Member Info for HarChris

No it doesn't. Investors benefit from being given facts in which to base any decision on, if they don't then come to the same conclusion as Pdub they won't invest and if they do they might. Anyone that comes onto a forum should be smart enough to recognise that those making the investment case are themselves invested.

What's dangerous is throwing in a mixture of facts and lies like a number of posters do on here to manipulate others into the same thinking as them.

Two completely different things.

Pay attention to the contradiction being seen here. Pdub posts verifiable facts to build an investment case and he is called dangerous by certain posters despite being unable to refute any of the points made.

We then get verifiable lies and the same posters are silent.

'Q3 shut down is going to wipe out anything they can do in Q2.'

___________________________-

This is either purposefully or just accidentally disinformation.

Maintenance shutdowns were always planned, all that changed is Vametco's has been moved from Q2 to Q3 whilst Vanchem's remains in Q3. Overall it will make a slight positive difference but fairly negligible.

It's been answered in the Q4 and then Q1 update, afraid you're going to have to put in two seconds of research unless someone else can be bothered to repeat the answer here again.

We've now got two narratives going on at once, one that SA is uninvestable and close to collapse and another that Fortune needs to go and be replaced with someone competent. And those same two narratives are being parroted by the same people.

So which is it? Is SA uninvestable because if you believe that why would you call for a change of management? Are you expecting someone to pick up the mines and processing facilities and place them in a different jurisdiction?

"Chances are" is not a very convincing investment thesis. Pretty much says it all.

______________

Maybe you can calculate it with certainty but I can’t. ‘Chances are’ is akin to saying the odds are well in our favour IMO but investing is never risk free.

*** I’ll happily admit that if the Orion refinancing hadn’t happened yet I’d be getting a bit tetchy myself but given it has and Orion who are the closest to the business clearly consider the reward greater than the risk that has alleviated any nerves I might have had with the current share price action.

This is AIM so is no reflection of long term value. As I said it sucks but the chances are it all comes good.

I don’t entertain that idea no but I do accept that at this exact point in time with the combination of low liquidity on AIM (as is happening to most peers), the issues in South Africa and the headline debt figure that we aren’t exactly in fomo territory. And a declining share price often puts investors off in a situation like this (perception of issues worse than they are).

And I also accept there’s risks and that the likely change of the upside scenarios playing out aren’t a certainty by any measure.

I’ll happily admit that if the Orion refinancing hadn’t happened yet I’d be likely getting a bit tetchy myself but given it has and Orion who are closest to the business clearly don’t consider the risk to be that has alleviated any nerves holding.

It’s disheartening for sure but fortunately not permanent all the while the fundamentals improve in the background.

If the rise happens all in one go so be it.

This year’s B/E level is around $35.5/kgV at 17Rand. The expectation for next year as Vanchem reaches that 2500mtV run rate is minimum $32.5/kgV at 17Rand but likely if it can be reached without further Capex (as expected) that will be around $31/kgV breakeven and if, as many experts think, the weakness in the exchange rate remains we’re talking sub $30/kgV.

Taking all that into account it’s rather hard to see BMN running at a loss over the next few years so whilst the debt does present a risk and it would be ignorant to say otherwise that risk is disproportionally small compared to the potential upside, when all we need over next 12-18 months is to sell the stockpile and see V around $40/kgV for cash to reach parity with the total debt with any temporary spike in V clearing the debt in one fell swoop.

As the above plays out and debt is paid off we will begin to see a further lowering in the break even level that takes Bushveld to the stage where they are profitable no matter what the price of V is. £44m market cap? Ludicrous.

'The virus was created for the vaccines.. once you understand that, things start making sense'

____________________

Sure, a pandemic was manufactured in order to make a handful of pharma and life science companies, big and small, increase significantly in value at the expense of virtually every other industry and for those in charge it was all worth it, the furlough, the entrenched inflation, the ballooning US debt, just so pfizer's profits would increase. Or are you further down the rabbit hole in believing it's some form of mass sterilisation? Wait no you mentioned deaths so maybe mass genocide to its own people?

Sure, very logical.

Cutting off my messages for a similar but slightly different reason to previously it seems. I’m sure it will be annoying for those reading this morning, sorry… will try to get it sorted with LSE so it doesn’t happen again

Post was too long and cut off before the end so I'll start in the middle and add the rest here:

How the next few years play out is impossible to accurately predict. What we do know is that demand for non HSLA steel is increasing rapidly, so much so that last year vrfb demand grew ~100% globally and high value specialist V (markets Bushveld service) grew 15%. We’ve also seen evidence of a structural deficit in the US market as elevated V prices have remained for 18 months now and in addition we see a 5% Nitrovan premium (keeping US sales price close to $40/kgV even after this big downturn in prices).

This year’s B/E level is around $35.5/kgV at 17Rand. The expectation for next year as Vanchem reaches that 2500mtV run rate is minimum $32.5/kgV at 17Rand but likely if it can be reached without further Capex (as expected) that will be around $31/kgV breakeven and if, as many experts think, the weakness in the exchange rate remains we’re talking

Seeing as this is coming up a lot it's useful to have a deeper look and see how significant that risk is.

Let’s start by noting we are still 12 weeks away from having a crystal clear picture of the current cash and cash equiv. Having attempted to estimate this numerous times I think it’s fair to assume we are looking at this time at ~$25m and 750mtV stockpile = ~$28m taking current V price. Realistically the stockpile won’t be sold at today’s prices and much of it will likely be converted into electrolyte over the next 18 months but it’s useful to remain conservative so that’s $53m cash and cash equiv.

So next the total debt. After the refinancing we will see total debt increase slightly on the balance sheet to ~ $85m. First thing to note is that the short term debt is now negligible and will easily be met so the short term risk on this front is eliminated. It’s also reasonable to assume that at least half of the $13.5m CLN will be paid for in shares at 8p. There’s no getting away from the fact that the interest is not insignificant but it has been restructured to allow for modest cash generation over the coming years whilst also allowing BMN to pay off big chunks in one go if the cash generation is on the healthier end of the spectrum.

Where does that leave BMN? Assuming there is going to be continued demand for our V at the very least and more likely increased demand due to the new electrolyte revenue stream we can treat the cash equivalents as future cash (and in reality even greater cash due to electrolyte premium although more detail is needed before we can calculate that). $53m vs $85m is not much of a disconnect to start.

How the next few years play out is impossible to accurately predict. What we do know is that demand for non HSLA steel is increasing rapidly, so much so that last year vrfb demand grew ~100% globally and high value specialist V (markets Bushveld service) grew 15%. We’ve also seen evidence of a structural deficit in the US market as elevated V prices have remained for 18 months now and in addition we see a 5% Nitrovan premium (keeping US sales price close to $40/kgV even after this big downturn in prices).

This year’s B/E level is around $35.5/kgV at 17Rand. The expectation for next year as Vanchem reaches that 2500mtV run rate is minimum $32.5/kgV at 17Rand but likely if it can be reached without further Capex (as expected) that will be around $31/kgV breakeven and if, as many experts think, the weakness in the exchange rate remains we’re talking

'Unfortunately at present BMN are a marginal producer. They will be the last in the industry to benefit from bouyant vanadium prices. They will be the first to feel a chill wind if prices are depressed. They can’t afford the capital investment that might enable them to make the quantum leap that might materially change their circumstances.'

What on earth are you talking about? They benefit greatly from selling the majority of their vanadium to the US which has structural deficit issues that mean prices are remaining higher there for the long term. Nitrovan also sells for 5% premium on top of that.

BMN also sell into the growing-in-demand chemicals and titanium alloy / aeronautical market, again benefiting from a premium.

The operational side is fine, BMN are still able to generate cash even after such a fall in V prices. What isn't fine is the market backdrop around them, particularly AIM and its lack of liquidity as well as the perception of outside factors affecting BMN far more than they are.

Maybe it takes a few months longer for the business fundamentals to show through in the accounts but they will when we get further through 2023. And the moment V stars to rebound the cash they are generating will balloon.

Well you've not followed it all that well then, as usual.

"§ 10% of the CLN Balance (c. US$4.5 million) to be capitalised into a subscription for shares in Bushveld at 6p per share2, a 46% premium to the 30-day weighted average share price (as at 4 May 2023)."

The share price when this deal was concluded was 3.63p, today it's basically that. As if it has to be renegotiated again because of a fall from 3.63p to 3.5p.

God you're pathetic.

HMHG that is your worst attempt yet at trolling.

There is absolutely no way of swinging the 6p subscription price as an ominous sign. It is, without doubt, a recognition of the total disconnect between fundamentals, potential and current share price. Orion as a long term partner were more than happy with taking hundreds of millions of shares at 17p back in 2020 so will now be aware of what a situation they have found themselves in being able to take shares at a third of the price. And also as a long term partner there is no need to bleed BMN anymore than that by trying to get in even lower and forcing BMN to look to third parties instead of renegotiating with Orion.

The deal proves that there's a healthy working relationship here.

It will be around $25m at this point, higher if more of the inventory has been sold which appears likely looking at the US shipments.

I forgot there was another poster called LUCAN, assume that's you? If so I take back that comment.

So in terms of getting the full picture yes that is still a few months out, September for the interims.

As for getting a strong indication, that might come in four weeks with the full year results. Last year we were given the 31st March cash figure too and I am led to believe we will also get it again this year. Seeing the increase in cash between the 31st December figure (which we'll 100% get) and the 31st March will at least show how much cash was generated in Q1.

And there's also Q2 in between. An extremely news-rich period to come especially as we are expecting a number of BELCO updates, a mini grid update, MUST relisting and BE Carve out too.

Whoever this is made a new account and immediately started a thread with my name as the title.

Stalker?