Member Info for goshawk250

Two other things worth pointing out...

1. A cashflow of $3.5mn was made; previous positive cashflow has been sustained by short-term loans. If you look at the last quarter, the cash flow was -$768,000 but this was with the $5.7mn bailout by Candy/Edwards, so in effect we were at -$6.5mn last quarter. This means that cash flow has improved by nearly $10mn over the last quarter.

2. Production / operating costs have been very substantially reduced. The last two quarters they spent $18.4mn (Q4) and $15.6mn (Q3) for production (pouring) of ~14000oz and ~11700oz respectively. This quarter they spent $13.6mn producing ~14900oz.

If you don't focus at the headline figure (total gold production) but rather look at what's going on underneath (mine efficiency, finance) this is very positive. Would it have been better to have produced $20k oz, but have spent $30mn doing it? Or to have burnt through more ore than necessary? We need DB and the team to ramp this up sustainably and efficiently. This update shows he's doing that for me.

Agree with all the points, we're still recovering and DB has a lot on his plate with trying to get the mine up to scratch but also organise the re-financing.

Would have been nice to have loads of gold but equipment problems do happen (to any industrial process) and it looks like they've been diligently sorting them out. As Lee said, if they hadn't lost the two weeks we would have been at nearly 18k production.

Other thing to remember is that DB is still managing the legacy of his predecessors - it's a big ask to expect him to sort out every problem within 3 months of starting a new job. I think we should see the positives here as being the best quarter to date, production being nicely ramped up - better this is slow and sustainable - with decent positive cash flow. Moreover, we've seen hints to a positive re-financing outcome with the orders for maintenance.

By the way, they are hiring again ... https://www.jobstreet.com.ph/en/job-search/jobs-at-fcf-minerals-corporation-runruno-quezon-n-v/

Interesting price action this afternoon, apparently more sells than buys, but the price increased sharply at 1.30 with minimal buys, and remained despite further sells, MMs know something?

Hi adam, just followed you on twitter.

Adam, it does seem reassuring that Mike Langoulant is prompt at providing answers. I had also been thinking the same as you. I would imagine with the news we expect that the directors would be forbidden from transacting in shares. At least his response suggests as much - thanks for posting.

I have a question I will put to him about the shareholder register, if I get a reply I will post here.

Any idea what the "Non-protected portfolio, single protected transaction" means for the trade at 11:23? Looks like a hefty buy, but given the price action not so sure, possibly a negotiated sell from earlier?

I've googled / looked at stockopedia definitions and I'm not much more informed!

Very amusing disector.

Re-reading the NomAd RNS, I noticed something interesting. Canaccord is the NomAd and broker, yet in the announcement is says that Canaccord is resigning as NomAd only. Im not sure if I'm reading too much into it or resignation of brokerage is implied, but it could be interesting. In almost all other RNS statements I've seen for other companies the company has resigned both services or given notice of resigning both services if they perform both NomAd and broker roles. It is interesting that Canaccord would want to stay on as broker potentially.

As far as a replacement is concerned, I had a couple of thoughts. Andrew Stanicliffe used to be at Investec. Investec used to be shareholders here so have a good knowledge of the business and also act as NomAds in the mining sector. Also Michael Langoulant's other firm (ImpX) deals with a small advisor / broker - Peterhouse capital. Im not sure if they are eligible to be NomAds on AIM but do do corporate advisory services on Nex. Just some thoughts/speculation from my research for some weekend reading.

Enjoy the weekend!

Sorry to bring the NomAd issue up again, but I've been researching and thinking about it a bit.

I've heard the view that the company was actually a longer notice period than 1 month for the NomAd's resignation (or at least given a tip-off of possible future resignation). I'm not necessarily suggesting this as a negative. What I'm suggesting is that there has been some curious activity in the last 3 months which could support this idea.

If they were 3 months notice (ie. 14 January) that would explain the corporate update on 16 Jan - a sort of introduction to the company statement. The dramatic clear-out of the old management in late Jan could have been because the new NomAd saw them as a problem - ie. implicated in the false statements from previous RNSs about gold recoveries. It is clear that DB was aware of the problem (if not the scale) in late January, because there are details in the quarterly update. The new NomAd may then have been the driving force behind the latest statements about false recoveries and the negotiation with the banks and major shareholders - ie. to give it a clear slate to work with.

It would seem unusual that if the NomAd gave them a few hours/days notice (as implied in the RNS regarding NomAd resignation) that MTL would be able to get to a stage of advanced discussions with a new NomAd in such a short period of time. I expect what they have been waiting for is the standstill agreement and are now finalising their contract with the new NomAd.

I still believe that it would have been pointless to claim in the RNS that they were in advanced discussions if they had no intention of appointing a new NomAd. Likewise, the fact that the market (share price) was entirely ambivalent to the announcement on the day of NomAd RNS (unlike other days of bad news) suggests the market is not really worried about the NomAd issue.

Unfortunately (perhaps) I think this means that the appointment of a new NomAd is unlikely to have much upwards effect on the share price, as others have said. However, we do have plenty of other news to look forward to in the next few weeks, which should prove to be price catalysts.

We can only speculate from the information provided. However, the company has been as good as its word when it has said advanced discussions or similar eg.

6/12/18: The Company has commenced a search for a Chief Executive Officer and is in advanced discussions with a potential candidate.

DB's appointment followed at the beginning of January.

31/01/19: A similar extension of time was applied for with the senior lenders until 31 March 2019 to align the various work streams involved in the shareholder loans consolidation and the senior debt refinancing. The Company expects to announce the decision of the senior lenders towards the end of next week.

Banks agreed to repayment extension early February.

29/03/19: While the Directors are confident the agreement will be signed it is not signed at this time and there can be no guarantee it will be.

Banks / shareholders agreed to standstill arrangement today.

This is why I am (and I believe many people here) are confident that when they say "in advanced discussions with NomAd", that's what they mean and that it will be agreed.

I would agree it's a high risk investment with the NomAd uncertainty, but if the risk was removed we wouldn't have this sort of buying opportunity, we'd be at 2-3p in all likelihood. We don't know what DB has said to the banks / shareholders regarding the company's debt position, but it must be convincing enough that they've agreed to this standstill. My investment hypothesis here, for what it's worth, is that DB has completely cleared the decks in the company and in doing so the company is being given a final chance to recover, get the mine to full production and work out a sustainable plan for paying off its debts. Although the debts are significant, if the mine is operating at full pelt and the lenders agree to more favourable terms, it is actually reasonably manageable (as lee et al. ably demonstrate).

Glad to have reduced the risk here a bit today and looking forward to see how things pan out shortly.

Forgot to add, plenty of news to look forward to this month too!

I noticed this on Canaccord Genuity - https://www.canaccordgenuity.com/globalassets/investor-relations/documents/press-releases-en/2019/hp-featured/canaccord-genuity-group-inc.-announces-a-restructuring-of-its-uk-capital-markets-business.pdf

Seems they are reducing the size of their operation in the UK, including advisory activities. I still believe the change of NomAd is tied in with the re-financing (given the timing), but I suppose there's a chance this could be behind resignation of NomAd ie. change of business focus.

Shame no sustained upwards movement of price today, but I suppose this was always a possibility - the main reaction to the news was on Friday. At least we've sustained this and I'm sure once the MMs want to make some more money the price will rise (in the next few days?).

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary/GB00B0394F60GBGBXASX1.html

There is the option to extend further

Until 2nd May

True it's not certain yet, but unlikely to have put out this confident announcement without reason to expect it would be signed. There's now much more certain than we had at 13.24.

Updated today. Here are the figures:

MTL (Luxembourg) Sarl 46.81%
Runruno Holdings Ltd 19.00%
Baker Steel Capital Managers LLP 6.91%
Ruffer LLP 4.21%
JIM Nominees 3.71%
Not in public hands 72.76%
Last updated: 28 March 2019

Try this instead - https://www.metalsexploration.com/capital-structure.html

A further update to shareholders list - https://www.metalsexploration.com/capital-structure.html.

Ruffer have only managed to sell another 0.7% (4.21% from 4.91%) ie. roughly 15mn. All others remain the same (I think).

I'd imagine that obtaining an updated shareholders list would be a requirement of due diligence for a new NOMAD.

Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the website (https://www.metalsexploration.com) has undergone a fairly significant change. Rather than the front page showing the latest quarterly update, it now shows a series of business objectives. Definitely setting out the stall and a real emphasis on shareholder value. This has appeared in the last few days. Not sure if anything can be read into it though. Anyway, still here and hoping for the best.

Some stonking buys coming through, been a good buying day, hopefully bodes well.

Hello all,

Not been on here for a while, but still holding with my roughly 1mn (small fry I know compared to some on here). Unfortunately not enough funds to top up at these prices.
Fingers crossed for news next week.

Other notable feature is that they haven't resigned with immediate effect (so it can't be that bad), but have given a month to sort out a replacement.

As Hawaii said, probably some conflict or dissatisfaction over the way they've handled a placing or finance restructuring. Sounds like MTL asked them to resign given they're in advanced negotiations.