Member Info for Jiving

Of course we are all in the dark until more details are revealed - perhaps as early as next week. I don't think this is about a takeover (ie not for 100% of the Zanaga mine), but a means of freeing up control & an equity stake (from the new Glen holding in ZIOC) to include one or more 3rd parties who will finance/develop the mine and crucially the essential infrastructure. The company restructuring seems very likely to be stage 1 of a grander pre-agreed plan, but one that had to take place before the rest fell into place.

I don't see the Glencore offtake agreement as effecting either the development of the mine or preventing significant value accruing to ZIOC shareholders. I don't have any mining experience but I have been an investor in gold/silver mines over the years. It is very common in that sub-sector for mines to begin their development life via loan finance linked to royalties/streaming/offtake on future production. Whilst this is clearly a valuation deduction for the mine's shareholders it is simply built into spreadsheet valuation models, and seemingly does not effect the remaining value being reflected in the share price . Similarly, takeovers of mines with these agreements still regularly take place. An offtake agreement channels some of the value to the contract holder but not all. We don't know the details of Glencores contract, but for it to have any value the mine actually has to be developed, and that in turn means enough value has to be left to make it viable for a third party to finance & develop. Looking forward to next week!

Matt I also see something like that emerging, possibly with Sapro/3rd party buying a stake from Glencore.

Many signs we are finally on the verge of significant progress occurring after the 13 December meeting. Glencore have got the offtake deal they wanted (from 50% to 100%), but to get the project actually financed & running, a third party has to be incentivised - a direct share stake is the best method of doing that.

As mentioned by others below, there are multiple indications in both the ZIOC & the Glencore announcements that all or part of the Glencore stake could be sold to a third party. I cant believe after all this time Glencore have negotiated this significant alteration in the Zanaga JV structure, in isolation from a bigger deal. But is it not likely they will only sell a part of their 48%, as surely anything above 30% would trigger a mandatory takeover offer - maybe there are exemptions or workarounds?

I share other people's concern about a potential conflict of interest regarding IFC, & the way it seems to become the IR/PR for companies in which Lanstead invests. Put simply, might there be occasions where potentially IFC act in the interests of a specific shareholder & not for 'all' shareholders? Case in point, an investor webinar is organised for 9 November - a positive event that was likely to generate some positive sentiment & also increased volume & positive price movement for the share. Indeed it does, but the subsequent RNS reveals Lanstead sold down some 3% of their holding, presumably including some/all over the period around the webinar. So was the webinar organised with the interests of 'all' shareholders in mind or to provide a convenient exit point for Lanstead?

It looks to me like this is Stage 1 of a larger plan/project. I suspect/hope that ZIOC would not have given up marketing rights, unless other JV partners agreed with that structure. I anticipate Stages 2 + will be announced in coming weeks, as will other partners. As others point out Glencore has lost the control the previous structure gave them, together with the various loans, suggest this event has not taken place in isolation but is the first part of a larger plan.

But of course ZIOC then get 100% of the mine. So previously ZIOC had under 50% of the mine with some 300m shares, and now ZIOC have 100% of the mine with some 600m shares. So essentially each ZIOC share retains the same % of the Zanaga mine it had prior to the consolidation, so there has been no dilution with regard to our sole asset.

All good points NFTs, the delayed timetable to a deal concerns me as well, but we likely have till end of Q1 2023 before we 'have' to deal with funding.

Its staggering Soup that some 14% of share capital can change hands in one day, for no rise.

NFTs - as another LTH - funding is my main concern as well, given the ongoing timetable slide.

'Peanuts' - in what sense? In volume terms this is a very meaningful reaction.

Now 25m traded, over 3% of company!
This is the reaction we hoped for after the interviews, lets hope any price increase sticks this time.

Over 11m traded in first 40 minutes!

Oh boy & then they exit - ahead of 'news'.

We haven't seen trading volume like this for quite a while.

Lets see what comes of it on the big day, but I genuinely think its an attempt at improving communications rather than something bigger. People have been pushing Tim at the IR via Telegram for some time to respond to shareholders justified concerns. IMO its a positive not negative development, i.e. its an opportunity to raise concerns & get a direct answer.

I think this is part of the IR normalisation process, following on from the Dan interviews. My interest is trying to nail down updated result dates.

This is a Chinese play. They insert new clauses then press the local Congolese button to add pressure - these two RNS's are closely related. Best we can hope for is a diluted deal, which is better than expropriation.

Hopefully receiving an update shortly, then we can begin looking for partners.

Standard wording for companies when envisaging a large scale project - of course financing a vast project will likely cause a dilution to the company's share of the project or necessitate equity raises once the project has been agreed.

Bolton, hope all is well, interested to see quite a few brokers trade Neo, here is the list:
https://www.neo.inc/en/resources?item=list-of-members