Member Info for Fukurokuju79

Ella Re >>Considering the total lack of comms and likely lack of appetite for a placing I wonder if we would get told if ARCM obtain additional finance from other sources?<<

Yes of course we would be informed. However, we are in a good cash position atm. No need to panic Captain Mannering.

IMO its the drill results that are key to unlocking value here. Its a waiting game and then the majors will either have leverage (if bad), or we will have a great negotiating position for top money.

Thanks DJG - good question.

The implications of the stope collapse were the impact on production in previous months, which materialised, hence the depressed share price as a result of this issue.

The share price has factored in the stope collapse and the team responded with resolving it and opening up more stopes so that the future potential risk of a further stope collapse is less (if at all) problematic on production.

In the event that a stope collapse risk did materialise again, which is entirely feasible, we know we will have 5, 6, 7 stopes open before end of this year to mitigate / avoid this so that's IMO a managed risk now.

If any further unforeseen risks impact production, this could impact on RMMs ability to meet the hedge quantity in this year. However I'd assess as low probability and low impact, given anticipated grades, recovery, tonnage etc for the remainder of the year.
This was backed up by Tony B confirming they expect to hit target this year. Ultimately he is accountable for this and will be judged on its delivery, or failure of its delivery. As a turnaround specialist I am not sure he will want to set false expectations.

On balance in the (IMO) unlikely event we do not hit production and thus the agreed hedge arrangements ; RMM have a very good relationship with the off taker who as in previous years would in all likelihood carry over any shortage into the next year. With no penalties.

Nethertheless, RMM are valued low because of these risks, and not in spite of them. This is why they offer a very good risk to reward atm IMV.

Clearly there are risks. There are risks in any business. Especially mining. I can name a number of companies who make no cash and are valued much higher without even a proven resource. Id suggest they carry much higher risk and lower reward. That's just my view.

Overall, its a personal decision to identify, assess and decide if the risks are worth the potential rewards. Its like any business case, their needs to be an investment appraisal.

Some will decide the risks are too high. Some will decide they are acceptable. Investing is a personal choice, but doesn't need to be made personal.

IMO being confident here is not being in denial of the risks. Its simply accepting them on balance with the reward.

Clearly everyone has differing risk appetites, buying averages, target prices and strategies. This means, depsite RMM being only one company, EVERYONES perspective and appraisal here will (rightly) need to be different.

Its a paradox - people can have differing views but yet still be right in line with their own situation/position etc. Its not necessary to prove being right, or gain concensus.

ATB

Yes it's been tumbleweed quiet from the company lately.

I'd love a hint at what's happening with all the money I've invested lol

I assume they are playing it cagey until they can shout about something.

Fair play on several years.
I chose pxc along with a very few other copper linked stocks over the last year. Clearly copper bein much less replaceable and electrification on its way etc. Seemed to make sense to focus on the supply chain elements for electrification, rather than cars etc
I've added to pxc during this time but hold very few stocks despite researching many.
Many have laid out the investment case here geology, funding position, limited if any expected dilution, FCF from production next year, exploration upside, strong management and obviously jurisdiction is brilliant

Over the mid term as others have said this is likely to provide very strong potential returns for 'relatively' lower risk than other companies out there

Hoping for strong data released soon too. What's the view on when expected from the broader community here?

I agree Rio, and I'm comfortable, but many are not.

If there is an effort (as appears) to damage ARCM at this critical time, even if it's not likely to succeed, I still think an RNS is a no regrets action by the BoD. It can be coupled with an operational update which is about time for one anyway IMO.

Let's face it, 99.9999% people won't see these articles. Most here are looking for them and is why they are being found. Initially posted on one site then picked up by AI bot sites etc as identified yesterday.

I'm not hassled by it. Would help some though.

Yeah true. Operational update and media speculation RNS wouldn't go amiss I suppose.

If they confirmed that despite more recent media speculation they can confirm there are still no open / valid legal issues and the licences all still remain in good standing.

Plus, an update to confirm operational progress like discussions with majors, the study at CE is progressing well and the deep drilling campaign, plus anything on bots acquisition, casa etc etc

It would dust off some cobwebs here and certainly help stop speculation.

I do agree with the general sentiment that more Comms at this time would be beneficial.

While I do believe NvS is stand up and is trying to get the best outcome for shareholders, I do perhaps sense an element of ego about him and in his mind he considers excess comms as him 'justifying' what they are doing. Whereas in fact it's really just good stakeholder management and a sign of strength.

Happily receive an RNS but overall still have confidence here is my personal view
Atb

You can always put it to NvS.
Obviously they have issued two RNS' to say the claims are bogus and the licences are in good standing.
Albeit news articles are popping up I'm not sure they can search and respond to every single thing.

I'm always of the view that if anything had materially changed since the last (above RNS' then we would have been informed). No news being good news as if anything had materially changed about the licences or legals it would be notifiable).

That being said, another note from ARCM to say licences in good standing and no ongoing claims wouldn't harm.

Worth getting in touch and asking perhaps

Seemed to have a firewall. What was the twist?

Has anyone noticed loads more messages have gone from yesterday. Most except those that carry the negative subject heading 'something is not right'...

One could read something into that..

Ella. Who mentioned lawyers? NvS isn't a lawyer he has simply reiterated to a fellow poster that it's nonsense.

Also slurms has summed it up imo.
Anyway, you wouldn't be happy if he did RNS it. You'd simply move onto more things of concern. I've said this before but if you have distrust move on. You'd be mad not to. It's fair enough to do that. Makes more sense than what you are doing ATM.

Also to clarify ARCM have already released RNS' twice about media speculation (inserted below).
They said the claim against Zamsort was bogus but also at a time prior to when ARC came on board.
Secondly they have confirmed that all of its licences are in good standing order.

If they've said it's bogus, and the licences are in good standing order via RNS, then they've covered it.
The fact we haven't got an RNS to the contrary means nothing materially has changed from the previous statements. NvS etc are busy trying to seal a deal with a major, complete the CE study and prove up the resources via a deep drill campaign and with all due respect they are not here to continually reassure market participants over the same things they've already dealt with.

10th March...

Arc wishes to inform shareholders that in light of a media report about a bogus debt claim made against Zamsort Limited ("Zamsort") relating to a $5.8m capital raise by Zamsort in 2015 (prior to Arc becoming a shareholder), it notes that the case is without any merit and is not expected to proceed following the withdrawal today of a key plaintiff. Zamsort is additionally launching an immediate action in the High Court of Zambia to dismiss the bogus claim as fictitious.

4th May...

Following the publication of an article in a Zambian newspaper on 1 May 2021 in respect of Arc Minerals' licenses in Zambia and its support of the local chiefdom, Arc wishes to clarify that all of its licenses are in good standing order.

What questions Ritchie?
I've engaged with NvS and always got an answer.
Appreciate thats not the formal route and RNS would be better but he doesn't do those unless needed.
If I recall you said simply you have a bad gut feeling or something....narrow it down?

In terms of this issue that started with a disgruntled ex director MM, the company have RNSd that it's not valid already, they can't RNS everytime the same accusations does the rounds.

Beyond that we know Arcm are in discussions with majors, progressing the study at CE and within a targetted deep drill campaign.

Atb

Cheers Fulmar

Interesting that you read selfish, when in fact I said selfless.

Perhaps there are a couple of things one could infer from that mistake

1. You know on a deeper level what you read may be more accurate.
2. You see what you want to see, and interpret things to suit your own bias, than what is actually written.

Atb

Guys.

You've clearly got hearts of gold to spend a lot of time on a board of a stock you think is too high risk for its prospects. All to save us. You're selfless is very rare.

To be honest this is possibly the least rampy board I've seen in a long time. Most here are positive but mindful of the risks and still happy to hold.

I'm not seeing any significant ramping, wild predictions short term or (in the overall context of whole posts) im not seeing any real distortion of the facts.

Think a load messages deleted from here?
Anyway. What did NvS say, I'm not on tw!tter. Please share.

Atb

Rambler Metals and Mining Plc
Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements
For the Year Ended 31 December 2020

Pg 21

'As the copper price started to recover at the end of 2020, the Company entered into a copper forward sale contract to hedge 3,600 tonnes of copper production at $7,700 per tonne in 2021 to protect the operating cash flow from any unexpected decrease in copper price in 2021.'

NOTE: 'the Company entered into a copper FORWARD SALE CONTRACT'

Definition of forward sale contract: In finance, a forward contract or simply a forward is a non-standardized contract between two parties to buy or sell an asset at a specified future time at a price agreed on at the time of conclusion of the contract, making it a type of derivative instrument.

It's basically a futures contract by another name. Same definitions.

Like I say it's all semantics anyway.
As Cornish etc have also pointed out it's a big IF that RMM won't meet the hedged tonnage and in the recent meeting RMM remained confident of hitting it, despite managing through the challenges so far, that inevitably happen.

No need to be so personal Peter and if you're so sure you're right on everything, why even ask on a board in the first place.

I've seen no contribution here from you to be honest so your comments seem a bit rich! All the best to you.

Yes id agree. After looking at a vast number of copper exposure stocks I chose very few and pxc seem to be one of the better risk reward.
Perhaps not the one I think will give me the best potential returns but from a risk perspective it's certainly a stronger investment with some great potential upside.

Atb all

Peterdee

You said thvexaxt same thing on 23rd July and it was clarified then! By several people. Including myself but here is what was said by me anyway..

..
@peterdee

No problems.
Re your statement >>What you say makes sense if the buyer of the hedge agrees to take less than they bought at the forward price<<

They haven't bought it. It's effectively a futures contract that say RMM will sell upto x amount of produced copper, at the pre determined hedge price. We get paid at port at that hedged price.

It covers the risk to the financial supporters of RMM in the event copper pricing fell, but the buyer a secured supply price and in this case one better than the current price.

We don't owe. So to clarify as far as I'm aware it's simply a futures contract to buy x amount of copper at x price in the future. After which RMM can sell at the prevailing copper price (which is much higher now)

We won't have to buy any copper. They haven't paid for it in advance for us to be short. It's just the upper amount of copper we will sell at the agreed (hedged) price
Atb

The amount of any dilution from CLNs will depend on the debt financing being completed at end August. The dilution Peterdee refers to relates to the approval to be able to issue that many, but provided the debt financing completes on time, they only intend to use $2m of the CLN on completion. The rest is contingency but they are seeking authority for a further amount just so they can access if needed. (see my tin opener for the beans analogy post over weekend).

As for the hedge, as has been mentioned that should be met by year end. We havent had the cash for full delivery, it's just a hedged price we will sell at. So while we want to hit it so we can get more with the higher copper price it's not end of the world.

I remain confident here. Defo over the mid term. However clearly some hurdles to work through. IMO though the risk reward here is compelling and while the price can drop on any unwanted news, I think it's largely already priced in.

Like I say. I'm not worried over the mid term. If it does drop for any reason I will buy more.

Atb

Mick that's true, albeit doesn't mean it's economic to mine the average grade commercially.

Paradoxically though that's why I think copper will hit a super cycle. It's not as replaceable in the supply chain, underinvestment in existing mines and so the price of copper will need to rise significantly to make the average grade (and likely even lower) economic to mine.

It's the the of the miners in the coming decade imo.

Either way, as Cornish rightly says, we're already producing. RMM are a strong investment case to me, albeit not risk free.

Atb all