We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
ππ
Yeah okay Noresco..
But as you said 'All that matters is share price and what you sell at.' Or possibly in some cases it doesn't matter as the share price doesn't matter because they have no position to sell, but have much better opinions anyway.
I'm comfortable to trust my opinion, I haven't sold yet. If it's wrong I'm sure I'll recover x
Takenorisk,
Only just saw your follow up abuse post. So when you say...
( 'And as for your previous post about "opinions", can you tell me which part of my post was opinion and not fact??' )
I think I just answered that in my last reply. You less than factual numbers and some meaningful exclusions from your 'factual' unopinionated post. That and the 3 years to find something as unless you've got a crystal ball then that's opinion too.
When you say..
'Do you honestly think that to a Company like AA with a Mcap of Β£30billion with the last stated quarters revenue of Β£6.5billion that "IF" the drilling proves successful that Β£70 or Β£80million is a "massive amount"???'
Again, you're twisting the point here. If you don't think that's a significant amount of cash then well done to you. However most people do and it's all relative. You're comparing the value of the investment against AA mcap. Surely the value of the investment, especially when we're on an ARCM bulletin board, should be against the ARCM MCAP.
So yes I think 2-3 times the current mcap of ARCM is a 'significant investment'. More so if I were to use your method of mcap calculation @ 1/10th as then it would be an investment of 20-30 times the mcap being invested. Lol
Last point, when you said...
'Sensible debate is one thing but some of the stuff posted on this forum, even by LSE and AIM standards of an absolute joke.'
You're not wrong here. Honestly you're starting to show some real inexperience and naivety with your posts.
Atb
Takenorisk,
Just around your point. You said...
'the ABSOLUTE MAX income that ARCM will have within 3 years of commencement of drilling is around the Β£3.6million mark.'
I'm not sure how you determined this figure.
The cash element of the AA deal alone is 14,500,000 usd. So the 66% (currently) attributable to ARCM is 9.57 million USD. Using a conversion rate of 1usd being equal to 0.82p then it's Β£7.847 million due to arcm by the end of phase 1 which is over 3 years.
These significant cash payments also exclude any value to ARCM of the drilling capex. You can't discount this value just because it's not cash. The capex for phase 1 alone is 24 million, phase 2 is 20 million and phase 3 is 30 million (USD). So the best part of 75 million dollars.
Think of the dilution and timescales if ARCM had tried to match that sort of exploration. So partnering at a project level means ARCM get an exploration carry, retaining a significant stake in the outcome, and the exploration is taken over by a major.
Going it alone, ARCM would have sunk considerably less into the ground, still had their opex / debt costs and had no cash payments. If they had raised this in the market the dilutionary effect would have been much worse to shareholders.
There is also a strong value element to being partnered with AA, and the deal terms themselves (which I think you'd struggle to find better elsewhere for a junior exploration play) is evidence of their faith in the quality and prospectivity of the assets.
In terms of timescales to make a discovery it won't be overnight but I can say if it's there then AA will find it much quicker and with much less cost to Joe public shareholders than if ARCM went alone.
Ultimately, you can't value the mcap of a junior explorer based on its cash. Like I said earlier the market has valued ARCM in this mcap range for a long time (even before this deal was announced).
As for the debt this is very much in the control of ARCM and connected parties to reorganise if required. Yes this could be through an element of share issuance.
So if ARCM do need to raise money, so be it. Im afraid its part of the journey for this type of investment. It's not for everyone.
I'm not anticipating your acceptance of my view, or seeking to persuade you. It's simply a clarification rather than a gloss over of your comments which don't mention any of this.
I've shared openly my views both positive and negative about ARCM. I don't see the above as shortsighted like you suggest, but I'm comfortable if you view my opinions in that way.
Atb
Atb Major Tom.
Got to do what feels right in your own mind. Good luck to you ππ»
Takenorisk - you have an opinion, and mine differs. Personal insults gain nothing.
Also your view of the timeline being at least 3 years I disagree with, particularly with the capital commitments and the people running the drilling being who they are.
I accept you don't think ARCM is attractive to invest in (to put it lightly) but I'm not sat here trying to get your money invested, so please show the same respect back.
The market (bigger than you or I) have valued ARCM and it's assets much higher than where you put it for many years now. The market have decided it's value without this.
AA have to sink a massive amount of money in the ground to retain their %.
Just chill. Why not focus on investments you like. Lol
Jeez. Atb
Will have to wait and see travelcard.
I'm not convinced the market have built in the deal. I think they did but now don't.
I think 4-5p post confirmation but I do agree some will sell at this price who don't want to hold longer and will use the opportunity.
However its unquantifiable ATM as we don't know what will be in the final RNS. If additional information on licence areas, drill plans etc are included it could be better (but depends on the details).
Im not expecting the major rises immediately. I think the action will come on drill start and outcomes. Plus yet unknown developments.
Jarv absolutely sentiment can change and I believe it will. After all, low liquidity from little volume does tend to generate up and down volatility which we know very well from this stock. It's part of the journey.
Atb
Clearly sentiment is low ATM and the recent RNS with financials has caused concerns for holders.
Doesn't take much to move the needle up or down here with such little volume generally.
I suppose we've all got a choice to trade the swings, and I have/do employ trading in some stocks but hard to do that here for me. As news could land at any time and equally I'm not viewing this position as short term.
The little capital on hand is of course a very real consideration. The fact they haven't announced a placement despite this is a positive for me as it suggests they anticipate the deal completing very soon. (Yes I know they've thought that for months and months), however they must be close now.
Also the final completion RNS, I believe, will contain more than just completion of a JV.
Atb
Yeah, hopefully soon π€π»
Have a good evening.
Cattleman, the deal is still fantastic. It's just the time to formalise it has been and still is mind-blowing slow.
I don't personally believe this is intentional by AA for nefarious reasons.
Regarding how we make money as shareholders here, same as with any exploration play. However on completion of this deal then the buck will stop with a major who have agreed to sink very significant money into the ground. Plus. I personally think the assets we have are very prospective.
Atb
Its like a real farm on this board....from cukooing owls, to donkeys, parrots, ants and molehill mountains.π
The risks are clearly present, as they always will be. However I think most of the views here are somewhat extreme and are making a mountain out of a molehill off the back of today's RNS.
None of us have a crystal ball though and at the end of the day we'll all have our own views. Only time will tell.
For me there is nothing in the interims that wasn't already obvious. Clearly I accept many felt there was as per the share price movement and comments / sentiment on this board. The assets remain solid and if /when the deal concludes we'll have a lot of cash going into the ground to find the promised land.
Atb
Ella, it's only ever my opinions (unless stated otherwise e.g. through engagement with the company or a statement from official places). I can not change what the company says, do not ask or insist anyone agrees with my personal opinions. We're all independent thinkers right?
Things have clearly been delayed. However thanks for caring about what I say.
You're always welcome to ignore my posts and discount them. As is anyone. Just as I do of others here, where I feel their input is not accurate or bias.
No offensive taken. Good to see you back π€
Atb
DG, honestly I have no idea re Bots ATM.
I seem to recall it was raised in the last conference call, but I haven't listened to it for some time, so can't provide info with any certainty.
If I had to provide a narrative it was something along the lines of they've been fully focused on the JV (understandable) and that the assays were being analysed by the lab (I would have to relisten).
My thoughts...
Prioritising resource to the JV from a worksteam perspective is a no brainer. How much time this should be taking from an ARCM input perspective I couldn't say. Personally I'd have thought it should be minimal and shouldn't be full utilisation, but they arent exactly a massive team and I've no direct experience in managing this sort of activity through its due process. Just based my view here on common sense and assumption.
Delays in labs shouldn't still be a factor IMO. I know many had a concern about this as a reason and speculated they are holding it back for nefarious reasons. However, I personally don't believe ARCM are purposefully withholding any material information.
Clearly I'm more interested in Zambia, as I expect most are. So in summary for me personally....Discounting a continued lab delay (righty or wrongly) it's more probable their wasn't anything material to report quickly to market and the results/data still need to be work by the competent person (possibly otherwise engaged ATM) before they issue a broader market announcement.
Its early days in bots so they'll work through it and then share the outcome and strategy I expect. Then we can go from there.
Atb
OOL / Travel,
To be fair the bottom line without the technical waffle is meaningless.
For want of a better example I could apply for a mortgage or other debt, and say I'm going to die. The bottom line is factually correct, we all will. However you need the context within the technical waffle like risk factors, age, current illnesses, lifestyle etc to make a full determination.
To balance this off to me the key factors here are successful completion of the CP against the binding JV and restructure and reorganisation of liabilities due in H1 2024. I've no concern with the latter and believe this is well within ARCMs control, but is a requirement.
I also don't have any concerns about the JV, other than the fact it's not in our control in terms of timescales and due process.
I think it has to be acknowledged by shareholders that any contingency within the comfort blanket from a Tingo share perspective has materially changed. As the impact the short attack has had on the Tingo shareprice remains significant to the carrying value of those shares. This isn't new information.
Ultimately we are not a cash generative company so there is always a risk of a capital raising.
No one can realistically say with certainty no placement will be needed here. The above is the context as I see it. I do believe the company will have a desire to avoid further dilution as much as is possible but if capital is needed it's needed.
That's all we can ask for.
I also believe ARCM will seek to purchase the minority partner in Zambia (in part or in full) so it'll be a JV between ARCM and AA. This is a personal view but would need capital.
I believe the JV will complete and will provide broader announcements on licences to make the deal even more attractive. After the JV they will reorganise and restructure liabilities due H1. Subject to the JV any placement could be executed at a higher market price (if it serves a broader strategic objective).
Atb
I hadn't / haven't bought in still having been waiting a long time.
Given the news I'm not sure I will even at this price as I'd need to digest it a little.
However I'm sorry for all the holders who are impacted by this drop.
Atb
I agree regarding Tingo. I think their value is much less. We got 3m shares and the current price is much lower.
The antics of some on this board yesterday was terrible. The libel and then those who jumped on the band wagon to wish it were true, knowing that it probably wasn't but hoping it was, despite the impact such a truth would have on people. Even wishing it would 'end them'.
There is a total difference between respecting differing opinion, being open and decent and accepting the behaviours shown by many here yesterday. It's a sorry state of affairs when individuals seek joy from other potential misery (and worse) just to inflate their own ego and prove their own points.
Thats an issue of morality and values. You know who you are and frankly should be ashamed of it.
Atb
You'd have thought such skeletons would have been identified during the many months of due diligence, before they signed a binding JV agreement, rather than on submission of licence applications/renewals.
The approvals also seem fairly strong to me, especially after the government showed such support and interest of the deal.
Happy to be corrected if you have a trustworthy source and can provide specifics of course.
Atb
Entirely possible. Albeit as per some posts yesterday this is likely to be a broader scale of discussion rather than 1:1.
So while countries and major miners like AA may be part of any discussion, would slow down this deal.....who knows. I suppose it could have an element of leverage for those type of discussions but clearly nothing like that of the level of investments being announced atm.
It could also be due to the complexities in adding new licence areas, upgrading the types of licences on existing areas and areas due for renewal.
It could be both and plenty of other things.
As you say, patience is required still.
Atb
Ah right. I couldn't determine.
Atb
ool...'no, the gold medal goes to the fulofhimself cuckoo man.' assume you mean me? very kind words. thanks.
donkey - yep nvs **** himself in the foot with that statement. it set an incorrect expectation in the market. i also agree with the view that it wouldn't harm to see directors increase their share ownership through direct market purchases.
still. is what it is and i believe the deal will conclude within weeks not months....π
atb
OOL - Everyone has the capacity to have their buttons pushed. As I say we're all human and their are plenty of people who post here to get a reaction. Sadly, that's what they get. However I'm beyond the game playing now personally. While I may have had moments of reaction in the past, and may well do so again in the future, I've generally tried to act with humility and respect others opinions. I'm not a perfect person.
If people want to spend their days with bitterness then so be it. It is after all a free world. Equally if choosing to dislike ARCM is important to people, genuine or otherwise, and adds value to their lives, who am I to judge.
It's everyone's own life. If we were talking about major moral challenges I'd be more vocal, but it's a BB on a stock of a share 99.9% of the world doesn't know exists. Perspective etc
Atb