Member Info for extrader

Me again,

I now see the repurchase authority further down the same document, as someone said, a boilerplate resolution.

Resolution 5 is the 'new news' and suggests they're clearing the decks for corporate or other action.

ATB

Hi scottology,

Very interesting indeed - but maybe not in the way you intended ?

When I look at the Zanaga website re AGM resolutions http://www.zanagairon.com/pdfs/Zanaga-Notice-of-AGM-2018.pdf,

I don't see a 15% share (42, 480,155) REPURCHASE resolution, but rather the opposite, a resolution no. 5 condition precedent authority to issue shares , either for a RIGHTS issue (up to 188,781,809 shares) or up to 94,390,904 (1/2 of the above) to issue shares in connection with OTHER OFFERS or AGREEMENTS.

The first would be a fund-raising, existing shareholders would be entitled to participate, roughly (max) 2 new shares for every 3 held. Non participation would mean approx 40% dilution of existing stake in the Company.

The second would typically be in connection with a partner buying in (94M would = approx 25% of new total shares) or using shares to pay suppliers for goods and services

Both the above appear material ! What document is the source for your Resolution 7, please ?

ATB

Hi MM,

This appears to be the only 8pm news on telecongo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QcRRXCJems.

It's the head of Total Africa giving the Pres an update on its C-B operations.

May be something more relevant from China (or Congo elsewhere) tomorrow.

Hi rex,

Another observation : you also seem to be implying that Dr T has 'form' for giving in to his Chairmen, including presumably Rob Arnott.

Again, are you suggesting that the warrants issue was driven by the then Chairman....and Dr T went along with it against his better judgement ?

I'm interested because most of the comments on the BB re governance todate suggest that Dr T's strongmindedness (or 'bloodymindedness') is the issue and you're apparently of a different view.

ATB

Hi rexmontego,

…"rapid premature disposals by RT. under personal pressure to show cooperation with latest chairman …"

That's a pretty specific charge, I feel. On what (concrete) basis do you make it, or is this just imputing a plausible motivation ? Are you suggesting this farm-in was driven by the Chairman ...and Dr T gave in ' reluctantly ? That's not what I got from Dr T's body language with Malcy

I accept anything is POSSIBLE ( "si non e vero, e ben trovato, " etc) but said on what evidence ?

Serious question !

ATB

Hi NewKOTB,

…"They could easily take us out, and flip our share for a tidy profit and still retain control of ZIOP..."

Even better than my suggestion - from GLEN's perspective ;->

I'm not that familiar with the mining sector, do majors ever work together in consortium, like in the oil sector ? If so, GLEN might feel 'safety in numbers' and be open to a 30/30/30 + 10 C-B split, for instance ?

ATB

Hi TheHoopedBaron,

…"They would be crazy not to make a lowball offer to take Zioc out ....unless they themselves wish to sell up."

If they intended to sell up, the smart thing to do would be to buy ZIOC first, then charge the eventual buyer a premium for ability to close the whole shebang in one go. Aka , a 'flip'.

ATB

ATB

Hi reverandy,

Thanks for running this.

93p for me pls and LOROS as my nominated charity

ATB

Hi IJWT,

Thanks for clarifying, I wonder what any surplus might otherwise be used for ? Future licensing rounds, maybe ?

ATB

Hi all,

This deal is a bit curate's-eggish and people will opine depending on what they see as the priorities. To me , reducing risk in exchange for reduced reward is important, so by that yardstick its OK.

I'll be much happier if our improved cashflow/resources, apart from proving up our assets, goes to buying back the convertible bonds and thereby avoid further material dilution.

But that's not a certainty and the RNS /presentation seems studiously vague on the matter......;-<

ATB

Hi again Ironic,

Thanks for the clarification as to purpose. I agree that share numbers and lack of dilution to-date is a major plus.

ATB

Hi Ironic,

Thanks for the pointer. AFAICS, they Company bought back 1.64 million shares, approx., mostly over a 2 month period Nov-Jan 2012/3, at prices from 40p gently downwards ending with a 1 M share buyback at 20p on Jan 2, 2013.

It's not obvious what the purpose was , the RNS's do state that no Directors shares were bought back. Looking at the chart, it appears to have stabilised the price over year end (32.8p), before the sudden drop to 20p early Jan.

ATB

Hi Riskisgood (great handle, btw),

From the IPO document , the 20M odd were sold by the Selling Shareholders.

Selling Shareholders are defined as : “Selling Shareholders” : Garbet and Guava.

At IPO, the ZIOC board was : …"The Company has one executive Director, Colin Harris, who is Project Director, and four nonexecutive Directors; Clifford Elphick, who is non-executive chairman, Michael Haworth, Clinton Dines and Dave Elzas

So , not necessarily TOTALLY congruent, but pretty close, I hope (since I value your opinion) you agree !

ATB

Hi DGR1980,

…"extrader - Did i give a timescale?"

No, you didn't. If 1980 is your birthyear, then you have a different time horizon than I do ;->
For both of us however, the rules re time value of money (aka NPV) and opportunity cost still apply...

ATB

Hi Andre01,

…£ Fukc they could have just sold out 7 years ago at IPO and saved themselves the time and effort".

You're forgetting - if you were ever aware - that at the time of the IPO, when 20M shares were floated, the Board sold another 20M, keeping the £ 30 M proceeds for themselves ….and recouping an unquantified but certainly material part of their outlay.

So the point at which they're 'in the money' isn't anything like the IPO £ 1-56.

They didn't sell more then eg to Xstrata (GLEN wasn't then on the scene) or into the market because the demand wasn't there; they haven't sold since for the same reason; they haven't had subsequent placings for the same reason ….and because they either don't want/aren't able / willing to put in more money or don't want to be diluted.

HTH and ATB

Hi DGR1980,

At your mooted £4-50, that values our patch of undeveloped , 'leasehold' land at £ 1.25 billion, with an implied value of £ 2.5 billion for the whole...…

Hmmm...when everything else is in place and cashflow about start, maybe.

ATB

Hi sandcrab,

Hadn't heard that version - source, pls ?

Sounds a bit like 'I cried...all the way to the bank". The advice about 'selling too soon' is a constant, though.

ATB

Hi Jinkar,

…"IF we ever got six pounds a share I would gladly give 100 quid to charity it would feel like giving someone a pound now...."

£ 6 per share would be a 30x bagger from here, which is already likely above most people's in price : it would be pretty shabby not to share some of our good fortune !

Each 100K shareholding would be worth £ 600,000.....and giving £ 100 would really only be £ 60 once you take Gift Aid (as a by then higher rate taxpayer, if not already ;-) into account....

So in fact more like giving the charity 10p now

Puts things into perspective !

ATB

Hi MM,

You may have heard of the Rothschild quote, as to the secret of his investment success : " I never buy at the bottom and I always sell too soon " . Or the adage about always leaving something for the next guy.

Why should anyone pay us anything like the NPV, leaving themselves with all the time/execution/political/ commodity price/macro risks …...for , effectively, no reward for themselves ?

If you accept the wisdom of ' a bird in the hand' being worth 2 in the bush (and maybe 4 in the African bush) your £10 NPV quickly translates to £ 5 ( and more realistically £2-50) for a ZIOC share.

Just look at GLEN's travails in DRC, Rio's difficulties in Guinea (Simandou) and Barrick Gold's problems in Tanzania (Acacia Mining) for 'real world' examples of why I think the key ZIOC shareholders will 'sell too soon'....and nearer my price than yours.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

I say £ 2.00, you say £ 10.00. The midpoint would be £ 6.00. Maybe we should have a side bet (terms to be agreed), giving an agreed sum to the other's choice of charity depending on which side of £ 6 we get to monetise ?

Or, less specifically, invite everyone to give their prediction and nominated charity, with the rest of us undertaking to pay £ 100 each to the winner's choice ?

This second survey might be a useful complement to your earlier holdings survey, with the added advantage that someone's charity would benefit.

ATB

Hi HTL Thanks for the heads up. Perhaps now we can get back to shipping instead of sniping. ATB