We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Bees - I suggest you re-read the Cazenove report of that era. Then, the coal was going to be exported, in a much stronger coal market. GCM is now a totally different beast.
Solstas. - c70% debt for the capex is aready in the calculations. Phulbari is no different to the many other coal to power projects in Africa and the Far East, all of whose financing, equity ownership, and relationship with their sponsor (cf GCM) is well established. Phulbari is just rather bigger - but much longer before up and running. The principles for valuing the 'sponsor' like GCM are exactly the same. They are miles apart from Bee's 'calculations'. Sorry !
Don't forget Bed & Breakfast time is almost here.Lots on here have large profits to protect form the tax man before next Thurs.
Essex exorcist. I'm talking about the GCM share price, and the immense size of the capex needed to create any value in the mine. Its coal is all dedicated to the power projects, which means the 'value' is all in their economics (e NPV) and none in the mine as such.. But to get that NPV, that immense capex has to be raised. GCM can't do it alone. That means 1) others will come in to take their (large) proportion of the NPV 2) Even to progress development and so 'earn' a small (c 10% ?) 'share' of the whole project, GCM is going to have to raise a large amount from present shareholders, involving heavy dilution of present shares in issue. ie while shares will expand (in line with size of the project) the share price won't necessarily rise. (See all the other comparable miningor power projects) So your accusation that I am de-ramping, is based on our misunderstanding of the structure of this situation, and of how these types of project work. Its a common mistake made by newbie investors. They almost always lose out.
Jax - You can spot the inadequates on here. They insult (sometimes very crudely - we know who those are) anyone who threatens their dream - especially if with informed reasons , with figures. Which of course they can't understand - so their only recourse is frustration and crudity. Sad really. I've been physically threatened in the past by their like.
hope2 - That is completely usual in these projects, where there is a 'sponsor' like GCM. Its 80% share of the 'project' is 'as of now' where very little has been spent on it. Power China won't expect GCM to keep that % as others step in to do the heavy lifting. Its 80% will be whittled down and down as time goes on. Its why Bee' s sort of 'calculation' is totally misguided and wrong.
Bees - your 16:52 yesterday. Today's RNS emphasises that GCM company is NOT the same as the Phulbari project and can go bust despite your 'valuation'. A project is worth nothing until financed. GCM hasn't a chance of funding any of the phases, which will need major investors or contractors - who will take their very large share of the project and its returns Even your 'valuation' double counts. The 'value' of the coal is already wrapped up in the NPV of the project. IF it survives, GCM at the end of a very long day (5 years to permit, produce a Bankable Feasibility study, arrange finance, deliver Financial Close, start construction ??) will have earned its own project share plus maybe a development fee. But before that it will need to issue many times more shares than now. So working out any value for its shares now is completely unfeasible. Look at Kibo's share price history. Even before its MCPP was scrapped, its shares came up against the reality, way below the sort of breathless 'valuations' their own versions of you were touting on the BB's.
Bees - never seen such nonsense. If that's the standard you bring to 'eradicating poverty' it will never happen. I suggest you do a bit (in your case a lot) more research into project economics, project financing, stockmarket values for resources in the ground, and the relationship between a project and its sponsor (in this case GCM). Only trying to help, and to steer newbies away from the spikes this sort of ill-informed speculation lures them into.
Badeli - Exactly - But you don't win a battle by bandying your strategy around.
The institutional interest will be for a long life, reliable, 'annuity' investment such as is sought after by insurance companies and available in the equity (or perhaps the debt) of the 'project' - not in NCCL itself, and therefore of no significance to shareholders here, except that it reduces the project stake that NCCL itself will have the chance for. Currently 40% is up for grabs after GE/CMEC, but some will be for local participation. If others come in to take up part of that 40% rather than NCCL, it will be left with the change from its past spending credit, plus from any 'development premium'. Hence its search for other opportunities to invest it in. So a lot of blank spaces in the equation at the moment.
G84 - You've somewhat misunderstood how this works. See my previous posts - also on the 'other place'. That's not to say the shares aren't cheap. Just not quite as cheap as you might imagine !
DO tell us why you are here then, Admiral. I can;'t see any post of yours that has said anything intelligent, that adds to our knowledge, that is matter for discussion,or that shows you have the faintest clue about Kibo and why you've lost half your original investment. Like your hero from Wombleville, I put you down as someone who invested in Kibo having met some man in a pub who said he knows a man who knows a man who has a dead cert for making a packet faster than on the dogs.
Yes MikeMike, I'm still here because I might re-enter one day. But not now, nor any time soon. An opportunity might come when LC is forced to restructure Kibo, and maybe hive off (or be forced to sell orr hive off) his remaining projects into a new company, properly capitalised this time. Meanwhie he can still go bust, despite Sanderson.
Re My 90% !!-
In the absence of any solid info from LC, and given his history, don't you think its sensible to try to work out from other info what the implications might be for the share price ? Its because no-one else on here bothered, or to look at my calcs, that you've all lost so much up to now. And what I should have added earlier, is that while LC might protect himself from disaster,as he always has, it is shareholders who stand to suffer, as they always have. The fact is that the numbers show that Kibo in its present form can't survive. To keep its projects going it will have to either restructure, losing present shareholders even their current share price, or re-capitalise, with the same outcome.
As for comparing Benga with NCCL, Kibo only has 65%. Benga is half the size and has no coal - the most profitable part of an integrated project- whereas NCCL has much more than is needed even for its power plant and is closer to export opportunities. To raise the Benga capex a more detailed BFS is needed, not a DFS. And a fully detailed JDA with GE and CMEC is about to be signed. for NCCL I could go on.But won't !
LC hasn't learned that his wheezes need solid costings and benefits to Kibo shareholders, before they'll take any notice. Even if Kibo ended with the same share of the project as I was expecting at MCPP (20%) it will only deliver about 30% of MCPP's earnings to shareholders, (Very rough estimate - The coal mine was to be MCPP's most profitable bit) but now on about three times shares in issue when MCPP was at the same DFS stage. So even without issuing more shares, worth only 10% of MCPP to the share price. .But to get that 20% in return for development spending even more shares will have to be issued . To keep his own salary and Kibo office lights on until Benga delivers in (say) 4-5 years time I can see shares doubling from now. Until LC sets out every single cost and profit item these airy fairy plans won't cut a single grain of mustard, nor save him from disaster.