Member Info for HarChris

Will, remember a few weeks ago when you questioned the logic of selling so much into the 'lower vanadium prices' ? Well for a start there's a five-six week lag so we'll still be seeing $40/kgV+ for all these sales (not inc 5% Nitrovan premium) and I would imagine it's also to give management more options in the unlikely event that the Orion deal were to fall through.

Easy to criticise Fortune but he's a lot smarter and strategically savvy than most give him credit for.

It looks like BMN are digging into their stockpile and really upping sales so I would not be surprised if they end up on $30m+ cash by Q4 of this year. I don't believe they actually owe $45m to Orion, it's just that the new deal totals $45m. I have them owing Orion ~$41.5m in November so if the absolute worst case situation arose they'd need a bridging loan to fill the gap.

With $300m+ of assets it's not going to too difficult to get a collaterised loan from a different lender if necessary but obviously this deal is the much better option and gives BMN breathing space for the V market to play out as we expect over 18 months rather than rely on high prices near term.

It's also worth looking across to our closest peer Largo. For a number of reasons we are starting to look a lot more attractive than them on a fundamentals basis. (i) their biggest market is Europe whereas BMN's is the US, a market that's seen significantly higher prices for 18 months+ now, (ii) production issues continue to hit them with total production in a general downwards trend since 2020, (iii) struggling to contain their costs and posted a net loss in Q1 even with such elevated prices (iv) life of mine issues have them beginning to focus their attention away from producing vanadium which brings with it execution risks and uncertainty.

They'll still benefit from the rising vanadium prices we should see this year and into 2024 but as things stand at a valuation 5 times higher than BMN's it's obvious which one has the most upside potential.

To me balance would be everything Pdub shares and also acknowledging that there are reasons that partially explain the fall, the debt is not insignificant considering we've not seen a full year profit since 2019, there have been missed targets over the years, expansion last year was a lot costlier and more painful than management initially expected it to be, Fortune has failed to communicate the story and attract investment at key points along the way.

At the same time most of that becomes redundant at the current share price and so I see little reason in focusing on the growth being, say, slightly slower than it was set out to be three years ago when we're in the situation we are in, with operations growing and the share price at a mere fraction of what it was.

"balance" on the negative side consists of a short attempt at structured and coherent criticism before very quickly descending into targeted abuse at individual posters and ridiculous statements like 'face it vanadium is worthless'

According to the interims Argo has £304m in assets and £139m in liabilities, all pretty healthy.

Six months later they ended the year with £91m in assets and £60m in liabilities.

Gives an idea of just how painful it's been to try to get the debt situation under control (Helios essentially).

'If Bitcoin price continues within the $25k range, and argo is able to sustain, they'll be able to pay off half of the Galaxy loan by the end of the year. If they are truly committed.'

_____________________

They can't voluntarily leave themselves with 0 BTC and £0 cash, it's not feasible. Of course it's a case of constantly choosing the best route each week/month but where possible they need to leave themselves with a bit of liquidity.

We are all able to see, given the luxury of hindsight, that buying in the 40s wasn’t a smart idea. However, at the time, the likes of you ARCM that take their cue’s entirely from the share price would have been buying at that point. After all if it keeps going up why would it stop is your theory, right?

To me and others the same applies now. Whilst it’s unfortunate if you bought too far up the price curve we expect to look back and easily see that this was that 45p moment in reverse.

Imo the one’s that will lose the most are those that think it’s going up forever in boom times and down forever at the worst of times.

Yeah I agree but seeing as they have $70m+ debt completely battening down the hatches to potentially earn a few $100K a month pretty much shows us the hole they’ve got into and is likely proof that there simply isn’t any funding options on the table at present.

It’s make debt repayments or fold.

0134, all their bitcoin equivalents?

Hexam, for a month like this with far higher than normal revenue - $4.75 million - would you say they were cash flow positive?

Cindercone was the first to be binned a week or so ago but now most of them are going in. I used to think challenging the dross was at times useful (and it probably is) but more often that not i'm just dragged into childish squabbles and I don't particularly consider it a productive way to spend my day.

If that's how others want to spend their own days that's entirely up to them but they've got one less person to attempt to wind up now. Sad but different strokes and all.

Filtering that annoying repetitive drone Cindercone has certainly helped my ability to cope on here. Any comments directed at me will just be his typical slipperiness as he knows full well I won't be able to see or respond to them.

All I did was share the current V prices and it caused such a reaction including a new account calling me dangerous.

What a hostile place this is right now!

The share price was 3.6p when the Orion refinancing deal landed on the 5th May, they will not care a jot about a further ~10% fall.

'When does a troll become a realist?'

When there's hard proof that said company is in trouble beyond the share price. In this case we have Orion Mine Finance, experts in the small cap finance world, not only taking on shares well above the current share price but also lending a lot more to BMN. If BMN was in as much trouble as the share price suggested this simply would not be the case, end of story.

And you're right about the market not caring between $38 (closer to $39 actually) or $34 because most people don't know and those that do know also know that there isn't likely to be a rush to enter until it's evidenced in black and white.

This month we'll get full year results and a post period update, next month we'll get Q2 and then we'll get the interims. Those of us invested have to simply suck it up, share what we can and accept that the trolls are going to outnumber the supporters until the share price recovers.

This is not a case of holders trying to dress things up better than they are, Investing.com is simply inaccurate for US prices. We have a metals exchange correspondent that shares updates, some of us are signed up and know the prices.

Fast Markets confirmed FeV in Europe is just $32.2/kgV and hence that's what I shared, basically the same as Investing.com on that front. The US price is substantially higher and. that. is. a. fact.

And as for production cost guidance being $26.1-$27/kgV... you can't seriously at this stage believe that the guidance using 16.6Rand is going to in any way reflect the actual production costs for the year when we're well into the 19s now? Sure electricity costs are rising but most of that is already factored into the guidance as it was expected, the weakening rand isn't.

We have cost guidance for the year and we know that so far we are on target to hit that. V was well above that guidance across our geographies in Q1 and still is just about so unless targets are missed we will show a profit in the interims.

Vanchem's refurbishment and issues relating to that expansion caused total costs to balloon last year, there isn't any risk of that happening this year.

Of course if they miss production targets or V goes lower that changes things but using last year to make the case for this being a loss making year is misleading.

The next published figures will show a profit.

You are comparing a year of heavy expansion at Vanchem, no load shedding mitigation and where the rand averaged 14.5 for the entire year with this year where there's no expansion, only minimal sustaining capex, an agreement in place to prevent power loss at Vanchem during scheduled load shedding and the rand averaging about 18.4 and increasing by the day.

Talk about misleading.