Member Info for Jiving

I see no reason for anyone to 'panic' over a possible 2% dilution. I would hope/imagine that Elphick holds back on any equity funding till the last moment & he has done a good job re-dilution so far in the company's history. But even he may not 'know' with any certainty when a strategic investor will sign up & we get 'the RNS' & monthly expenses need paying come what may.

Incidentally I note loan repayment is extended till 31 July 2024 so we have 10+ weeks till then.

Oh where did you get that timing info ATG? Of course we all hope the RNS happens tomorrow or next week but where is the evidence that is the case? Surely surely its reasonable given we have some 6 weeks left till end Q2, to ask whether there will be another loan repayment (given that happened in last two quarters) this quarter, and also how we are going to keep paying company costs IF the negotiations continue for another couple of months given our cash situ end Q1?

I dont see why there is any reticence discussing this topic, it is true of every company on earth, they need revenue/income to fund their activities & it has to come from somewhere. Similarly if we have to use the third tranche so what, its around 2% dilution which is not a big hit given the potential prize. Shares get sold into the market, if you are an LTH again so what; short term fluctuations only affect traders not LTH.

But Marcus how do you think they will keep financing the company month after month - they had $491k end March, where will the money come from if not via the equity sales? Also do you see my point about the loan repayments made the last 2 quarters, it looks like a repayment schedule to me with possibly one last repayment due this quarter, do you have an alternative interpretation?

Shaun, I agree with your take on FEED being an integral part of Stage 1.

Regarding the 3rd tranche I believe Elphick (who is commendably anti-dilutive given his stake) would leave triggering that tranche to the last minute. But in corporate finance terms that would be roughly the midpoint of this quarter (hence why I have been watching trading patterns closely the last couple of days). My take is there are 2 reasons why we 'may' see the third tranche triggered soon:

i. Loan repayment. The last 2 quarters have seen ZIOC make significant loan repayments to Glencore. The last quarter saw $700k repaid, leaving an outstanding amount of roughly the same ie $736k. I frankly see a repayment pattern here, that ZIOC is gradually repaying the Glencore loan quarter by quarter & the funds to pay for that can only come from share issuance.

ii. Corporate expenses. Will have rocketed due to the increased staff & consultants chasing down strategic investors around the world (think airfares, hotels...). Plus when the time comes very expensive Western lawyers to put it all into legal contracts. End March the company had $491k in cash, no sensible company is going to let that run down to much below say $200k, and you cant leave a share facility to the last moment & dump millions per day better to dump 1-2m a week over a longer period.

Driving, every trade is a simultaneous buy & sell (see attached explanatory link). The LSE system of categorising a trade as a Buy or a Sell based on which side of the bid/offer midpoint a trade takes place, gives an entirely false impression of what is going on; by ignoring the fact that every trade it categorises as a 'Buy' is also a sell & every 'Sell' is also a buy. The key indicator of whether selling is overwhelming buying is the change in price level, yesterday selling pressure overwhelmed buyers & the price fell significantly vs the previous day reflecting that market reality.

This is the link from Investopedia, see section Stock Market Supply & demand :

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082614/how-stock-market-works.asp

"For every stock transaction, there must be a buyer and a seller. Because of the immutable laws of supply and demand, if there are more buyers for a specific stock than there are sellers of it, the stock price will trend up. Conversely, if there are more sellers of the stock than buyers, the price will trend down.

A trade transaction occurs either when a buyer accepts the asking price or a seller takes the bid price. If buyers outnumber sellers, they may be willing to raise their bids to acquire the stock. Therefore, sellers will ask higher prices for it, ratcheting the price up. If sellers outnumber buyers, they may be willing to accept lower offers for the stock, while buyers will also lower their bids, effectively forcing the price down."

Marcus we moved from a close yesterday above 7p, to below 7p today (google finance put us down 5.65%)- ie the share price ended down because sellers overwhelmed buyers. That is because there were more sellers prepared to sell under 7p than there were buyers prepared (or needing to) buy above 7p. what was the source of that net selling, could be someone off-loading could be the company.

The company only has one means of generating income to pay its expenses (company, loan interest & loan repayment) & that is share issuance. So it should be no surprise to anyone if at some stage the third tranche is triggered, because companies have expenses & they dont run on air.

Marcus what is the connection between the share price & loan repayment, there is none that I am aware? They repaid big chunks of the loan in the previous two quarters: $463k by end December & then another $700k by end March leaving a balance of only $736k outstanding. If you find it annoying that the Glencore loan seems to be being repaid from the proceeds of our share subscription at current low levels & with obvious dilution (unnecessary if the loan had been rolled over in its entirety), so do I but it is what the evidence of the last 2 quarters is pointing to. We had only $736k outstanding at end first quarter having repaid $700k during that quarter from share sales.

Every trade was simultaneously a buy & a sell today like every other day. For example, the two trades at 8.54 for 125k @ 7.00p was a 'sell' that filled the 'buyers' bid price & quantity, that then dropped the market bid level down to where the next set of 'buyers' were bidding for shares at 6.52p.

Every trade is of course simultaneously a buy & a sell. But which way is the price direction - the bid price level at 7.0p was taken out by two trades & the action then all took place below 7.0p including some large trades, which have some similarities to previous tranche sales. The company cannot run on air and also may need to repay the loan by end June (see previous substantial repayments), it doesnt particularly matter, because at worst the full 12m is around a 2% dilution.

Certainly some clear selling today (not matched trades), I reckon some 700k in large sales below 7p, & 125k at 7.0 first thing in the morning.

At some stage the the company may begin to issue the third tranche of shares, particularly if they need to repay the outstanding Glencore loan at the end of June. I note that a substantial % of the proceeds from the two previous tranches were used to repay a big chunk of the Glencore loan - I estimate about 56% of the proceeds from the 2 tranches went on loan repayment, the rest on corporate expenses.

Right Marcus, certainly the first 2 big trades Monday @ 229/228k were closely matched time/price like a typical Breakfast/ISA transaction. The later trade for 122k & todays trades dont appear matched, so its relatively small volume taking us below 7p. When arguably we should be moving higher...

The last couple of days. Yesterday we had some 580k hitting the bid side above 7.0p & now today a 125k trade has finally taken us below 7.0p on the bid for the first time in a while. As ever its weird given we 'hope' they are in final discussions with a strategic investor, after 12 years of searching!

And also has Andrew Regan on board as a Director.

"Dr. Regan is a British born polar explorer and entrepreneur. He was a co-founder of Conduit Pharmaceuticals Limited and has served as a Board member since 2019."

Reuters gives a date of 22 May for new bids to be launched for Anglo. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/glencore-studying-an-approach-anglo-american-sources-say-2024-05-02/

Glencore has limited financial resources given its Teck bid which is due to close next quarter & refinancing the proposed spin off of the coal subsidiary due in 2025. However it could act as a spoiler by buying the other half of the Collahuasi copper mine it jointly owns/manages with Anglo (which is the key Anglo asset).

I see Glencore as being cash hungry in virtually all scenarios, securing a couple of $b for its ZIOC stake would be very welcome. A small royalty would be an ongoing interest & keep the iron ore trading dept 'bonus happy'. If Glencore had ever had any development interest in Zanaga they have had 10+ years to have done something about it.

Eddsy, I don't see the Shard issue as being significant for ZIOC. But a lot of the issues Extrader highlight are highly relevant to ZIOCs situation. For example, his postings on the big problems/issues the locals face on very very basic matters like electricity & water supply, as well as the rising criticism in the press are highly relevant. One of the biggest dangers facing ZIOC investors is instability returning to the Congo via the undermining or overthrowing of the Nguesso regime. The sooner we get a strategic investor on board, hopefully for a full buyout, the better - such a development incidentally would likely strengthen the hand of the Nguessosas it would be a major victory for the Denis's!

I don't do squirming as I have no cause to. As I mentioned to Marcus previously, its critically important for rational investors to be aware of the positive & negative aspects of a high risk/reward binary investment like Zanaga & is exactly what an investment forum should be all about. I will continue to highlight both the positive & negative issues affecting the company & support others doing likewise. Please note some 12 months ago when MM came under criticism on this board I repeatedly defended his right to post. Of course there are people who disagree with my perspective, the filtering process is easy to put into motion on LSE & recommended for those wishing to avoid a particular poster.

I have never seen anyone ramming 'negative' views down anyones throat on this board. The ratio of any so called 'negative' posts to the usual 'positive' posts I would overall put at well under 20%, likely less. Easy remedy Marcus filter those 'negative' posters, problem solved!

The reason most LTH are invested in this company is to make a vast multiple on strategic investor news, the only people obsessed by the inconsequential daily ups & downs of this horribly illiquid share are likely day traders not LTH.

Well its always interesting to hear other people's point of view Marcus, which after all is what an investor discussion forum should be all about. For me the most vital part of an investor forum is to highlight the potential negatives around a company & the industry in which it operates. Why - because confirmation bias, people who have invested in a company clearly do so because they have a positive view on the company, which may or may not reflect (ever changing) reality & for essential balance need to be aware of the risks/downside that accompany every company in the world.

Actually successful professional investors take a similar view, my pal who is a long/short equity hedge fund manager reckons he seeks out & reads analysis the opposite of his position in a ratio pf 2:1. So if he is long Samsung, short Sony; he reads twice as much research which is negative on Samsung/positive on Sony as he does research that 'confirms' his view/position. Anybody who does not want to read Extrader/or indeed my posts is free to filter them so as not to be disturbed by them. But sadly it's often the case that it's not that they don't want to read the posts but that they effectively want to stop 'everybody' from reading the posts by chasing the erring poster off the board.

I wonder if they have been waiting for this EU patent prior to applying to the EMA for orphan status?

Digging around I came across this interesting quote, which may explain the need to achieve this status:

"The most powerful exclusivity right available to medicinal products after patent protection is orphan drug status."

https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2021/10/orphan-drug-protection-clarification-needed

Everything since the Glencore deal 18 months ago has been choreographed to create a competitive situation & entice bidders to pay the highest price based around the 2024 FS. Elphick is a skilful & artful negotiator, and the details that have come out over the months (AT re Saudis at Xmas for example), are only notionally aimed at us & really aimed at interested parties, in that instance letting the Chinese know there were serious Saudi talks going on.

So I see everything geared towards having at least two serious competing bids - likely a Saudi/Gulf (maybe including Japan & Vale) consortium vs the Chinese. Not only is the FEED suggestion likely a teaser to entice broader bids, quite possibly so also is the whole Marty start-up, buy-in project: designed to squeeze out bids for a full buyout without blatantly stating that goal.

Incidentally, I obviously hope & indeed expect, a strategic investor or consortium to 'at least' provide the equity finance for Stage 1, particularly if they fear they are in a competitive situation. I am actually really hoping for a full buyout bid, why would China go for 20% of the project & not 100% ? They easily need that or their demand & have two clear strategic aims dictated from Xi & the Politburo increase Chinese ownership of foreign iron ore mines & develop a green steel industry that includes access to quality ore.

But on a worse case basis we may end up initially with just the finance for the FEED - that still saves us a horrific dilution of up to 50% if you build in a discount to market if we tried to finance via equity. Anything is better than nothing, incremental progress is better than no progress.

ATG the RNS of the 30 April specifically highlights strategic investors funding FEED as per "....strategic investors to consider funding of the next logical Project phase, being the front end engineering and design.....". Its actually underthinking not to consider it as a real possibility - given the company highlighted it in an RNS from 3 days ago, clearly they think a strategic investor might take that route rather than finance the equity portion of the first stage - so we investors need to consider it as well.