Member Info for Longtermview24

Norges and Qataris are not mine operators, they don't want to buy and develop a mine - this guys are not like PIs that continually throw good money after bad.

============

I'm not saying they buy and develop the mine a la AAL. I'm suggesting they participate in stage 2 equity raise and increase their position. Not alone but with others, including PI's, thereby safeguarding their investment. I simply don't agree with IBAB that they are so rich that they don't mind writing off $15 or 20 million just months after putting it on the table. Doesn't have to be equity, it could've been a bond or convertible. Not sure how hard Fraser tried, when he's got AAL standing by for the past 18 months.

I'm sure the Aussie/Fortescue connections are just a coincidence (cough cough)

IBAB, I get that AAL are a big boy and using their own cash. I get that a bank or even the IPA are risk averse and we couldn't borrow the money, but having got the II's and sovereign wealth funds to buy in to the project, I don't get why cant they raise the cash from them to keep this going/ As I mentioned earlier, why are the II shareholders trashing their own investment . If AAL can stump up $500-600M, you can be sure Norges and Qataris could do likewise. That would protect their existing investment and, at 5.5p, it would be 10Bn shares on top of the 7BN in issue. 17Bn shares for an asset that'll be worth north of #17bn dollars by the end of the decade.

It's a very curious state of affairs.

You listen to the call and they're not overly concerned with risk - construction risk or market for the "quality product" (their words) - you see all the big players that are holding here in the raft of RNS's. You see two years of construction in the ground that is on or ahead of schedule, 13mta of TORPS.

How the feck did we end up where we are today? Inexplicable, Maybe some over committed, but at no point until the RCF was pulled were there any big red flags, quite the opposite with big sovereign funds buying in to equity and bonds in stage 2 and Scrimshaw ponying up a six figure sum. No LTH's were here for a get rich quick scheme. This seemed like a great investment for the patient investor who would reap both capital appreciation and dividend income over the next decade.

Still hard to believe it's gone tits up. Fraser really has effed this up.

When you see the buys/sells and short/long positions AA were churning over yesterday, no surprise to see the sp stuck in a tight range around the potential offer price. Manipulation - perish the thought.

With 230M shares at 15p bought not that long ago in the first stage 2 raise (presumably after some due diligence) and 72% of the 8.5% convertibles, you wonder why they didn't make a bid or offer to underwrite a large chunk of the $600M required for the revised stage 2 financing. It's not like they couldn't afford it. I know writing off $20odd million is loose change for these guys, but it's still $20M and now they're losing the upside of their 3% plus stake in SXX

Funny old world.

Yet Sirius’s Woodsmith mine is understood to have been on the radar of Anglo executives for as long as a year and a half. “We have been . . . keeping an eye on this project for some time,” Stephen Pearce, chief financial officer, said yesterday. He joined Anglo in 2016 from Fortescue Metals, an iron ore miner based in his native Australia, where he had served as an executive director since 2010. There, he overlapped with the tenure of Russell Scrimshaw, who has served as Sirius’s chairman since late 2011. Mr Fraser, who grew up and began his career in Australia, used to work closely with Fortescue as an investment banker at Citi.

--------------------------

Stinks in my book. I sincerely hope Fraser isn't kept on. One way ticket to Oz for the so-called "financier".

If CF has any sense whatsoever he would be packing his cases now and booking his first class single to Australia.

Why would AA want to keep a financier to run a mining project? They would remove the BOD and itroduce their own team of experienced delivery people. The Anglo way is very different to the Sirius 'make it up as we go' way.

Agreed. Add failed financier to his CV. All LTH's have been shafted, some irreparably He needs to do one....and take that schoolboy Staley with him.

I can see your interpretation regarding the word "expects". Perhaps there is a small chink of light, but at 5.5p, I think the balance is in favor of sell, IMO. As my user name indicates, I was perfectly happy to sit this out for several years as an LTH to realize the true value. I'm gutted. We were probably an inch away from raising the finance when JPM wouldn't agree to warrants/convertibles and/or higher interest rate - shysters.

IPA another bunch of shysters, I overcommitted partly on the representation that we had pre-qualified for the IPA and that the guarantee was available to projects that couldn't raise finance in the open market. I (mistakenly) took comfort that finance was effectively underwritten.

I do feel mislead, but no one put a gun to my head to make me hit the buy button, so I have to be a big boy and take it on the chin. The value of any investment can go up or down, not just SXX. Thems the risks.

Having already raised a multiple of what was required to complete the perceived high risk elements of the construction, (and raised at levels well in excess of the current sp), I was quite confident CF would raise the fiancé, particularly as that was his background. Called it wrong and lost my shirt.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. No doubt the money could've been raised had Fraser not gone for the all in **** or bust stage two funding approach. He failed to raise the fiancé and he will suffer along with shareholders. I cant see him staying n charge of Sirius when it is swallowed up and, ex-bouncer or not, I'd be surprised if he had the front to stay in Yorks, at least not without a minder. Of course everyone is responsible for their own investment, but he always exuded confidence that he would get this done, and he deliberately ingratiated himself into the local community as part of the pitch. Total balls up.

Anyone continuing to hold around the 5.5p mark is not just an optimist but a fantasist if they think there's a white knight. Read the RNS - "the Board of Sirius has indicated to Anglo American that it expects to be able to recommend a firm offer for Sirius if made by Anglo American at the price set out in the Proposal." Note the words "recommend" and "if". There's no plan B, other than administration (0p). 5.5p is the best case and Anglo may knock some off before closing. If I was them, I would.

Over and out. Literally.

Bjorn, I understand your POV and I don't engage everyday, but if everyone took your advice literally this board could be full of IBAB's sh*te without any rebuttal .Occasionally (not always) you gotta fight fire with fire. It's interesting to note that when I respond immediately with rebuttals one after the other, his posts dry up for a bit. He's happy to jump on top of an informative/positive post to neutralize it, but as I've shown today, it's also easy to jump on his posts and neutralize them.

Antofagasta - there you go again. Out of context. Do they have a cost of sales of $35 per ton against a sale of $150 per ton? What is their profit margin on their turnover? Do they have sales contracts going out 10 years. Do they have a resource that will last over 100 years?

Absolute BS to pick a company and a turnover and a value out of thin air and try to apply it to SM. Apples and oranges. If you want to pluck numbers out of the air I could quote any number of tech stocks that make little or no profit, some that make losses that are worth billions - snake oil salesman's analysis from IBAB (again)

Would you agree that a company with a profit of circa $1.3 billion a year (at 10mta) with long term supply agreements and hundreds of billions of tonnes of resource could have a value of $20 billion? Of course it could. And if the price of poly is higher (like Boulby's $195 per ton), what does that do to the valuation? (Hint - it goes up!)

As I said earlier IBAB on repeat. Last post same as the previous post, and the one before that. nothing new to contribute. There really should be some moderation on this board to moderate his posts which are now akin to spam.

The straight debt failed to sell on the terms sought in the market at that time. That was 2019. Now it's 2020. We simply don't know what the new terms might be. The only likely - having a high probability of occurring or being true - thing that's becoming apparent is that IBA is manipulating facts to suit his agenda.

Of course the share price reflects the risk the market is attributing to the fact that funding may not materialize. But that's a market view, with no knowledge as to the state of negotiations. Any market is formed on the basis of buys versus sells. The large PI base, some of which are influenced by the likes of IBAB's scaremongering, have taken us to where we are selling this down. The institutional shareholding is largely intact, if not increasing.

I am still of the opinion that CF will raise the funds on terms that will preserve shareholder value for those that are prepared to see this through to 10mta and beyond. If he doesn't, then we're sunk, and none will sink further than CF who will not only have his family trust (120M shares) wiped out, but will be out of a job. How then will he pay the large mortgage that he admitted he's carrying. There's a lot at stake for everyone involved in the SM/WS project. Many senior employees are invested in the company in more ways than one. My interests seem aligned with the decision makers. These aren't people that will walk away from this straight into another similar venture. CF is not Jose Mourinho.

I like Sorcerers simple analysis. Coupled with the fact that many within SM that have a vested interest in making this a success also gives me comfort. These are the reasons why I remain invested and haven't sold up. The other day a poster mentioned turnover of $20 billion per annum. I think what they meant to say was a capital value of $20 billion is realistic based on a turnover of $1.5-$2 billion per annum. At 10mta per annum and a sale price of $150 per ton, with a fully operating mine, meaning access to the billions of tonnes of Poly for the next 100 years - and zero risk-, $20Bn seems achievable. Even with 20 billion shares in play that would equate to a share price of $1.

Me and Jonesrichard are hoping for even more than that!

IBAB - you're a wordsmith and you choose words carefully and deliberately. I object to you using the word likely which, as defined, can mean - having a high probability of occurring or being true. Your outcome is as likely as the new government reversing the decision of the old government and offering a guarantee for the entire funding requirement.

Neither is "likely" in my opinion. Just putting your posts into perspective for the uninitiated (though granted there aren't many that haven't twigged to your agenda by now)

IBAB - common sense and experience you say

Anyone with any common sense wouldn't be posting almost 24-7 on a bulletin board of a company in which they have no investment, so you seem to be lacking in the common sense department.

Experience - by your own admission you worked an entire career in telecoms, IT software or suchlike for BT. By your own admission your professional background (experience) is not as an investment/fund manager or involves any kind of investment qualifications.

So you let's put your "common sense" and "experience" into perspective.

IBAB says - " 2 new shares for every existing share looks likely".

Looks likely? On what basis? Pure speculation - or do you have inside information?

This sort of post is dangerous, misleading and disingenuous - and shows you up to be the greasy snake oil salesman you really are. In the long run, karma sorts out your type.

Another day and same old same old from IBAB - at 5.05am!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn!!!!

Nothing wrong with a contrarian view, but it's the same thing every time. No new info from IBAB and no new perspective. Makes you wonder why someone that's not invested feels the need to post a negative slanted reply almost immediately after any post with a positive opinion.

As someone pointed out the other day, it looks like he is deliberately trying to hijack any positive opinion and/or the board in general. Irritating, but we've seen them come and go before and once the funding issue is resolved (good or bad) he'll disappear just like the others naysayers.

The majority of business folk aren't back until Monday. Then the real work begins. We might get a teaser on progress this month before any funding announcement...……

HNY.

Poly4 twitter feed. Work continues on all fronts. For me not how many more sleeps till Christmas but how many more sleeps till funding is announced and we finally see the back of IBAB

#Didyouknow soybean is the most grown crop in Brazil and is mainly produced in soils with low fertility?

Together with Cibra, we’re evaluating the performance of multi-nutrient #POLY4 on soybean in a non-tillage area in Campo Mourão.

IBAB - you're not invested and are sitting on the sidelines until the financing (if it comes) is announced. I get it. That's a fair position to take.

So why don't you just sit in the sidelines checking each day for a 7am RNS? Why do you feel the need to post the same old same old day after day after day - even on a weekend. Surely you have something else you could be doing, unless, of course, you're not simply sitting passively on the sidelines waiting to see if this is investable, but in fact you do have a position that you are promoting - a(nother) wolf in sheep's clothing.

I think most have you figured out and your posts are repetitive monotonous and, at this point more than a little irritating. Cant wait for the funding RNS, at which point I'm fairly certain you'll disappear, never to be seen or heard of again (thank heavens)

Sheps, I too noted the irony of the timing of Dogstar's appearance (and that I had used the word "dog" share!, double irony). He's like a dog with a bone. Now why, if you're not invested and have no intention of investing - because you think the product is crap - would you be back time and time again. Nothing better to do? Civic duty? Or an agenda?

I don't care whether you're positive neutral or negative.

My point is that if it is widely understood and acknowledged that there is an agenda to a particular person's post, so all may not be as it appears, then it's fair enough to bring that to the boards attention. No more no less.

I note you didn't answer why it is that people who think this stock is a dog feel the need to post ad infinitum on the subject. I'm invested in only a few stocks. I could list hundreds I wouldn't invest in. Why would I bother posting on a stock that I think is a dog? Why would anybody? Surely they should have better things to do - or is there an ulterior and/or sinister motive. And if you have an ulterior or sinister motive, then would it be fair to assume that you would post whatever you could to destabilise the stock, whether it is based on fact or fiction. It's for these reasons that I take the bashers contributions with a large dose of salt.

I agree that rampers that post price projections and general hyperbole, without any substance, are equally culpable. But an investor who has done their research is easily able to see through the cheerleaders who lack any kind of research or substance to their posts.

As I said, it's a wheat and chaff game here and it's not that difficult to tell them apart, but tedious nonetheless that sifting is required and good posts can often get overlooked or buried in the detritus.