It doesn't delist tomorrow

Yup...whilst announcing a tiny Director sale from years ago is funny, it is the circumstances that prompted it that's interesting

Impact is AUD 700k on PBT

@glandore The Hermes facility is Confidential Invoice Discounting which you can think of as a variable amount overdraft, the variability being determined by the amount of Trade Debtors at any point in time The official rate is, I think, 17%. But with various management charges it comes out to a effective rate of about 20% The feeling is that, given MRS's current trading, it should be possible to halve that effective rate The impact of that would've about AUD on the PBT The other aspect of refinancing this facility is that it is currently capped at about 50% of total Debtors. Usually a CID facility wouldn't cap at less than 70%. If that were the case, the company would have AUD4m extra facility. This is one of the key reasons why there is no chance there will be a placing

Given that we have had media interviews, MOUs, appointment of a geologist, renewal of licenses I'd say that the newsflow has been better than for almost every other junior explorer. Can't do much more What is the problem is that Lambert, Zeng and Zhang were proved to be inept and unable to add shareholder value (in Lambert's case he was extremely adept at reducing shareholder value). The current Board are doing a good job but many will wait to see how it goes, having seen the promises of jam tomorrow before. FWIW, I sense a change in attitude in the company and I think we have more chance of making a good return on this than has ever been the case On the subject of large shareholders, the most they could sell without a TR1 is 15m. There have been a lot more than that traded in the past few weeks and no TR1 so it's not them. It's PIs, selling into any liquidity that the newslfow creates. They may come to regret that decision

Nothing happening for a couple of weeks, then suddenly some significant buying activity on no news. Are Shroders adding to their already sizeable stake?

Well I guess we should find solace in the fact that the current management seem to have adopted the correct strategy at least. Unlike Lambert, Zheng, Zhang. Interestingly the consultants, WSP, were fully onboard with CTL, UCG so I doubt, very much, that they came up with this approach. They were just happy to take the fees for whatever pipe dream Altona's previous management came up with I'd rather have correct strategy and a question mark over execution than dodgy strategy (as CTL and UCG were) and zero chance of execution

@BwanaMakwubwa: I'm a bit confused by your comment. If your concern is "low ball bids" then presumably you think the project has value, otherwise all bids would be "high". Is it your belief that the strategy is correct (forget 98% of the deep, wet coal and find the 2% that is dry enough and shallow enough to be economically extractable) but just that the management do not have the experience to carry it off? If you look back at the history of Altona, the previous CEOs (I'm looking at you, Lambert) dreamed big of delivering a mutli billion $ market cap company but actually delivered nothing because the vast majority of the coal cannot be economically or environmentally extracted. Current management (at last) seem to have twigged this and are focussed on one particular area that has the potential, at least, to be dug out of the ground cheaply Getting the moving parts into position (JV funding, new mining consultants, exploration plan) will take time but it seems to me that at least they have a strategy that has the potential to deliver, unlike all the previous pipe dreams

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/8730/exploration-the-key-focus-for-altona-energy-as-it-works-to-de-risk-and-sell-off-coal-asset-8730.html

Went to the Sharetalk presentation on Saturday in Manchester. Quite liked BMV so done a bit of research subsequently Getting 50% of Gubong for USD500k may well be a good deal. But what appears to be the case is that Southern Gold got a better deal out of BMV? They bought all the tenements for an estimated AUD2m and they've sold a 50% stake in one of them for AUD625K (USD500K). Not direct consideration, but it's cash that Southern now won't have to pay themselves so it may as well be So that deal effectively values Gubong at AUD1.25m. Whilst Gubong is the biggest asset, analysis of what Southern bought suggests that AUD1.25 effectively gives them a handy "profit" on the carrying value of the asset What's the rationale for paying that much?