Member Info for Guitarsolo

Whatever ade2a......someone who spends as much time and energy as you do posting about a company that they don't even hold says you have an agenda. You're not even doing it as a "guys, I've sold out of this because of XYZ....". You ONLY post about HFEL, which you don't even hold!

For that reason, you're filtered.

Ade2a; you sold a long time ago......ahhhh, I see, you're one of those! Makes more sense now.

Ade2a: Dude, WTF?! When have I ever accused you of lying?! Saying you have not posted evidence is not the same as saying you are lying.

You have stated your belief about HFEL and dividend washing and, as I have said, you may be right. But I haven't seen evidence of it in terms of trading data. Yes you offered to chat privately but, to be honest, I am very busy and I don't know you. Thanks for the offer though.

As for "being human" and it's your choice not to question Mike Kerley when he was right there (virtually) in front of you... well, you has your chance I guess. But if I had your conviction that he is dividend washing I don't think I would have just sat back. It also makes no sense that you're still invested here, but hey ho.

Best of luck to you.

GS.

Ade2a; you must be very thin skinned if you think you have had a hostile response! You have made statements that you believe HFEL is dividend washing, and you may well be correct. I have to say as time goes by and the NAV continues to fall it becomes a more and more logical explanation to maintain the dividend. Damien thinks the same as you and I respect that. However, you have not put up evidence to show this other than drawing conclusions from the falling NAV. Indeed, I am not sure the evidence we need is publicly available (well, at least where I can find it). We need a raft of information about purchases/sales to show a solid pattern of deliberately buying cum-dividend and selling ex-dividend. I don't think that detail is published by HFEL.

Also Ade2a, we both sat on the same investor presentation by Mike Kerley but you did not seek to challenge him about this. Why not? I did submit a question but he did not address it in the time he had. Make of that what you will.

Make no mistake, if Mike Kerley is engaged in such activity I would view it as an egregious breach of the stated investment objective; "The Company seeks to provide shareholders with a growing total annual dividend per share, as well as capital appreciation, from a diversified portfolio of investments from the Asia Pacific region."

Share prices can go down as well as up as we all know. There is a huge difference between being a bad stock picker, or even just investing in high-yielders that are out of fashion, and dividend washing which is deceptive (or worse) given the stated objective. What we need is far greater transparency from Mike (I know Damien Moore rightly bemoans the lack of transparency by investment managers) about what he is investing our money in, why those NAVs are continually falling, and what is the income to sustain the dividend. I don't think he would be betraying any commercial secrets to tell us that.

But to answer your question, what do I want? The stated objective please! A growing annual dividend and (at least some) capital appreciation over time.

SIDI, did you re-buy under 950? If so, congratulations on a nice swing trade!

Atlantic Lithium's (ALL) project in Ghana seems to be having a few wobbles as the Ghanian government push for greater royalties before they grant the mining license. Even though Ghana is a stable country by African standards and Piedmont have already stumped up over $100m (I think for 50% offtake) this highlights the advantage the SAV should have being based in the EU. I am sure Dale will have a few relevant news clips available to remind potential partners during the offtake negotiations!

With a mining licence and EIA approval, SAV’s MdB project is largely de-risked. The recent presentation by Dale Ferguson highlights that they have been conservative with their financial metrics to date. It’s been a long road to get this far (much longer than I anticipated 6 years ago!), but there are several factors that should develop over the coming 6-18 months that should prompt a substantial re-rating. Indeed, DF’s mention of “20p” and the board’s focus on the company’s valuation was probably not an accident. I am sure he realises that if SAV stays too cheap for too long then it becomes vulnerable to a takeover by a large miner/ PE for well short of its real value. Anyway, in no particular order, some of the catalysts for a re-rating are:

- Resource increase. Currently 27Mt but could easily increase by 50% or even more.

- Higher spodumene price. The recent valuation used c.$1450 but other mines are using $2500. We’ve seen much higher that recently as well (during a spike admittedly).

- SAV is currently trading at around x0.1 its P/NAV ($953m). Post the forthcoming DFS (which might include a resource increase and higher spod price) peers are trading at x0.3.

- SAV is aiming for production in 2026, but we know its history on timescales! Nevertheless, producing miners trade on x0.8 of P/NAV. OK, that’s probably after a couple of years of demonstrable good mining, so say 2028.

- Offtake agreements! Dozens of parties from the supply chain interested. That’s good because it allows DF and the directors to push for a good deal with whoever it chooses to partner with. News of a good offtake agreement should see the share price rocket.

- A commitment from DF to minimise shareholder dilution. We’ve suffered enough on that front!

- Further exploration in neighbouring areas. SAV should be in pole position to succeed with other applications which could turn it from being a large-ish single mine into something much more considerable. Of course, that brings with it more costs and risks (failed applications) but with the knowledge of how to succeed from MdB and it’s track record it should be able to handle it better than anyone else.

The DFS and rating at x0.3 should be enough to raise this to well over 10p, perhaps 15p. Then we see what happens with those offtake negotiations.

I'm still adding in bits.

Guitarsolo……Keeping the faith

Morning All,

A quick bit of info from inside the insurance industry (personal lines is not my area any more but I've had some experience);

The algorithms that calculate your premiums are designed so that they may be tweaked at a moment's notice. This allows insurers to increase or decrease their quotes according to various parameters which include matching premiums against liabilities. If DLG makes a £1m liability reserve it will want to sell 2000 policies at £500 to balance it (it is more complicated than that but you get the point). The clever boffins in the back office are allocating their capital, which is not infinite, and insurers will also constantly monitor other insurers' quotes. As such, it becomes a game of grabbing premiums at your target price whilst you can (and your competitors are not) and then tweaking the algo to make yourself uncompetitive so that only the foolish buy your policy!

This manifests itself in sometimes being competitive and sometimes not. (So to balance some of the comments here, when I tried a comparison site for my motor insurance Churchill (i.e. DLG) was the cheapest. I caught them at the time they were trying to get new business!)

And, of course, there is a bit of genuine underwriting whereby DLG try to target or avoid certain types of car, certain locations because they see troubling trends etc.

Guitarsolo

I was just reading that. Did Janus have any shareholding before and have just crept over the 5% line, or have they splashed out £4m?

"The directors have declared a third interim dividend of 6.10p per ordinary share in respect of the year ending 31 August 2023. The dividend will be paid on 25 August 2023 to shareholders on the register on 28 July 2023 (the record date). The shares will be quoted ex-dividend on 27 July 2023."

Exactly North! So the chat we had a while back of raise/keep/reduce the dividend comes down on the side of +0.1p per quarter at the top end of realistic scenarios. We don't have access to the financials yet but, to me, this sends a signal from MK that he thinks the dividend pattern of the last couple of years is sustainable. Good to see.

Thanks Agricore. The rising yield should make investors question what's going on. But the Q1 dividend announcement keeping it at 1.65p (6.6ppa) was the key signal for me. That was the chance/right time to cut it IF it needed to be cut. Stephen Inglis obviously didn't think it did. Watching the interview with him also gave an insight into why the NAV is so low (LTV so high). It sounds like valuers have swung to the other extreme of undervaluing assets, almost fire sale values. That's not looking at the value supported by tenant income. We've seen this before in finance where the ratings agencies, burned by the financial crash, swung too far in the opposite direction.

This is a dividend stock and the dividend is solid enough now (imo). It won't grow but it doesn't need to.

I'd add if I had spare funds!

Guitarsolo

LTI, let me remind your old mind.....I explained to you that the Brexit referendum has mathematically reversed because sufficient leave voters had died that the decision no longer stands. Hence we are being driven by a result of dead people rather than the living.

I did not deflect about Treasury traditions since it was YOU who brought up Liam Bryne's note. No one else. YOU! .... I merely corrected you that it had been done repeatedly, hence a "tradition". You seem to think a tradition is something that goes on for 100s of years? Blimey, Christmas at LTI's house must be s*** boring as you pull lumps of coal out of who knows where!

So I did not deflect but just had to follow your ramblings since they need correction or we end up with Russia-style misinformation.

This is not your board. You don't get to control it. Now feck yourself.

If I was advising a bank (I dunno, HSBC perhaps) I would have a full bingo card by now. It's no wonder I am kept busy investiging dishonest bankers. It seems the profession attracts them.

"''You were wrong''

About what?"

About the Treasury tradition slowmind. I gave you 8 sources but you haven't even the grace to admit you were wrong. This is not your board.....I will cut you some slack because you've got mental health problems.....but seriously old man, get a grip. You're like professional bingo for me with your personality traits.....

Nothing made up LTI.....as proven earlier. You lied when you said I had made something up.....then went crying off to LSE to remove threads. What a snowflake!

LTI, you're such a snowflake! You can't even stand having your a*** handed to you without running off to LSE asking for threads to be removed. Diddums.

That's funny because the voting information from the Electoral Commission shows that older people tended to vote for Brexit, wealthier people tend to vote Tory and Tory voters tended to vote for Brexit.....as for the entitled bit, that probably goes both ways. But "wealthy, [entitled], old men" wouldn't be your description of a remainer!

Richie: "The living embodiment of a remainer. Wealthy, entitled old men."

That's some re-writing of history that Richie!

Stagecoach,

We are witnessing the limited and rather crude effects of interest rates being used to control inflation. Yes, increasing rates sucks money out of the economy and theoretically reduces demand which lowers inflation. But it is generally accepted that rises take about 6 months to have an effect and they only affect a smallish % of the population (i.e. only those that have mortgages/ loans that aren't on or come off fixed rates). So the recent increases are hitting a few million people very hard, whilst not affecting others at all.

Politicians never want to embrace a far more effective and fairer method; taxes. If they increased certain taxes (e.g. consumption taxes) they could spread the hit across a much wider population and it would work much quicker than interest rates. Now if we had politicians who thought beyond the next election, those taxes could be ringfenced and then released back into the economy when it needed stimulating. A far quicker and fairer method than interest rates.

But is needs a brave politician to say they want to raise taxes.

Gazzleberry,

What's your problem?! Firstly, I didn't make any comment about property ownership. Secondly, it was you who made the claim that Boomers rebuilt this country out of the rubble. I simply pointed out that you were children at the time (or not even born) so that claim is just wrong! Why are you trying to claim your generation did something is manifestly didn't?!

Guitarsolo

Gazzleberry,

"Definition: Baby Boomers: Baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. They're currently between 57-75 years old."

Correct. Which means even the youngest Boomer became an adult in 1964 (and the youngest in 1982). Unless they were some child prodigy I don't think you can claim Boomers were rebuilding the country from the rubble which occurred in the 1950s and early 60s. Thank you for proving the point though!

Guitarsolo