Member Info for Happyhaddock

... a mix of good and bad, but overall things are heading in a positive direction increasing the odds of soon becoming the company SGZ has been threatening to become for longer than some might care to remember.

@normbeef - all very plausible and I wouldn't claim to know otherwise, but in such an uncertain sector the only prediction I'll state with confidence is that I expect most predictions (and that may include my own) to be wrong. That as such I expect many may be surprised by how things do play out.

Rightly or wrongly, and much as bits of the PM sector have been looking expectantly twitchy over the last month or so, I'm still inclined towards suggesting that we will have to wait until Spring 2023 before we see a gradual change in sentiment. As such I'll hold back from calling the bottom just yet. Also, much as I would prefer to see a gentle sustained and justified rise, I do feel a long period of price stagnation can be a breeding ground for another irrational price spike, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something crazy later in 2023 or 2024.

I'd like to repeat some thoughts that I have periodically shared over the last few years as the sentiment remains as valid today as when first written.

Like many, I've been invested here for quite a while and I remain a patient and hopeful share holder. However, with many having excitedly bought at much higher prices, and with falling prices making folk insecure, many of the posts on this board have become petty squabbling and personal insults.

So, whilst there is no reason that anyone should care about my views, might I remind people of the obvious!

1) AIM exists specifically as a fund-raising mechanism for smaller companies to try and grow. Routine share dilution is therefore par for the course for explorers looking to try and advance their inherently risky projects. If you are impatient, can't handle the uncertainty or don't trust a company's management then you shouldn't speculate in such shares.

2) Countless statistics show that almost all active investors underperform passive market trackers and about three quarters lose money trading stocks. So remember, an investment's ability to meet your expectations doesn't depend on what another, potentially ill informed, investor hopes might happen in the future, it depends upon how realistic your own expectations were at the time you decided to speculate in a volatile and unpredictable sector.

3) Bulletin boards typically represent the views of a most passionate and vocal minority, not the silent majority who actually move markets. If someone blindly acts on the opinions of strangers on the inter-net without having done their own research and taken responsibility for their own actions they will likely have already lost whatever wealth they had to invest.

4) Consequently it may be delusional to assume that overzealous arguing directly influences enough wealthy investors to drive a share price either up or down. Not that this stops that vocal minority from endlessly complaining and accusing others of "ramping" or "de-ramping" when things aren't going as they hoped for.

5) Nobody benefits from acting on emotion. Simply learn from your mistakes if you have speculated with more than you can afford to lose or allowed yourself to form unrealistic expectations about risks, valuations and/or timetables.

It is possible to respectfully debate conflicting opinions about future uncertainties by presenting opposing facts to support an alternate theory, where offensive and inarticulate comments can de-value even valid points. Sadly, many posts are simply emotional rants; posts which aren't actually making any point about investing, the economy or the company in question. We may all wish to vent frustration from time to time but no one should belittle or try to silence people with differing opinions simply to bolster their own delicate ego.

So does anybody further their own cause or credibility if what they have written makes them seem like a petulant bully squabbling in the

@tiggrrr - was only about 30 trading days ago the last time silver made an intra-day move up of >5% back at the end of July

@BB - I used to be friends with a chap who worked for Charles and so have heard a few stories about him that make me think I'd get on fine with him in the unlikely event we ever ended up moving in the same social circles ... though that is entirely different from saying he may be the same kind of monarch as his mother.

I've never been a fan of the concept of monarchy believing in meritocracy over hereditary title. Yet you look at the self-serving dross our so called democratic electoral system gives power to, and the tireless and selfless dedication to public duty shown by the queen over her lifetime and it makes you wonder...

The world has lost someone special who, for all her diminutive stature, has left a huge set of boots for Charles to fill.

as has been said, whilst this looked inevitable, it is good to get the formal confirmation.

As I said after the last placement, whether placements are a good or bad things depends entirely on what is done with the money raised. The knee-jerk emotional reaction is always to see the price go down when announced, but if in the long run they add more value than they lose through dilution then they can be a positive... as with all things in exploration you have to allow time to convert unknowns and uncertainties into definite facts, where there's certainly plenty of potential to do something useful with the money raised over the next year or two.

Given all the news and activity over the last few weeks has anybody been able to keep up with what our future capital structure may look like? We've had the amended Windfield acquisition proposal for new issue and warrants, various director's options and last night's placement to add on top of pre-outstanding options and warrants. I think that's roughly 1billion extra shares waiting in the wings to slowly add on top of the 4.7billion listed as previously in issue, or have I missed some?

@Max111 - Following yesterday's "discussion" about Fenix Resources you became quite agitated.

You accused me of "telling lies" and "posting BS" which, as previously stated, I viewed as somewhat desperately clutching at straws. Through selectively quoting comments out of context you grossly misrepresented what I had previously said and over exaggerated the certainty with which I present alternate possibilities for others to consider. I have no problem with someone holding a different opinion to my own, but it does not aid balanced discussion for anybody to so confidently state their opinions as if they are facts, all whilst belittling possibilities that do not support their own hopes.

I said that for the sake of others I would not further petty squabbling, so I will politely acknowledge your demand that I respond with quotes comparing UFO's future shipping costs to Fenix's current shipping to China. Though, as we cannot reliably establish either, this may emphasise my primary point of encouraging you to acknowledge that we are discussing future uncertainties where available data might not be indicative of UFO's future.

Nevertheless, yesterday you referenced bulk-shipping costs for a capesize vessel from Western Australia to Qingdao in China of $7.85/t (today $8.90/t). Since 2020 volatile capesize shipping prices to different Chinese ports have fluctuated up and down with almost $20/t between extremes. At a time when tensions with the east are growing and China's economy is struggling, we are discussing an off-take deal with Anglo American who primarily mine African and Brazilian iron ore - might any of this affect the location they want our Australian ore shipping to? Even if as seems likely, we do end up shipping to China, will that be to the port of Qingdao using a capesize vessel? At this point we can only speculate about the numbers that will collectively contribute to UFO's future AISC?

Fenix's overseas shipping costs aren't individually itemised but a maximum theoretical cost can be inferred from analysis of their results which I've converted to US$ for ease of comparison:

Annual revenue $177m from 1.34m tons or $132/t (today's CFR ore price is around $100/t)

Cost of revenue $123m or $92/t implying an extra $30/t in direct expenses not included within their stated FOB of $62/t

Other administrative expenses, financing costs and taxes $18m or $13/t

Total after tax profit of $36m or $27/t implying AISC of $105/t

I don't claim that my own expectations for UFO's future will be any more accurate than other people's, I just like to avoid seeing complex and nuanced situations reduced to single absolutes that mask any of their inherent uncertainty.

@Max 111

You accuse me of telling lies and posting BS which I view as somewhat desperately clutching at straws by selectively quoting comments out of context leading to a gross misrepresentation of what I have said, along with a deliberate over exaggeration of the certainty with which I present possibilities for others to consider... Perhaps unsurprising given the absolute conviction with which you express your own opinions about future uncertainties. I have no problem with you or anybody else holding a different opinion to my own, only how dismissive you can become towards any aspect of any opinion that doesn't fully support your own aspirations and beliefs.

If others here place any value on the narratives of inter-net bulletin boards they can look back in hindsight and judge for themselves the accuracy of our opinions over the last year or two: Opinions which probably have more in common than they do differences, I'm simply more cautious about distinguishing future uncertainties from known facts.

However, as nobody here wishes to read petty squabbling, for the sake of others I'll not continue to pursue this further.

@Max111 "HH wants UFO to focus on Elizabeth Hill"

When you were recently pushing Elizabeth Hill you accused me of not being a "silver bug" like yourself for questioning your proclamation that $20/oz would be the absolute low for silver. Yet even if you don't consider me a silver-bug, I don't deny that I personally consider our silver and PGM's more interesting than Hanc*ck and potentially more profitable over the long term. However, I've never suggested we should not be pursuing Hanc*ck as anything that generates us even a modest amount of income in the short to medium term so as to fund our long term exploration work is a good thing.

I'm invested here because I believe the long term potential of UFO outweighs the risks and short term volatility. It is just that a few here seem blinded by the considerable upside potential and won't even acknowledge that there are downside risks to any aspects of what we are attempting. It does not aid balanced discussion when such folk so confidently state their opinions as if they were facts, yet dismiss any other opinions that do not support their hopes. It is rarely difficult to find some evidence to support any argument, a different thing entirely to conclusively prove that there is no contradictory evidence out there which could support one or more alternate conclusions.

I always hope you are right in your confident predictions as, if so, I would profit handsomely from it. However, you have spent many, many, months making all manner of wildly optimistic claims about the near term future that have failed to come true... As early as the start of 2021 I was encouraging you to allow for possibly needing over two years to put the first of our iron ore in to production. Back then you were trashing my views and confidently claiming DSO was "quick and cheap" to mine and that we would capitalise on the then high prices: That before the end of 2021 UFO's share price would definitely be many multiples of where we are today through having begun to mine our iron ore.

I don't claim my own expectations or predictions will be any more reliable than other peoples, I just like to avoid seeing complex and nuanced situations reduced to single absolutes that mask any of their inherent uncertainty... As I've said before, on the rare occasions the prevailing narrative here gets too pessimistic and gloomy I am quite happy to take the opposite stance and point out UFO's considerable potential.

@smiller - Fenix's latest annual financial results that we were discussing here only a few days ago imply AISC of around US$105/t equivalent to US$43/t of additional costs above their quoted FOB costs of US$62/t. They have however consistently hedged part of their production which has worked well for them during times of falling ore prices as it means that they are always being paid more than open market prices.

What we choose to imply from the above about UFO's future total costs inclusive of all the usual stuff from allowances for costs to ship overseas to an end user, through administrative expenses and taxes to potential debt servicing costs (either paying back standard loans or royalties) is open to debate.

Rightly or wrongly I've always taken the view that our iron ore will likely generate us modest profits but that the average margin will not be so high as to always be sure of covering the significant volatility in the market. Whilst the upside potential is considerable, there is always the downside risk that there may be periods when things dip to just the wrong side of break-even.

--- as an aside, as I wasn't around yesterday - nice to see the move towards acquiring the land needed to build our access road, all good indications of the work going on behind the scenes, and should this ground actually include more ore, well that's a bonus.

news like this was sure to move the SP upwards, the question is at what point do the traders start selling to grab quick profits and will those looking at the long term picture keep buying up what's offered for sale?

We're sure to end the day higher than we started, but will the days high be at close of markets or mid-morning as is often the case with profit taking?

Well a grade of 3g/t Au wouldn't be too bad on a small intersection, more than 150m of this says we have something special... though this is perhaps no surprise to those here who have been patiently holding for a few years from back when the share price was just a few pennies.

This industry moves slowly but we certainly seem to be moving in the right direction.

Given how long such discussions can take, and the fact that there is clearly an an option to extend if needed, then I'm not placing too much significance on this nominal 60days. Given the timescales to put a mine in to production is an uncertainty of a few days or even weeks significant?

That talks are taking place is a positive, if both sides can agree to terms they both feel are beneficial a signed deal will come out of this.

"Had we been at this stage of the process and had this RNS in 2020.... completely different response of a much higher magnitude I bet. Been my biggest learning curve last few years that fundamentals will always be critical but they can't insulate you from macro conditions and sentiment no matter how amazing."

@Dip666 - How very true

I've previously stated (and been shouted down for it) on a few occasions that wider macro-economic factors beyond our control may be one of the biggest influences upon sentiment and hence our current share price, which is why recent good news has not moved our share price up.

Sentiment in mid to late 2020 was such that you could blindly throw a rock in darkened room and hit folk desperate to put money in to the junior exploration sector for the first time. Today is the opposite as many "first-timers" have suffered large losses from previously buying at the highs and where the only folk now looking at the sector are "old-hands" patiently waiting on the sidelines for some sense that the bottom is truly in . However, sentiment cannot change fundamentals so we just have to be patient and wait for that sentiment to swing back in our favour as it somewhat erratically cycles up and down between extremes.

should folk think everything I post has to have a negative slant then how's this for a positive angle?

The falling value of the UK £ may be bad for inflation here at home and the cost of our groceries or energy bills, but predictions it may follow the Euro and reach close to parity with the rising US dollar could benefit any sales of UFO's iron ore priced in US$ if every dollar profit we make ends up closer to £1 profit than 85p.

And if the title of this made you think this post may have been about silver bullion, then I'll refrain from mentioning the current price as certain folk here don't like it when the price passes thresholds they said it wouldn't drop below. ;-)

@Max111 - I appreciate the fact that large vessels won't (or at least don't consider it economic to) sail part empty but pro-rata the costs per ton of having to be matched with other loads also wanting to go the same destination at the same time are rarely as low as if one single company charters the entire ship for a large single load to a single destination.

The point I am making effectively boils down to one we have both made many times before, that is in a situation where we don't have enough information to know for certain I like to take take a cautionary position which reality will likely exceed, and you like to take a very optimistic position which reality risks falling short of.

Until we actually have a signed deal we don't know for certain we will even be shipping this ore to China (though it seems probable) so we are somewhat debating a moot point.

@smiller - whilst we won't necessarily be paying overseas shipping ourselves, I think the point is any customer accepting a FOB service would be paying us a correspondingly lower price to allow for their own shipping costs. We won't be paid a CFR price if we don't provide a CFR service.

@DRB83 - one of the major contributing factors to shipping costs is, of course, the size of vessel used.

Obviously the port has to be big enough to accommodate the vessel, but equally the load has to be big enough to justify that vessel. If a port can take the largest 200,000t giant Capesize and you are regularly generating single loads in excess of 200,000t then you obviously get the cheapest costs.

I've mentioned before that I don't know how frequently we may be shipping and how soon we may be in a situation to need capesize vessels for a single load of ore, but as a cautionary measure it may be wise to allow for initially using smaller vessels, possibly a panamax? Without more detail about future mining we can't say how often we will be shipping and what type of vessels we may need.

The following link is now about a year old but was put out around the time that bulk shipping costs out of Aus were first going crazy

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2252268-higher-shipping-rates-hit-australian-resource-firms

Quick skim through Fenix's annual results.

Aus$ 249m revenue from 1.34million tons mined is equivalent to being paid an average of Aus$185/ton over the last year, or at todays exchange rate approx. US$132/ton. This compares favourably to today's iron ore price which is currently nudging US$100/ton CFR.

From this revenue of US$132/ton they made Aus$50.7m profit or approx. US$27/ton implying an approx. AISC of US$105/t or US$43/ton above their quoted FOB costs of US$62/ton.