Member Info for Fukurokuju79

He can AJones, but can you wait until tomorrow for winning numbers and he'll out into an updated chart?

Not sure it's accurate to retro-fit a yearly chart ....after the fact, moon.

Fundental research is obviously *fundamental* research and not eyeballing trustpilot dentist reviews.

Yugo. Clearly what you say is true, no one knows.

That said it's always good to research and have a view and opinion with regards to anticipated costs, type of financing arrangement and operational / company level expenditure etc. If nothing else, it's important to know / consider these to form an opinion based on some fundental research, ahead of confirmation, in order to be able to determine broadly what as investors looks good and what doesn't when confirmed.

Clearly these opinions and views can't confidently predict the coming events, but having an informed opinion and assessing what may happen is important as an investor IMO.

Now it's a case of waiting for me. Then determine next actions on next news.

Atb

Moon ....
software doesn't predict the future, unless you have the flux capacitor model?. Charting software can interpret market participant psychology and extrapolate, and alsovuse technical indicators and metrics, but it can't tell you real information about the future.

Now, we may well go to the price you say if the equity is large or something like that, but to clarify this up front, if that were to happen, I'm fairly confident it's not because your software.

But, if that's your vibe all good. Charts have their place in analysis and entry, exits etc. That's true.

Atb

Well it's a picture of a curve that goes to 16.5p and then up to £29.50.

I admire your self confidence though moon.
Your chart isn't highly sophisticated tbh and has very little details or methods used to determine the outcome. One could be forgiven for raising a case your chart was a little more fortuitous than fortune telling.

Anyway, we are where we are. Time to wait and see the terms.

Atb all.

Riverfront specifically (or similar) is possible moon.

A convertible loan to equity arrangement would be the worst sort of equity we could have tbh. While it may give us some flexibility on drawdown, the conversions and cashing in by the creditor would destroy the share for existing investors.
It's better to just rip the band aid off with any equity element. That said they may (most likely will at this price) need approvals to issue a required number of shares.

The drop in share price to this level has made this very very hard for ramblers equity options. Both in terms of headroom and the number of shares it would have to issue to generate meaningful cash.

I'm left with just some profit In here until we know more about the costs, real financial position and requirements and the mechanics of any financing.

Convertible equity is quite possible as it gives them earlier access, flexibility and is an arrangement they've got history with. It also (initially) gives them time to deal with the share allotment approvals from existing shareholders.
I hope they become more creative than this, or the debt opportunities are better than we think they may be.

I've a fair handle on their reports and possible costs so I've got some context and objectivity to base decision on when the deal terms come through.

Atb

Yep I like Ben T too but sadly some don't. They've so much exploration coverage in the KCB and strategic stronghold over the KSZ.
Similar to here though some are not happy with the time it takes to do the ground work before sinking money into drills and then the time to go through the exploration phase.

The fact the shareprice is much lower is obviously a key reason. Simply bad macro situation ATM. Same here.
I believe it's just matter of time
Atb

In the last annual report the c3 (fully allocated cost) was $5.83 per lb of saleable copper. So significantly unattractive.
Rambler have improved production metrics significantly though and using last year’s costs as a guide (it’s all there is to assess on until half yearly), against the actual production reported for h1 2022, the c3 costs may now look more around $3.60 per lb of saleable Cu (give or take depending on costs).
However at full year, if Rambler can continue on its current trajectory, and if they are believed they can hit guidance of 7000 tonnes saleable Cu then, (all being equal and again using cost data from last year), they can potentially reduce the c3 costs to around $2.75, through economies of scale.
That’s about 47% of the c3 cost of last year and would be a significant achievement about its operational viability (to use the term from the RNS). Thats without accounting for any further improvements, just based on hitting guidance against last years costs.
The less so good aspect is that the C3 costs to mine last year was just over $42 million usd, and with debt repayments, potentially rising costs, capex for developments, and exploration spend Rambler as a company IMO are not likely to be profitable atm.
I am not overly worried about this at this stage provided the finance is agreed and is sufficient enough in value and terms to give them sufficient capital and time to put continue to sustain operations while driving down costs. After all this is a turnaround proposition.
This is a story to unfold over several years, not weeks. However the next few weeks are critical to the future and is a very high risk period.
The nature of the financing is key to look out for and will IMO determine the viability of the turnaround of the business.

In the RNS about why money is needed. It said it partly towards a reduction of operational accounts back to normal terms or something like that.

Moon y/when you say.... 'U think he at mine'...

Is that a smart play on words. Is he having coffee at yours finanlising your offer?

Its certainly unusual to see this size of drop without further news.
Either a significant shareholder is offloading, or news is going to land.
I don't think this drop is PI led.

Yes nice to see rise again.
Should be a solid time ahead if news is as expected.

Vicioushippo

Regarding your point...
'Newgen cannot seize assets worth more than they are owed. If th asset is worth more than the debts, the shaeholders get the difference. Unless the loan is secured against the mine itself of course. Hopefully not...'

The terms of the loan were that 'The loan will be secured by first ranking security over all assets of the Company and its material subsidiaries;'

Lucan.
Thanks and no problem.
My model was really just to get an idea of how the increased productivity may have reduced the c1 and c3 costs provided in the last financial statement, using available data.

I used last year's costs (as a guide but clearly not up to date info) plus the actual production for 2022 so far.

The important cost for me is the c3 cost to mine per lb of cu. This is a more inclusive cost metric but as I said it still doesn't include long term dev, capital expenditures, company debt payments etc

May be worth relooking at my post as they don't show cash positive.
To me what I determined from them are....
They show RMM will have lowered c1/c3 costs from last reported (subject to costs), but at the moment they are probably about selling the copper at around the price copper is. Give or take of course. So they are potentially 'operationally viable' in terms of copper mining, just about or close to it.
It also showed me the cost to mine per lb cu is likely to improve further if the ramp up in production continues and they hit guidance of 7000 tonnes cu (as per the numbers).

However this is just the cost to mine. It's encouraging but not inclusive of other spend at a company level.
So in short what I determined was they can be operationally viable to mine copper, and this will improve as they get economies of scale, but they are unlikely IMO to be profitable at company label with the added spends.

Of course with debt refinancing, even more cost initiatives etc this can be significantly improved.
I agree equity will likely be needed as part of this, potentially significant. The company need this to reduce debt costs tbh.

Atb

Wakey, Company's interim financial report which will be released before the end of September.

That's okay Elprofessor.
Sadly it's largely pointless though as within ten seconds it ends up at page 100 as moon posts 50 messages and then the board turns into squabbles.
Over and out
Atb

NP.
I'm certainly no accountant but just giving a view of what the c1/c3 costs may be based on actual h1 production and last year's costs as a guide.
Plus forward looking if hit 7000 tons.

I wanted to do for my own mind anyway tbh. Will see what the actual half yearly says. That will be the key. But I think my are okay ballpark and to base a view on.

Atb

As we've been talking about this I've been getting my head around the annual accounts more. The report shows the c1 & c3 metrics are based on the costs (with c3 being more inclusive) and dividing by the saleable copper.

C1 Costs of $30,818,000 ÷ 7,228,000 (pounds Cu)= $4.26

C3 Costs of $42,151,000 ÷7,228,000 (pounds Cu)= $5.83
Remember c3 uses fully allocated costs.

H1 2022 production confirmations showed 2,634 saleable tonnes copper. Which is 5,806,976 lbs.

So we can use the actual production against a cost assumption and work out the broad c1/c3 costs.

Note about my calcs modelled below.
1. As we don't have the 2022 costs I have used the 2021 costs from the annual accounts, as per the model used for the c1/c3 metrics.
2.I've approximated the half yearly costs by diving the annualised costs by 2. This is indicative only for best guess. In reality their may be a seasonal weighting.
3.It's based on actual copper production as detailed above.
4.4. Full year projection assumes 7000 tonnes saleable copper for the year and same costs as 2021 but I think they'll be higher.

With the above caveats this is potentially what H1 2022 c1/c3 costs could be and what full year could be.

Half year 2022:
C1 Costs of $15,409,000 ÷ 5,806,976 (pounds Cu)= $2.65 per lb

C3 Costs of $21,075,500 ÷ 5,806,976 (pounds Cu)= $3.62 per lb
Remember c3 uses fully allocated costs.

Full year projection:
C1 Costs of $30,818,000 ÷ 15,432,358 (pounds Cu)= $1.996

C3 Costs of $42,151,000 ÷15,432,358 (pounds Cu)= $2.73
Remember c3 uses fully allocated costs.

In summary at the current copper price around $3.53 lb RMM and an estimated c3 cost of $3.62 lb RMM are at around break even (maybe a slight loss or slight profit) when measured against the actual fully allocated costs (when known). This doesn't include the long term development, exploration, debt repayments etc as per my earlier comments.

So operationally they are viable but given the costs and building in the excluded items (most significantly debt until restructured) I'd say they aren't profitable as a company ATM.

Forward looking if they hit 7000 tonnes in 2022 their c1/c3 costs will reduce further (as above) at the current copper price around $8k would generate about $55 million. However when you consider the fully allocated costs ($42 million 2021) and debt repayments and dev/exploration spend it's close.

Happy to hear challenges. P.s. I lied about not spending anymore time on it.

Atb

That's absolutely true Elprofessor. In fairness that should have a marked impact on cost efficiency..
That's probably the crucial thing tbh.

I was reviewing the production periods myself earlier, comparing etc and hats off to their improvements there for sure.
If they hit guidance of 7000 saleable tons @8229 dollars a ton that'll be best part of $58 million dollars, excluding the gold streaming.

Looking at the financial statement for 2021 the C3 cost was 30.818 million Dollars (for clarity I verified that the accounts state they are in USD and not Canadian)..
C3 doesn't have any 'standardised meaning' but Rambler confirmed ....

'the Company adjusts for non-cash items
and includes financing fees within the total cash costs.
Total cash operating costs include mine site operating costs (mining, processing and refining, in-mine drilling expenditures, administration, and production taxes), but are exclusive of other costs (non-cash inventory valuation adjustments, reclamation, capital, long-term development.'

Im assuming it also doesn't cover debt repayments or exploration spend either.

Anymore more well versed here chime up if you know more about what is / isn't in the RMM C3 costs and the $ numbers attributed to those items.

On review debt is very high it was $20 million USD with 8% plus some other bits and fees. So let's attribute $1million a month. $12 million a year. Long term development and exploration not sure on and too tired to look more.

But with c3 and debt repayments looking at about $43 million USD combined it'll be close in terms of profitability but not unreasonable.

Clearly the debt is being reorganised and can reduce.
Exploration costs outside of 'in mine' drilling expenses, capex spend on long term development and cost reduction initiatives etc is harder determine and to some degree optional (albeit critical).

This is where I believe the motivation is to shore up the balance sheet and get capital.

All wy too many assumptions, variables and dependancies to waste any more time on it.
It's an interested wait for financials and financing, then chew the cud on it then tbh. I'm hoping we get some decent commentary on strategy and spend in the financials to be able to be a bit more transparent to investors.

Atb