Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
PS. Those NPV's are aimed at the more naive. Brokers tried it two years ago before the first funding and the institutions didn't buy it - hence the share crash. They won't buy it a second time either. That's not to say there won't be a time to buy SXX and lock it away. Currently there are still too many hurdles ahead. I would never chase any of the spikes / apparent recoveries at this stage of Sxx's development. I'd only buy on setbacks, of which there are bound to be more than a few.
Very sorry - but I did quite a few IPO's and priced them thank you very much. Maybe you should take a reliable long earner - insurance co, or Saga ? - or an energy supplier at a current reasonable PER, and work out its 50 year NPV ! You'll find its current PER price equates to a lot less than 50 years. Why should SXX be valued at more ? Especially with the risks still to come. Of course the NPV will increase as capex is spent, and the NPV to consider is a the time earnings start with no more capex. That's what I think a sensible investor would do anyway.
Milo 3rd - You can use whatever logic you like ! But just remember the NPV's quoted are all for 50 years ! (FIFTY YEARS f f s!. No one ever uses what might happen in 50 years time to calculate a value now !)
That means they take in all earnings over that period. How long have you been alive ? What happened 50 years ago ?
What will have happened in 5 years time, or 20, let alone 50 ? Just halve those NPVs (to take in earnings up to 20 year ahead) and the outcome of whatever your logic throws up will be a lot more reliable. Or take them in up to 10 years ahead and halve it again !
Juxta P - Where do you suppose HUM will find another Yanfolila ? There aren't than many around. Its because Dugbe will be far less profitable but more expensive; and Yanfolila's proven yet to be mined/sold resource is already in HUM's market value, that potential buyers are staying away. fsJ's constant bleating/ramping misses all those key points.
georgel 61 - It is not 'spite and venom' to post the most thoroughly researched (over 5 years, and 35 years researching power gen and similar companies) opinions on Kibo for the benefit of investors wanting the truth. How sad to follow those with admittedly enormous shareholdings, but who have demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of such companies, nor the ability to do any of the necessary sums, and instead every incentive to ramp fantasy share targets.
Implications - IGCC v existing design - even more serious dilution certain.
Buyers rushing in on the SML should beware. A CG-IGCC plant is more expensive and will take longer to design and plan. Coal is of course needed, and therefore a SML. BUT if starting again from scratch, Kibo won't get back its $3.6m from Sepco And while an IGCC's overall better efficiency should mean a lower tariff for Tanz, the investors will have to shoulder a higher capex and longer pay-back. That means Kibo's contribution will buy only a lower proportion. What with further delays, Kibo shareholders must stump up again, but this time with three times shares in issue as when MCPP was the great white hope four years ago. No dividends from any of its power projects before at least 5-6 years from now (At least five MAST plants will be needed to plug the cash drain, costing Kibo £30m and more dilution) means cash draining out and more and more dilution, and much lower eventual contribution per share, so a much lower potential share price. Kibo will never again stretch even to 5p in my opinion, and with more awareness on the BB's of the snags, even lemming spikes will be lower (though just as deadly !)
As for coal sales, EDL's $25/tonne is before transport costs which takes delivered / market prices closer to $100 depending. Coal face price is what counts.
MCPP might be producing energy once switched on. But it won't be delivering any cash to Kibo unless and until the majority shareholders declare a dividend. Major players liker GE, SEPCO, will prefer to leave cash in MCPP until sufficient to cover any possible risks or problems, which means no dividend, and no cash to Kibo for at least a few years - ie six years from now ?. That's why LC's belated idea of MAST - but there will need to be five of them (costing £8-10m each) to produce enough cash to keep Kibo afloat - let alone cover the cost of LC' empire building. In fact his 'business model' (for want of a better word) is nuts. Kibo will end up with minority stakes in projects it can't control and whose cash he can't rely on getting into Kibo itself. Hence a never-ending need for more cash from shareholders. Its exactly the problem he ran into with his failed mining wheezes. To many projects - too little cash to develop them. No wonder no serious investor, and no serious broker, has ever taken him on
Wait and see what price Sepco pays then - if any. And Mr T50 is taking eggs to someone whose first consulting job turned a then zero value company making losses into one attracted a £5m (today's value) bid within two years. It s now the biggest in its industry in the UK. Mr Maw of course resorts to his usual back-of-the class insulting when faced with reality that contradicts his hooch-raddled fantasy. The fact is none of Kibo's projects will have any value until large sums are invested. Got it ? (as if you ever will)
MM - Check out the £9.4m paid for 85% of Mabesekwa. Fairly valued because acquired from a Bots public co. = 1.7p per Kibo share. Check out Kibo BS - $17m asset for MCPP (mine acquisition cost) = 2.7p per Kibo share. Check out value of Katoro holding approx £1m = 0.16 per Kibo shares. There's nothing else ! The market has a habit of valuing companies fairly.
My posts are for those (the more intelligent) who want a professional view of a company and its finances. You and mates ruled yourself our many moons ago. The FCA takes an interest where misleading information (and opinions) as on this board, are allowed to submerge those from posters with experience, qualifications, and knowledge. Carry on LoLLolling. Its not as entertaining as the other Carry Ons. But I'm sure you'll carry on.
Ariana has issued too many shares since its prospects looked good in 2011. Now its earnings can't keep pace. Its share weakness was all forecast 3-4 years ago. Ditto fo HUM. Its market cap caught up early this year with the PV of the limited future profits from Yanfolila. Whatever might follow or prolong Yanf has not yet been determined nor its likely cost. Simples.
'Streaming' (or royalty) deals are always bad for shareholders. usually a sign of desperation. 5% of revenue translates to 7% of profit (assuming the 70% margin we are assured will happen !) - or if 50% would take 10% of that profit. Much better for Hancock than any equity. Most streaming deals in mining equate to borrowings at eye-watering interest rates. On the other hand they can deliver part of the early capex that investors or banks won't finance. Lesson for Sxx shareholders is no more streaming please !
Re value of the company. The market cap is merely the value of the equity. You have to add whatever debts and borrowings are outstanding to get the 'economic value'. In theory that should equal the company's assets - but it never does depending how far investors are looking ahead.
except that the company's shares, once up and running and stable, will be valued on the dividend paid. If you want to invest on the basis of capital growth, you should work out what the shares will trade at, in say 20 yrs time, and work out the maximum you will pay for them now - taking account of financing, equity dilution, loan repayments and interest, and accidents meanwhile. What broker is telling you that ? Quoting bogus NPV's here and now is the easiest way for them to flog the shares to the unwary.
Just to be clear and maybe get a discussion on this - the only thing that counts for investors but completely overlooked. Its a complex subject to explain. But one of many reasons why the NPV based 'targets' quoted by the co and Shore cap are totally inappropriate for investors, is that the co NPV is for the profit (or cash) flowing through to the company. But what counts for investors and the valuation eventually placed on the shares is the dividend they will get - which will be less and later than the income counted by the company. You need to work out what real return an investor will get by paying a given price for a share now, against the dividend he might get far in the future (and he would be a fool to pay now for a dividend in 50 years time - no matter how big it would be). That will give a very different figure for a sensible share price now than one derived from the co's NPV. He also needs to work out what price Sxx shares will command once income is stable which won't be for 20 years from now. What price should he pay for a share now, for a share which might have a certain price in 20 years time.? That, again, will give a very different figure from the so-called 'target' puffed by Shore and co. Its why the institutions who can do the sums better than can pi's usually come up with a much lower share price.
With respect, It wasn't the Stage 1 financing 'terms' that wrecked the shares in 2016 as such. It was the fact that the institutions recognised that the 'target' share prices puffed beforehand by Shore Cap et al in the hope of getting the placing business, were totally bogus - based on the flawed 'NPV based' method. That involved taking in revenues (already airy-fairy) for a full 50 years ahead ! - Quite apart from that, a NPV 'target' is not a logical way to value a share here and now - mining investors for even much shorter lived projects take no notice of them . Taking in 50 years ahead produces an 'NPV' twice a big as would one taking in a more reasonable 20 years ahead. Shore et al (and Sxx - like all such companies) are still puffing the NPV 'target' because they know it bamboozles the average private investor. It will fail again if they think institutions will buy it - maybe why Sxx is desperately looking for other ways than more equity to plug the funding gap.