Member Info for Fukurokuju79

Ella sorry what's your point about midday and 12pm GMT etc...

Assuming you have as point?

Also of course they probably attended the last event FKC.... They'd be silly to not have, right?

I don't disagree purdey, in that every vote counts. They are all relevant, and people should vote how they like as part of the process.

Im not dismissing your observation. It's just in the context of the overall shares in issue, 500k shares is IMO inconsequential.

Ben holds a significant amount of stock as do others including people on these boards, say in comparison to the 500k shares that may be held by Eridge.

I'm tempted to join telegram to hear the purebond discussion. It should be an interesting insight for existing investors.

Atb

500k shares is largely irrelevant though to be honest, given the shares in issue.

I'm sure most here own a lot more than that.

Their holding won't have any real influence on any outcomes, or be of a major concern to them I would imagine.

Atb

I will read and consider well constructed contrary views openly but you're correct in that I won't be convinced by them. I'll always form my own opinion with an open mind.

That doesn't make me a sheep and has served me well in my investments this far.

Yep we each have our own views.

It's not that I 'toe the official line' FKC. I have my own opinions and the resilience to act on them and challenge where I need to.

Atb

FKC that's not my take on the Zimbabwe deal at all tbh.

I respect your right of opinion but I do find your delivery a little sharp and a little unbalanced. Its your choice how you conduct yourself of course.

Ben says he sees two critical issues. 1) we haven't yet had a discovery and 2) we are not cash generative.

The second point being the driver as it offers a monetisation opportunity, but that Ben acknowledges they are exchanging geological risk (that's a key issue with the Kalahari sands in Bots) what with their being no surface geology to aid the exploration which is more costly with the geographical risk that is clearly higher in Zimbabwe but can offer a potential source of cash to help Botswana along and be less reliant on the capital markets.

Regarding PWB he clearly has a relationship with purebond and made an introduction, with purebond clearly liking the opportunity. However I don't see them a being in concert and it's my understanding they have engaged with the relevant stakeholders through the formal process who also acknowledge it isn't.

Atb

What do you believe was on the q&a that would require it to be hidden? That view seems illogical given the effort was made to discuss the circumstances with investors to begin with.

Besides, if anyone genuinely thought this offer was a scam, or the recording is being suppressed as an intention to hide something, then they'd be a fool not to press the sell button and let the dust settle behind them.

Surely there are more constructive ways to share an opinion against the proposal than slanderous and defamatory comments / inference.

I don't see how those behaviours demonstrate a respect for the process, or the interests of existing shareholders. It's disruptive, not constructive.

Have a debate for and against the merits is constructive but brush stroke allegations of the nature shown have no value. IMO.

Atb

Do you normally get advance warning of a scam and the ability to be able to vote against them then?

At the end of the day the company have been made an offer an Ben has put this offer to the shareholders to vote as per the process for publicly listed companies.

So let's just respect the process with everyone entitled to have their own views, but I don't see how comments like saying it's a scam is in anyone's interests, or how's it a constructive statement of any kind.

Atb

Ive been invested a while and have added at the lows, personally.

The board appear to be true to their word which carries a lot of weight. Anyone invested who knows about the financial position wouldn't be scared off by other posters here. That said, I agree, some on here either are demonstrating they have one of several things: either they have less than admiral principles and trading at the expense of trying to play on the uncertainty of others, they are over extended here and therefore unable to maintain a steady disposition or haven't done enough research to have confidence in their investment before investing. I don't think it's the latter though.

All sounds good to me and we'll find out soon enough.

Atb

Yes Seis, NvS has negotiated a great deal but I've very much learnt that he tends to shares optimistic timelines both in investor calls and direct communication, lol.

Meant to say so it IS the case.......

, to my understanding, that not using a 5 day VWAP and instead using a longer 10 day VWAP (longer than typical) is to their advantage. As if the principle remains unpaid (in part or in full) and is therefore extended, Riverfort will get the lowest VWAP of those preceding 10 trading days.

Also they could simply bide their time to execute the conversion.

Atb

Hi Trek,

Personally I'm not convinced riverfort will need or want to do any of those hedging options against their stock option tbh.

To my understanding the deal is that, if the principle is extended past the initial 3 months, they can convert the entire amount or smaller amount if part paid, at a price equal to a 10% discount to the lowest VWAP in the ten days prior to conversion.

So its not a case, to my understanding, not using a 5 day VWAP and instead using a longer 10 day VWAP (longer than typical) is to their advantage. As if the principle remains unpaid (in part or in full) and is therefore extended, Riverfort will get the lowest VWAP of those preceding 10 trading days.

As you say the warrants are irrelevant ATM and anyone buying in now, or with an average below the 42p strike price, would be happy if they get in the money on those.

I also agree with the macro impact to the bonds terms and closure timelines. Clearly other funding options will be considered but they seem confident of closing, or at least minimising dilutionary funding to be a fallback / last option and only if essential.

I'm happy with that commitment, especially as the main driver to stock listing is the ability to pull the lever of raising via equity issuance.

Happy to be invested here, as I can tell you are.

Atb

I'd agree. Although I don't have telegram which is the platform I think it's being hosted on?

So I've engaged directly albeit within the constraints of disclosure rules etc. I'd have liked to see the q&a though.

I genuinely think shareholders are shooting themselves in the foot voting this way, albeit I respect everyone's own right to vote.

I don't think it's likely it'll not be passed as they only need the threshold for ordinary resolutions. That said I do think those voting against should be taken seriously by the company. Especially with purebond not able to vote on their own deal (as I understand it).

You have to wonder though, if you are all successful in the vote against the resolutions....

What will the impacts be?

What is the alternative to the proposal as to my understanding it's the only one on the table?

What if the drills don't deliver the anticipated results, will their be any mitigation or resilience left in the company?

What will the optics be given KAV aren't cash generative from the current assets, and shareholders won't allow them to use the levers to raise capital?

Should we have faith that those with the full knowledge, who believe this is the right plan to build around, may have it right?

I'm not saying these questions with a view to having me proven wrong. Consider them rhetorical questions but they are seriously needed in terms of consideration in order to ensure those voting have balanced views and thoughts.

Personally if I was that way inclined, with such little faith in those in charge, I believe I'd simply sell.

Like I say. I'm not against the right to opposition, that's what these mechanisms are for ultimately.

Atb

Wrote a lengthy reply that lse has decided to not post properly. Ah well. Too late to bother doing it again.

Atb

>>The expectation of using existing warrants pretty much avoids the question. They have limited warrant cover and I assume any acquision will cost in shares.The expenditure needs to be reined in.>I'm sure you've seen the issues with companies with one abnormally large shareholder.>Funds are needed but not at the expense of giving away the company.

Ella, I've engaged with Ben on the point about how the anti dilution rights are expected to be maintained.

The reply is as follows: 'Purebond has 85m warrants from the November 2022 placing so it’s our expectation they would use those to maintain their position'

On clarifying the price of these Ben advised 'With the expiry of the 2.5p warrants the baseline exercise price is now 3p which Purebond’s warrants are at '

With regard to voting against the financing. While I totally agree with and share the discontent many have, I do have a view that voting against it is unwise. As it's the only option on the table and if it is voted against by existing shareholders the optics won't be great and it may backfire when money is needed down the line. Obviously we can all have strong expectations on the B1 drill outcomes and in that event this raise could have been much higher, but I genuinely believe the company need to have some level of mitigation and resilience in the event of a less positive drill outcome.

I recognise this isn't the shared view of most on this board and won't be received with open arms but it's important to understand the implications of voting no. We don't have the full info of the acquisition, which this raise is also applicable to. The only person with the full context and information is Ben (and other insiders) who clearly believes this is the right thing to do and we should be careful as to what we all decide to do.

I'm not advocating for or against, that's each person's own decision, but I don't think it's as simple as voting against.

Atb

Ella,, their right to maintain their position inen the anti dilution provision would typically be at whatever the price is of the associated raise at the time. In effect they have to have the right to be included and would therefore be at whatever terms of any future share issuance is. If it's through the issuance of warrants I can see where you may not be certain, but in absence of anything to the contrary you'd imagine it would also be at the strike price also.

You mean these FkC...

Under the menu, investors, then notices...

https://www.kavangoresources.com/investor-relations/notices

I don't disagree. Been invested a long time, back when only myself and BCB were posting, maybe one or two more.

Hold several million shares here.

Atb