We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Yes a few are talking about the desirability of emphasising a different sector, perhaps having seen IES valuations. The AIM exchange listing still has General Mining as the ICB Subsector though. If Bushveld Energy were a startup on their own they would presumably be listed as energy. Until they make up the bulk of turnover though it may be tricky to argue that energy is the principal activity. Anyone already know what the exchange rules are around that?
Thanks - yes always good to consider the downside - very wise! I too have a small investment here.
On materials and supplies I guess you've already seen the 1Q2020 breakdown (from when GHG reported separately).
Cost of materials for hospitals only a small increase at 13.6m GEL for 1Q2020 (compared to 13.0m in 1Q2019).
I appreciate that your post made me look more carefully at this point! To me it seems there is room for currency-driven inflation in that figure without doing anything too bad.
There is a currency impairment for 1Q2020 of 4.2m GEL, but if I understand correctly that accounts only for currency changes between the time of invoice and payment, so if currency has bottomed out then that number goes away.
But I agree with your concern for the top line - if citizens have no money it will be hard to get the hospitals back to solid profit - particularly if the government feels the need to cut subsidies. I guess this share is very much a bet on recovery, as we've always known.
Haha yes Faramog, I was going to say the same thing. How DARE this resource that I get entirely for free not work for a few minutes :-P [ Yes I do realise some pay and for those that do I sympathise and you are quite right to be cross. ] Anything that forces me to cut down my screen time per week is probably a good thing...
I don't know. But is your understanding that these rules are already in force? In which case the market has already priced these effects in when looking at 2020 reports to date.
Mr/Ms/Mx GSDSITGS aren't these historical issues from 2019 that you're referring to?
Woah good spot - I missed that. And it was apparently published in trade journals 6 days ago: https://www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net/sig-buys-sm-roofing-supplies/
Honestly I only really monitor the RNS feed at the moment. Looks like I should be paying more attention!
Thanks James and Low Frequency Dude. To be clear, my view is that they are doing plenty of great work in this area and the IES contract plus plans for SA are good starts. (James I would argue that the IES deal does amount to announcing first contracts). But they don't seem to give enough of the signals the market needs to see in order to add to the valuation. It sometimes seems to me they are signalling that these type of deals are just to seed the VRFB market, and when the Vanadium price goes up as a result that will be reward enough. And indeed shareholders would still do great from that - there is really nothing wrong with valuing simply as a mining company. And yet the 'vertically integrated' aspiration is still being proudly stated, so I keep thinking the market needs to be helped with some rational way to add that to the price tag.
Hi all. I've asked this before but feel it may be more timely now. I think many on here would agree that the market is not valuing BMN's aspirations to be a vertically integrated supplier into the redox flow battery market. What could BMN do to convince more people of this? I'll give an example but would be great to hear others' thoughts. Example: We see that Bushveld Energy exists and may soon have the ability to deliver electrolyte locally in SA, plus investment in IES including a fincancial vehicle for electrolyte processing in UK. Do you think there is room for BMN to be more clear about the size of revenue growth it expects from electroyte leasing models (some real year-on-year projections), and the geographic locations where it will prioritise its marketing efforts for these services? Other thoughts/ideas???
I understand the frustration. Regarding branding, IES is listed in the Industrial sector (Electrical Components subsector) on the exchange and so it is clear that it should be valued based on its role in that sector, whereas BMN is listed in Basic Materials (Mining subsector) so many assume it should be valued as any other miner. If the vertically integrated model means BMN starts making more from non-mining activities (e.g. electrolyte leasing) than raw material sales, then at some point I imagine it would want to (or even be required by the exchange to?) change the sector it reports as. But should it do that now or after the revenue from those other activities gets big?
Totally agree with Pdub's first comment on this. Conspiracy theories had been wild. Yes there can be corrupt practices on AIM but that is usually due to greedy boards of directors and stock promotes, which are clearly not the case here. I believe the share price has stayed low because there were more people who needed or wanted to sell than buy at this time, nothing more exotic than that. I had stopped reading this board because it was distressing to see how irrational people were getting about the depressed share price, and the obsession with short term prices in general. Like Pdub I would be delighted if the RNS injects a does of reality and we can get back to talking about the company, its future, and exciting news flow over the next few years. All the best everyone. Ev.
The shares that existed before the placing, as with any placing.
If you'd like more info on what a placing means I think this description is a good short summary: https://moneyterms.co.uk/placing/
If you'd like to research the AEXG placing on AIM then the admission document is the place to start, which is recommended reading before you buy any AIM share, as it is the primary document that protects the interests of investors by giving accurate detail about the proposition and known risks. Page 10 lists numbers of shares before and after placing. https://wp-aexgold-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2020/07/27225943/Admission-Document-Final_EU_Active01_703513238_1.pdf
That's helpful for my understanding of the context - thanks JCEP.
JCEP thanks but I guess it wasn't clear enough what I meant - the Competent Persons Report from the website does give inferred estimates at Nalunaq but makes clear that they cannot be regarded as indicated resource. So I was using the previous operator's numbers as a (perhaps optimistic) figure. Really I was responding to Up Up's thoughts and making a general comment about the balance of risk and reward here, compared with a pure exploration venture, or the other more operational ventures where Up Up and I seemingly are both invested (HUM, PXC). Did you have any view on that? Cheers, Ev.
Was anyone else entertained to see in the Competent Persons Report that one of the geological fault lines at Nalunaq was named "Your Fault" by the previous operator?! I wonder who named it and why??!! :-)
[Reference: Page iv of Executive Summary which is page 7 of the PDF here https://wp-aexgold-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2020/06/09125214/AEX-CPR_2020_v9-2_Clean.pdf ]
Hi Up Up,
I'm in a similar position with existing portfolio and wondering about getting in here too. It's more speculative than the others you mention though, right? The risk profile looks similar to a company at the exploration stage (i.e. significant risk of failure) but with lower costs of production (so greater reward for success) due to existing infrastructure . The restart of old operations at Nalunaq looks like it has a reasonable probability of reducing the cash requirements of the exploration side of the business by generating several million USD before resource runs out ( I'm basing that on the old reports here https://www.investegate.co.uk/angel-mining-plc--angm-/rns/interim-results/201211300700093816S/ ). Is this also your view of the type of risk-reward this represents?
Cheers, Ev.
Does this also tell us that market makers have not kept much stock at this level (i.e. hold a largely long position) and so it wouldn't take much pressure to move higher? I never used to believe market makers took positions but Sanchez posted a helpful video that explained otherwise :-)