The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes place tomorrow with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Working up a head of steam here now - all aboard! Toot, toot.......
Mull, yes, that is my concern too. No reason given for a company like Mecuria to have pulled the plug on what for them is a measly $5.5m sets huge alarm bells about the BP asset or timing to get to decent production. Will only cause speculation now. GF
Yes to all with the exception of 3&4. Although I get the reasons why folk would object to 6 and I respect each to their own I am saying yes primarily because of the low(ish) raise value, flexibility, timing and cost of completion. 3&4 I have got to the stage where my trust has been partially eroded and I want detail before I would agree I.e give me a compelling reason, whatever it is! GF
Yes, this was all detailed in the Mecuria Off-take summary (25/01/18) including the accelerated repayment schedule to December 2019 and release of the charge on Romanian assets. Pleased he's still referencing repayment from T2 - suggests all is still alive and well! GF
Yes Sandy, certainly possible that was his way of saying they won't be! I would expect him to close Q4 for completeness though and then change the reporting as part of the new comms approach he mentioned. We shall see. GF
Hi Sandy, I don't think he said they were actually doing this but he did say it would be his 'preference' so it certainly could change, but I'd expect Q4 to be reported. GF
FHP: it is also why I think it has been disguised as Romanian funding but to all intents and purposes is a way of showing funding for Marange without letting SSA get their grubby hands on it! GF
This might help to clarify the SSA agreement from the Jan 17 RNS.
While the Loan is outstanding:
for Vast's existing projects, Vast shall not borrow further funds and shall not permit borrowing at the project level. Borrowings for this purpose do not include normal commercial offtake arrangements;
for the existing projects, Vast shall not raise equity except by giving SSA to the maximum extent permitted by law the right of first refusal on such equity raised;
for projects in Zimbabwe, Vast shall be permitted to raise funding through further equity or through debt or equity at project level provided SSA to the maximum extent permitted by law is given the right of first refusal;
for projects outside Zimbabwe and other than the Romanian Existing Projects, Vast must put SSA into a position to compete on equal terms with any third party for funding of any opportunity.
Depending on interpretation of 'existing' 'future' projects eg BP is still a little ambiguous but shows some of the constraints. GF
I'm not convinced a commercial bank loan is an option guys and is not likely to be as straightforward as repayment + interest. Banks often place restrictions on assets, prevent additional debt raises or further aquisitions until the debt is repaid in full. The type of debt Vast have opted for with Bergen has no such restriction but buys AP time, during which he can either agree a secondary off take deal if T2 doesn't materialise or dilute the business with a raise. For what it's worth, under the circumstances I think Bergen was the right thing to do allbeit we all wish it hadn't been necessary. I don't expect BT2 to be executed but if MT2 doesn't come off, we are in for dilution one way or the other! GLA GF
4K, you make some valid points re T2 - not rocket science that and you certainly don't know what the outcome will be. Only time will tell if Vast and AP have made the right move on that and Bergen as a bridge - we will see, but I don't share your pessimism. Where I think you are way off the mark is with your understanding of Vast and this constant 'death spiral' certainty and comparisons with other companies where the comparable is frankly ridiculous. You mention Petro, TXO and Motive TV but make no case for similarities other than the same funder. Petro for example continued spending millions on drilling and kept hitting dusters with no tangible assets, TXO had a crooked board, lots of legal issues and expenditure and blew any assets they had, Motive had no assets and a BOD that were creaming cash out of the business. Where are the comparisons?
You parade yourself as some kind of oracle, but to be honest you come across as a bit dim and lacking any kind of deep understanding of Vast as a business. Not saying we are heading for a guaranteed positive outcome and I for one don't have rose tinted glasses, but at least I can be balanced in my view whereas you offer the same conflated rhetoric over and over. Cheers, GF
Sorry 4K, but you just haven't done enough research here my old mucker!
Perhaps your skimming of RNS's and company information has led to you concluding that Vast is in a 'death spiral' and not worth investing in? Perhaps you hold a short position? Perhaps you are the messiah? Either way, your comparisons and commentary here is far from balanced and to compare other companies who have engaged Bergen is way of the mark, just like the PROX comparison someone made here a few days ago. Vast are not a company burning huge amounts of cash on overheads while hoping for some illusionary pot of gold that never materialises like many of the others you mentioned. A significant % of what has been raised has been spent on asset creation that has proven revenue associated with it. Yes it needs cash to bring those to fruition and the current situation is less than ideal I grant you but your narrative has agenda written all over it and for balance so does the rhetoric of some of the other more exuberant posters here in the opposite direction. You have provided little evidence to support your theory and seem unable to properly read or interpret company accounts which is remiss to say the least, particularly if you hold a position here! Like I've said before, you either believe that Vast will deliver or you don't, simples! If they don't then yes the price will fall following dilution and rinse and repeat shorters, if they do it will rise hugely - simple case of assessing risk. What won't happen is that Vast will be going bust anytime soon and you present no evidence to suggest it will. GF
Sarah, I don't disagree with you - the problem is that what AP says and what AP does have become two different things, particularly when it comes to timing. There will be those who believe he will deliver and those who don't, hence the debate. That will be reflected by sells, buys, shorts etc depending upon which side of the fence people come down on. Whichever way it is cut AP is to some extent gambling (as we all are in one way or another) that he can pull it off with minimum / less damage than the alternatives. You either believe that or you don't - pays ya money makes ya choice! GL GF
TBTT, neither you nor anybody else on here knows if it was a good or bad move long term. Yes, he could have raised and created perm dilution - once it's done it's done. Or if as stated he is confident of paying Bergen off without conversion then he is creating value for existing holders. Only time will tell, tick tock! GF
Fantasy, in a word - no. This bridge loan isn't about advancing BP procurement requirements. Why? Because that would be truly foolish and I don't believe anyone would be that stupid. This funding has 'conditional requirements' written all over it. My suspicion is that it relates to Marange and a requirement to demonstrate funds at hand to progress mining. Vast had options to raise funds including the headroom available. Equivalent placing would likely be a good 20% dilution and the company didn't want to do that because once done, it's done. Instead they are working on the basis that T2 will come good and they can pay back Bergen before conversion. They can't announce real reason for funding requirement as it is a chicken and egg scenario. If T2 doesn't come off, then I suspect we will see a placing to raise the necessary pay back funds. Of course I have no proof of this and it is purely a theory, but I think it makes a lot more sense than simply wanting to progress BP. However it's cut, I see the current position as either c. 20%-30% dilution or hugely greater upside potential. All things considered I see it as a good risk bet - we will see soon enough! GLA GF
You haven't already seen it.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/stocktube/11347/powerhouse-in-partnership-talks-with-toyota-tsusho-in-japan-11347.html
GF
Badge, I get your sentiment but can't agree with you on this one. The company have told us the estimated costs and that it will take six months to get BP up and running, the money will come from Mercuria. Anyone hoping for a detailed project plan will be disappointed as it would be too commercially sensitive to release. Once funding is resolved we will get a high level plan with timescales. Unfortunately AP created false expectation with his statement on this and if he hadn't I doubt anyone would be demanding it. Another own goal I'm sorry to say! GF
Badge, I suspect the 'activity' plan for BP is already documented and known. What is not known is the timing of the requisite funding therefore deliverable dates are the uncertainty making it difficult to release a plan to the market. GF
FTB, much of what you say I agree with, however I can understand people's frustrations. In respect of the quarterlies Vast has indeed set a clear date for publication within 4 weeks of period end and this has been missed which is partly feeding the frustration. I am fully supportive of Vast and think we have terrific potential, but sadly the communication part of the business is poor in my view. GLA GF
Sandy, good point re stiff drink! Feeling a bit better now. Welcome back yrabs and very well done @ Flybe! Hopefully you are now on a roll. GLA GF
Sandy, I do admit to being a bit grumpy this morning 😤! The commitment was made last year so not that recent. I do completely understand they are busy and it is all hands to the pump, but this information is known by the business and it should be a discipline to get this kind of operating stuff out to the market in a timely manner. I do accept that on some things shareholder expectation is too high but surely this is just basics? All I am saying is that whilst the company are trying to build value for holders, they can't ignore how important it is to get official and concise news-flow out to keep investors and potential investors informed. Anyway, is it too early for a stiff drink?? GLA GF