The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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.
I agree with analysis below. We knew this was on the cards from the ShareProphets article and from common sense - how an earth could a 1:1 equity raise at these prices be feasible?
An equity raise supported by MTL/Runruno would have been complicated owing to the shareholder agreement arising from the Solomon capital takeover bid. In addition, it would simply have been a transfer of funds from major shareholders to the bank without much tangible benefit for the major shareholders.
Could it be possible that the major shareholders will simply buy out the bank debt due at the end of March in the form of an additional loan. (Not sure if this is possible under the terms?) One aspect here that's been ignored is the shareholders mezzanine facility is also up for reorganisation at the end of the month. I'm wondering whether we'll see the debt split between the major shareholders and the banks (or alternative lending, I'm thinking of Mubadala here possibly with convertible loan notes).
As others have said, it's not really in the banks' interests to force the company into administration. It's certainly not in the major shareholders' interests to allow administration in the banks' favour either.
As far as what happens next, the RNS from last week regarding errors in the gold processing is the clue here for me. There was no great need to undertake an operational review so quickly, which the management knew was likely to come back with results casting doubt over the previously-stated efficiency of the mine. This for me was undertaken as a further bargaining chip: to show to all concerned what they can do if they are working at full steam.
Also remember the title of the SP article - "the continuing fight between Metals Exploration and its bankers".
I don't think a lot has changed for long-term holders - we knew this was the likely outcome and we didn't want a highly dilutive equity raise.
This is from Baker Steel Resources Trust, March NAV update:
------------------------
Metals Exploration PLC ("Metals Ex")
On 18 February 2019, Metals Ex announced that it had agreed the conditional rescheduling of its US$63.3 million senior debt facility with the final repayment date extended to 31 December 2020. The main condition precedent is that Metals Ex is required to raise net equity proceeds of US$20 million by 21 March 2019 of which US$15 million will be used to immediately pay down the debt. No details have yet been received regarding the equity raising.
On 27 February 2019, Metals Ex announced the results of its review of historical performance data at the Runruno Mine in the Philippines. This review has highlighted a number of errors in previous statements and in particular that the historic statements had incorrectly referred to the BIOX® circuit having achieved and maintained 100% of design throughput rate for extended periods of 2018. It is the view of the new management and an independent third party review completed by a BIOX® specialist that the BIOX® circuit has yet to reach 100% of nameplate design throughput and, on average, only operated at 31% of design capacity during 2018. The key to the success of Metals Ex will be whether is it able to raise the requisite equity to satisfy its banks and whether the new management can achieve the recoveries and throughput from the processing plant.
------------------------
Interesting that they specifically mention that no details have been received about the equity raising. I'd assume if they were going for a rights issue they'd have sounded out all major shareholders (not just MTL/Runruno) by now. In fact the NAV update seems pretty verbatim from the RNS releases, suggesting management haven't spoken to them. Something else seems to be brewing, although I get a slightly more downbeat sense from BSRT this month compared to last. I'm still in here with slightly under a million so hoping for some positive news soon!
https://www.jobstreet.com.ph/en/job-search/jobs-at-fcf-minerals-corporation-runruno-quezon-n-v/
Still lots more jobs going at FCF by the way, another one added today. Not what you'd expect if they were about to go bust.