Member Info for HarChris

Your thread titled 'reality check' was an attempt to suggest BMN is still 30% overvalued at 13p due to the NAV per share metric. It clearly isn't, it's far harder to find a company with a NAV per share even close to the share price than one that is miles away. It took me 21 companies to realise I wasn't going to find one that exceeded the share price without looking at FTSE100 blue chip companies.

Most comparable companies to BMN have share prices at at least 80% premium to NAV so if anything all your post has done is highlight that Bushveld is cheap as chips at 13p...

What are you talking about Ma5k? I picked five random companies to see if there was anything to learn from LSE Fundamentals' NAV per share figure.

Argo Blockchain - SP 130p, NAV per share 6.28p
Phoenix Copper - SP 46p, NAV per share 9p
Mkango Resources - SP 29p, NAV per share 5p

Let's try a large mining company
Glencore - SP 311p, NAV per share 150p (okay so slightly closer but still worse than the BMN figure)

And one last one just for fun
Far - SP 33p, NAV per share... half a penny!

I don't agree, cash in the bank gives the share price a floor which wouldn't be there without it. Despite all the problems, despite the complete lack of sentiment the share price is still something like 2500% up on what it was at the turn of the year in 2020. It also gives the board time and space to build the company without worrying about the share price too much. Yes you might see that as a negative but in terms of building long term shareholder value it's a benefit.

For folk like you who wanted out in the 4s (I think that's what you said, was it 20% profit and out?) it might be more frustrating but for me I'm happy to watch this all play out and I have enough faith in the company to see it through at least 1-2 years.

Especially as we are potentially entering some quite uncertain economic times, having cash to fall back on and self-fund might prove to be even more important.

@faramog, we are all privy to the general price of vanadium, what we are not privy to are the production levels and production costs. Prior to yesterday's update I had calculated a higher production and lower costs (based on the price of V which I track myself).

So yes 2021 financials will be lower than I thought they would be just the day before.

I’d say worst case we should be 650p and in the middle, most probable scenario, we will have a very conservative minimum of 150m in the bank by the year end assuming we haven’t bought anyone, that should see an SP of around £15 – don’t you think?
***************
This I don't necessarily agree with. £150m cash in the bank does not equal >£1b market cap. Covid revenues are likely to drop off in 2022 compared to 2021 so going with your hypothetical scenario of no acquisitions we wouldn't be valued at £1b unless it was clear revenue from covid would continue to be £100m a year indefinitely (unlikely in my opinion).

We are basically being valued on a cash basis still until there is more visibility as to what sort of company we will be in two, three, four years time from now...

Well you certainly should, it's good to look at competitors when making investment decisions.

Calamari, do you also think Largo and Far are fairly valued?

By my calculations the downgrade in production and increased costs means about a 15% drop in profits for the year from what I thought it would be - not the end of the world but also understandable why it dropped yesterday/missing targets which have just been set is never a good image.

I said yesterday morning it'll take a good few days to shake off this negativity and I still feel that way. Will wait one more day then look to add if share price hasn't bounced back somewhat.

Yes I hardly expect ministers are part of a shorting syndicate, I doubt many of them have even heard of novacyt besides those who worked directly on the contract awards.

I'm fully aware of the difference. I would prefer the symbolism of director buys and it's always a good thing for the board to have more skin in the game. Share buybacks would boost the share price yes but they can be viewed as a sign that you don't have a better use for the cash available plus we already have a low number of shares in issue, is it such a benefit to shrink that further?

If they do neither it's more or less signalling to the market that the considerable the current share price fair...

My preference would still be decent sized director buys, one after another like what happened September time, keeping the money in the coffers to grow the business. If not that though then a share buy back which would almost certainly see a short term boost to the share price.

Only just above the 0.5% threshold now, looks like they are on the way out...

Have they been awarded new contracts all over the world? Or more likely have they made money through their extensive sales distribution network, a few hundred thousand here there and everywhere?

The problem you've got the downgrading in Vametco 2021 production, followed by a sentence highlighting the increased Vametco cost, followed by Vanchem's lower production forecast, followed by its increased costs...

Then immediately after you have the forecasting of 5,000 mtVp.a. and 5,400 mtVp.a by the end of 2022. Well it's going to have to be seen to believed now...

That is not the reason the share price has fallen, it's the considerable downgrading of the 2021 guidance from what was forecast just a month or so ago.

Or you could say in short despite being less densely populated than the UK they still paid a heavy price for the approach they took (see Kitzie's post).

We are all entitled to an opinion on the best strategy to take but it's false to pretend that Sweden is an example of an obvious success.

I don't believe that cynical view whatsoever Niimitz, I don't think the share price was ever massaged. It wasn't the regular drip feed of news that did it, it was the absolutely massive contracts awarded.

It's not a nonsense statement, even the most populated city has less than a million citizens. Going on cases per head is misleading.