Member Info for FeedCo

Seems a reasonable bet given the UKIB invested at these levels, Wind & Solar need battery storage and Vanadium batteries don't pose the fire risk of lithium and also has other benefits per the website.

My question is whether these target prices are up to date. Do any long term holders know ? Thanks. I can't work out whether the share price might pull back after a good run or continue to the lower target level.

https://markets.investorschronicle.co.uk/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=IES:LSE#:~:text=Share%20price%20forecast,a%20low%20estimate%20of%2040.00.

The 2 analysts offering 12 month price targets for Invinity Energy Systems PLC have a median target of 72.50, with a high estimate of 105.00 and a low estimate of 40.00. The median estimate represents a 215.22% increase from the last price of 23.00.

MM - Not being nasty at all. Just pointing out the potential pitfall which investors need to understand. If your game is partly to gloat over ramping and exiting Avacta then I applaud you as you have clearly done well. Personally if you wish to take the moral high ground, you should have been letting investors know the risks as well as the rewards. If you are sat on a massive opportunity loss in Avacta, then I hope this gets reversed for the hope of all cancer sufferers.

W.O.S - Who is Peter ? FeedCo and GDT (for general discussion threads) are related. Just so everybody knows.

Esduk - wanting and getting a supply agreement for FID are two different things. I am amazed that this isn't being picked up and discussed. Who has the capacity to provide the required and guaranteed Supply (in a supply agreement for five plus years) and how much is it going to cost. There is an unrealistic assumption that MM and yourself are implying is a given. Incidentally, no supply agreement, no project finance. This will then require equity to fund the risk and we all know what that means. We wait and see. Incidentally, I'm not sure directors taking shares in lieu of cash can't be seen as an equity fundraise through the back door and forced through at that given the cash burn you mention.

The reason is in the InFEED or Supply agreements. Until MKA can lock down supply, they will not get Project Finance. Nobody considers this scenario. The reason why, is It isn't an attractive proposition (delays to funding etc). MM and Esduk aren't being open and honest re the difficulty in obtaining supply agreements for a valuable resource. As the market cottons on and MKA become ever desperate, they will have to chase a higher price as that is where the value is. In terms of the SPAC, we all know UK AIM stocks trade at 50-60% discount to values held in listed stocks so now we know that could potentially be disappointing too.

Esduk, if you have 20 years PF experience, you will be aware of the requirement for Offtake and inFEED contracts. Please enlighten the board as seemingly, I am a ****roach for pointing this out to the uneducated.

Not really, no terms announced with a LOI which isn't agreed funding. MM has hyped most of the good news into the share price already so unless the news flow is better than the hype, then what do you expect the reaction to be. The game changer will be if and to me it is a big if, MKA can sign a Infeed contract on terms that reflect the DCF modelling. The wait goes on.

"The company could raise money at around - or at least very near to - the prevailing share price almost whenever it likes"

MM - Seems clear to me that that is their intention, given they state it in their going concern statement.

Reading the FS, there are approx 55m or so warrants that can be exercised for a subscription of £3m-£4m. If the warrant holders sell into the market, they will receive £6m-£8m. The capital commitments required for Germany coupled with the current working capital show a cash requirement per the accounts. Will they raise sufficient cash from the warrants ?

Interesting to see how this plays out

From the accounts signed off 30th May 2025

GOING CONCERN

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a basis which contemplates that the Company will

continue in operation for the foreseeable future and will be able to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in

the normal course of business.

The Company is at an early stage of development and, as is common with similar early-stage companies, it has not

earned any operating income in the current and prior years. For the three month period ended 31 March 2025, the

Company incurred a loss of $2,449,427 (Three month period ended 31 March 2024: $1,025,258), had a deficit of

$49,700,231 (31 December 2024: $47,372,085) and had negative cash flows from operations for the three month

period ended 31 March 2025 of $911,127 (Three month period ended 31 March 2024: $280,070). As such, there is

a material uncertainty related to these events and conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Company’s

ability to continue as a going concern, and, accordingly the ultimate use of accounting principles applicable to a

going concern.

The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon obtaining additional financing and

eventually achieving profitable production. These consolidated financial statements do not reflect any adjustments

to the carrying values of assets and liabilities and the reported expenses and statement of financial position

classifications that would be necessary should the going concern assumption be inappropriate.

Discussions are ongoing with potential strategic investors, project finance providers, grant funding bodies and other

sources to finance recycling scale-up opportunities and further technology roll-out.

The Company continues to pursue funds through either equity investment or an alternative financing structure in

order to have sufficient funding resources to meet its committed expenditures and to achieve its business objectives.

The Company is dependent on raising funds through either equity investment or an alternative financing structure,

which is not guaranteed.

Esduk - How many plants have you come across that don't need working capital and are profitable from the offset. It is my reasonable assumption that MKA will need to raise an element of equity to fund any Project Finance gap. Let's discuss again when MKA either don't or do raise more cash.

Just noting

"On 3 February 2025, Mkango completed a fund raising of £2,335,000 ($2,952,855) through the issuance of

29,187,500 Mkango Shares at a price of 8 pence per share with use of proceeds to fund ongoing recycling

development costs in Germany and the UK, and to fund ongoing corporate costs". There is nothing in this statement to suggest sufficient funds were raised to see either plant or the company funded through to being cash generative.

How do you get to a fair value of 50p when the current market capitalisation at 16p is £56m and the company has no revenues and needs £3m a year to cover running costs. To achieve commercialisation from the assets and relationships, MKA will need to either raise more cash from shareholders or dilute their % holding of underlying assets/opportunities. Blue sky potential is great but one misstep on the journey and the value can disappear in the blink of an eye. Maybe share your workings with the board ?

It's a shame there is no indication in the announcement of the expected % shareholding of the listed vehicle after all the costs. There is a real risk of disappointment for MKA shareholders. The announcement reads like a classic smoke and mirrors AIM raise with no detail on shares/share prices or timetable. I'm not sure they needed to RNS this as it is just allowing hype. Come on MKA, please provide more information so investors have more transparency.

MM Thanks for the reply. I will watch and wait until CoTec confirm a bankable long term Infeed contract for the Project Finance. Without a contract over the term of the PF, CoTech will struggle to reach FID (Project Finance of $125m). The Offtake contract as you pointed out will be easier to deliver due to the demand side. The alternative to PF as you know is equity will be required to cover the risk of building the first commercial plant. building a NPV model based on reasonable assumptions is straight forward. Delivering is a different matter.

@mylesmcnulty. Given the expected NPV on the Hypromag plants, what are your insights on who will provide security of infeed over the term of the project finance period. My concern being that the owners of the recyclable rare earth materials are going to want their pound of flesh as are the aggregators etc. The economics are going to have to be shared and maybe not so much in MKA's favour as you seem to suggest. Do you have any numbers that can be verified ? Thank you in advance.