I earlier wrote : .."Elphick has been quite combative in the past, IIRC, at any suggestion that his are not a ‘clean pair of hands..."
On re-reading, this didn't come out quite as intended : I meant to say and convey that he'd been quite protective of his status as 'a clean pair of hands' etc.
Understandably so , he has a background and connections with the S African establishment worth protecting : "In 1988, Elphick was seconded to E Oppenheimer & Son from Anglo American to be Harry O’s personal assistant and became MD of the family firm two years later. Harry O died in 2000 and Elphick left the firm in 2004, to found Gem Diamonds the following year. He holds a BCom and BCompt Honours from Wits. Apart from his mining background, Elphick is also celebrated as the developer of Plettenberg Bay’s first polo estate. The sport now generates over $40m in revenue a year for the area..."
Thanks from me too, Veteran10.
Clifford's holding is approx 27%, ie 80+m, not 27m, from the 'Investors' page on website :
Shareholder Number of shares % of share capital
Guava Minerals Limited(1) 80,252,592 26.14%
Keith Everitt 17,270,000 5.62%
Julian Higgins 13,755,298 4.48%
(1) Clifford Elphick, the non-executive Chairman of the Company, is indirectly interested in these ordinary shares, representing 26.75% of the issued share capital of the Company, by virtue of his interest as a potential beneficiary in a discretionary trust, which has an indirect interest in these ordinary shares.
As an aside, I wonder what Keith and Julian think is going on....if anything ?
AIUI - v limited understanding, from a quick scan - KP"'s potash is intended to be barge-transported out to larger vessels offshore, which seems inefficient/costly.
ZIOC's offshore floating system was intended to handle iron-ore slurry, was it not ? I don't know the handling requirements for potash, but IF the ZIOC system was in place, that might be an alternative/additional user : I seem to recall there was talk/aspiration of the Chinese using the system to handle bauxite shipments....
Another possible consideration is that ZIOC is essentially ' Elphick + mates'...and he may wish to maintain the public quote for their sakes / at their request, so that everything remains above board.
As Lenin said ' Trust is good, but control is better'.
My ‘cautiously optimistic’ take is that the loan ( peanuts for GLEN) avoids potentially serious dilution for ZIOC if the alternative is a fundraise : the remaining Shard 3m would raise barely £60k; and keeps ZIOC as the original promotor formally in view in any discussions (‘have to take our partner’s concerns into account’) ie publicly on-side, whilst making it clear to anyone interested that GLEN is the party in the driving seat.
The other, more cynical, is that it’s arguably more attractive to ZIOC /GLEN than ZIOC de-listing, which would give the authorities a pretext - and maybe even som e right, eg a ‘change of status’ provision - to revoke the concession.
Also, of course, ZIOC remaining a publicly quoted party in any development, however unattractive, is probably better for GLEN from a ‘transparency’ perspective, which is probably quite a consideration for the new CEO and BoD :
Elphick has been quite combative in the past, IIRC, at any suggestion that his are not a ‘clean pair of hands.
‘Dum spiro, spero’ : while I breathe, I hope….
Who knows ? As others have said, it’ll be interesting to see what AT says, if anything….and how he says it. Through the salary concessions and LTIP etc, he should still have a useful holding if any deal is done.
.."Ex, you’re concern is admirable.."
As so often, you've got the wrong end of the stick.
(1) My use of the words concern and worry was in response to the choice of those words /sentiments by the opening post.
(2) 'Altruism' isn't expected to pay the bills....that's rather the point.
Enjoy the weekend anyway.
..” They already stated that Venus will take up all unsubscribe shares from the Open Offer...”
What the RNS actually says is …” Any Ordinary Shares not taken up by existing shareholders through the Open Offer will be subscribed by Venus Capital in July 2022, as part of its binding commitment to provide up to £7.5m…”
Not quite the same thing.
Just for info, these links take you to graphs showing the performance of VeChain VET and VeThor token s/p movement over the last 12 months :
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vechain/ high of US$ 0.18 to current 0.0234 ie 87% drop in value
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vethor-token/ high of US$ 0.015 to current 0.001533 ie 90% drop in value.
It seems that it's not only SYME that could do with some good news.
Two drunks supporting each other is the image that springs to mind.
Courtesy pumpjack from t'other place :
"Based on the 1 - 3% revenue model guidance that SYME have provided in the recent annual results, todays news will generate no more than $15,000 - $45,000 revenue - YES dollars - to prove a concept some 2 years after listing !
That's £12k - £35k to you and me !
"$1.5m immediately releasable to fund the available eligible inventory of the first Italian client selected and the rest, during the Phase Two" ie the $8.5m balance available in phase 2 - December 2022.
Based on their revenue model if phase 2 is completed by year end = WAIT FOR IT
grand total OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN £80k - £240k at 1 - 3% which SYME provided in their revenue model last month.
For reference "The Revenue Model: Captive Inventory Monetisation = 1 - 3%. White Label 0.5 - 1.5%. Investment advisory Tradeflow 1.25%..."
The max $ 10 funding isn't going to satisfy many of the £ 111m worth of Italian and £ 28m worth of UK 'active clients' reported at FYE 2021..
.."An allegedly experienced investor like yourself should understand that the market is forward looking..."
If you extrapolate TF's performance re turnover and net contribution, the trend is one of deterioration , from the FYE results :
.."TradeFlow contributed GBP0.2m of revenue and (GBP0.5m) to the Group's operating loss for the period between the date of acquisition, being 1 July 2021, and the 31 December 2021. As a preliminary assessment, had the acquisition of TradeFlow been completed on the first day of the financial year, Group revenues would have been approximately GBP0.3m higher and Group operating loss would have been approximately GBP0.6m higher..."
Turnover H1 : 0.3m H2 : 0.2m Total for year : 0.5m revenue
Op loss H1 : 0.5m H2 : 0.6m Total for year : (1.1m) op loss
'The trend is not your friend'.
The 'repeat client' , esp. the 1 who provides 1/3rd of ORPH's revenue, will be given priority over smaller-scale albeit more profitable business (any one of the other 60 names that ORPH has dealings with) that calls at the same time, wouldn't you agree ?
Maybe I've become a bit jaundiced about CF and his 'marketing'. Do you still feel as you did when, amongst your relatively few posts (all abt ORPH), you wrote this in Nov 2020 :
.."Three things certain in life... death, taxes and a nice blue day after a Cathal presentation..."
The third hasn't aged well, IMO.
This is a useful IMO overview of what VeChain actually does
It seems , to this lay-person, to be a one-stop shop for many of the enabling tech features (IoT, RFD, blockchain, NFT, etc ) that SYME planned/plans to incorporate into its own offering.....and that the Foundation is willing to provide a bit of 'seed capital' - $ 1.5 mn - to establish 'proof of concept'.
This is small beer relative to the $$$s of potential customers looking to be on-boarded, how many will now want any outstanding DD payments refunded, if IM funding is only progressing at this rate ?
The AGM promises to be 'eventful'.
.."You've got to know
When to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.."
.." the contract revenue has doubled for comparable work.."
Is there anything in the public domain to suggest that the work is comparable ? The argument seems to be that ORPH has a large , fixed cost base (ie break-even) and that more efficient/optimised use of its facilities etc is what has contributed to improved margins.
Time will / may tell...
.."Why do you keep suggesting differently?.."
I don't KEEP suggesting differently : I just observe that ORPH doesn't appear to have much of a 'moat' ( reflected in pricing power).
Your reference is to contract size , as opposed to profitability. Why have you changed the basis of the discussion ?
You could well be right :I asked a question about how long it would take to have the 'brew' ready and there was a shuffling of feet and a pretty evasive answer.
You'd think that if it was that difficult , there'd at least be the consolation of a premium price to extract on the finished product....but judging by the margins we earn, it ain't so.
I have to say that the dependency on 3 or 4 key clients for the bulk of ORPH's revenue - as revealed in the latest financials - was a nasty surprise for me : I don't think it has that much pricing power, hence the poor margins...?