The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I know what the company announced but I also know that you cannot assume a cash movement is any indication of the EBITDA.
For the last financial year to March 2023 the Cash position improved by £3.5m but the company reported a large EBITDA loss of around £3.0m - so no real link between the 2 figures.
It may be that the EBITDA profit for the year to March 24 is £300k but that will simply be a coinicdence.
Captain Swag - "Someone needs to counteract the lies on here"
Does that include the fictitious £300k Net Profit that you made up?
The company hasn't announced anything but you seem to think a change in Cash position can only be due to profit - as most accountants/sensible investors know there is a lot of difference between profit and cash.
I don't think it's "semantics" really.
All of the expectation was that NCM would take up their option on the 5% and GGP would be left with 25%.
For probably good reasons on their side (given their current position) NCM declined to take up the option.
So we have retained 5% of HAV although we have not received the $60m that was the agreed value. However we need to bear in mind that Shaun was happy to pay $85m to get us to the 30% level so we have paid $25m less.
What I'm personally still not clear about is whether the $85m offer lapsed before the $60m valuation was agreed. A number of people have said why didn't NCM simply sell us back the 5% and make $25m but the 2 transactions may not have overlapped.
NCM may have declined the $85m so as to not put a marker down before the 5% Option value was agreed.
Th result is that we have 5% more of HAV than we all planned for at a notional cost of $60m
People are talking about NCM being aggressive but surely they have just done what they are supposed to do for the good of their shareholders. A poorly worded 5% clause gave them the opportunity to buy that 5% for maybe $10m so why wouldn’t they do that.
Should they tell their shareholders “we could have paid $10m but we like the guys at GGP so we have paid $100m”?
Maybe I’m naive but I also don’t hold with the conspiracy tales of them secretly buying GGP shares to mount some sort of takeover.
If I’ve read the various reports correctly, including Sprott’s, then the value of the 25% isn’t $300m but is at least 4 times that so $1.2bn getting on for $2bn ++ and that is payable from their cash reserves I would guess.
If they offered us the equivalent of maybe 50p per share just to buy the rest of Havieron would we accept it?
Hi
I noticed that JIM nominees have dropped out of the top 20 and I seem to recall that this was linked to Dave Wall in some way - either his pension pot or some such. Perhaps all Dave has done is consolidate those holdings under his own name now?
Our top 20 is Nominee accounts apart from have Dave Wall and Mr Javier Vilches - it would be interesting to know who he is and why he has such a large holding. The only link I can find suggest he's a co-founder of Blue Sky Investments but can't find whether he was still there when it went under.
re 8.04 Dave Kelly
"You are right, this should read: "so that by way of example a holder of 100 existing ordinary shares of £0.001 (0.1p) each will hold 1 new Ordinary Share of £0.1 (1p) each." otherwise they are taking 99 shares per 100 off everybody.
Sorry but you're wrong - they ARE taking 99 shares per 100 off everybody - that's the point of a consolidation !!
The £0.001/0.1p mentioned is the nominal value of the shares so that won't change. You are confusing nominal value and market value so all things being equal the 0.1p current market value should increase by 100 times to 10p per share.
They are then able to start placings again because that will be well above the 0.1p nominal value .
Unfortunately as we all know the SP after consolidation won't be 10p per share but probably 8p or 9p if we're lucky!!
While $3.00 SP would be great I’ve decided not to be greedy so if any of our new-found fellow investors from the USA want to pay me $1.50 per share for my 1 million shareholding then I’m happy to accept it and they can look forward to doubling their investment when the SP gets to $3.00
ODX Financial year runs from April to March so CK would be talking about the quarter from April to June as QTR 1.
I haven't seen the "Special Dividend" mentioned anywhere by ODX/CK except in a one-liner on a tweet from Sharebuyers.
In the script of their conversation CK just mentions that estimated figures on a contract/order are immaterial - what he wants are real sales that turn into real cash and at some point could be distributable reserves ie normal business !
As far as I've understood it that isn't what happened.
ELKO would have been paid their fee from the JV funds.
They separately agreed to buy 88E shares directly from the company, rather than go to the market. They may have paid a small premium by doing that but were presumably happy to do that as it puts funds into 88E rather than into the market. These additional funds may then enable 88E to start planning the next drill before the close of the current drilling season.
I think you're confused between 2 different investments .
EM2 is Eagle Mountain Mining and is quoted on the Australian exchange (ASX) -
EMPR is Empress Royalty Corp and is the one that has just listed on the Toronto exchange
My take is that they cannot buy at certain times of year as price sensitive news "will" be released in the near future - accounts/quarterly reports etc.
However if the company decide that nothing is expected in the next 30 days then they can buy - if something then crops up (such as a Slovenia response) then the company have to release it - they cannot hold on till the end of the 30 day period.
Any review by the FCA (laughable though that thought may be) would want evidence that at the time of purchase there was no non-public info that may have swayed the buy decision.
And just for clarity - Hot Copper seem to be getting confused with the data regarding a previous company with the RCR ticker which was delisted a couple of years ago . I ‘d love AUS$4.00per share but that won’t be today !
What's clear from most of the postings today is that most of you don't have a clue how the approvals process for finance from a large bank works in practice - agreeing term sheets, setting conditions precedent, etc etc
The meeting probably did happen yesterday, as that was what AP was presumably told, but communicating that decision formally from the Committee to the relevant internal person who then informs the client (VAST) and legally signs off the term sheet etc does not happen in an instant - it's not a £5k personal loan from your bank that you agree online!
From personal experience the internal stuff at the bank will probably happen today/tomorrow and then VAST will be officially informed. Until an agreed signed term sheet has been received then VAST cannot issue an RNA saying any more than they already have.
I'd missed the supplementary IPO so GUN will have a minimum of roughly 4.5m shares out of a total maximum 51.3m - that's the 8.69%
If GUN did subscribe for £1.5m worth (roughly £AUD2.63m then that was scaled back to 20% as some have indicated that would still be 2.6m shares giving GUN about 7.1m shares or 13.8%
I did read in the prospectus that Rincon reserved the right to allocate/not allocate shares as they saw fit so there's no particular reason why GUN could not have been less scaled back than new subscribers.
Gun is still likely to be the largest shareholder in Rincon so future prospects IMO are excellent.
GUN did have 27.5% of Rincon pre the IPO.
If we assume that they IPO'd the full AUS$6million, and GUN just convert the Loan notes then GUN would have around 4.5m shares or 8.5% of Rincon. What we don't know is how many shares GUN subscribed for and how many they may have been given.
Best guess is GUN had around £1m cash to spend so could have tried for all of that which would have been roughly AUS£2m or 10million shares. The reports say PI's are receiving 20% of what they requested so that could knock GUN down to 2m shares.
A total of 6.5m shares would be around 12.5% of Rincon.
But as GUN were a seed funder they may have been treated more favourably in the IPO so may receive more than 2m shares.
Until it's announced we don't really know but our minimum holding of 4.5m shares cost a lot less than 20c a share and judging by the interest the price will rise quickly once it's being traded.