Member Info for Manlord

“AFAIK an open offer can be put together and completed within a week. And if you know how to make money from a fully priced open offer I would be interested to know how it is done.”

Even if we accept a week, that is still a week of uncertainty versus a tightly executed subscription that can be agreed and effectively done almost immediately with zero SP movement as we saw last week.

As for making money, if the market knows a raise is coming, the simplest but completely frowned upon (and rightly so) play is forward selling into that raise. We see that behaviour all the time around AIM financings and I don’t think it can be disputed.

I think the bigger point is certainty. It appears that Empire needed £8m secured quickly, likely with strategic ASX considerations in mind, and without dragging existing shareholders through a prolonged process with execution risk attached.

I understand the fairness argument, I just think in practice the BoD chose certainty, speed and clean execution over theory. Again we’re talking 2p difference at best / worse depending on how you view it.

ML

“I think we are both expecting a generally rising share price as Pitfield becomes operational. Why would we worry about the odd hiccup during that rise?”

I think that assumes the short term overhang is inconsequential, which it certainly isn’t.

If circa 30% of a raise ends up in short term hands looking for a quick 10%, that is not just “the odd hiccup”, that is a big block of stock (£2.5m or roughly 7.5m shares) actively stalling momentum and weighing on sentiment at precisely the point the company wants the market focused on execution and potentially ASX coverage.

ML

I simply do not understand this paragraph. Both an open offer and a placing solve the price movement problem for an institution, but the open offer requires that the institution has to compete with other institutions rather than simply negotiating in a darkened room. This is likely to produce a higher price if there is any demand for the shares.

In theory, yes, wider participation can create competition, but in practice with small/mid-cap AIM stocks it is rarely that clean. The moment a wider open process becomes known, arbitrage, forward selling and execution drag weigh heavily on the share price before the raise even completes. That can easily destroy the very pricing advantage being argued for and I’ve seen it many times, once here on Empire in a single digit placing round. I knew a client in one of the firms organising the placing, and he took £30k without even knowing anything about Empire. He sold days after admission and took a small profit.

I was a client of a broker who shall remain nameless, and I stopped being a client based on obvious forward selling.

Also, if the stock was trading around 32.5p and funding was done at 30p, we are talking about roughly a 7.7% discount, which in capital markets terms is hardly some enormous giveaway, especially for fast, execution funding tied potentially to a strategic objective like ASX progression.

Add in the fact that some holders coming in via a wider process may be far less sticky, looking for a quick 10% turn, and you potentially create months of overhang anyway. There is literally zero % chance that £8m would have been secured in one week, and then to remain in sticky hands, not a chance based on my personal experiences on AIM.

So again, whilst I understand the theory, I do not think it’s realistic but we have different opinions on this and that’s ok.

ML

Thanks for the reply TBow,

I completely understand the theory, but I just don’t see it working that way in practice.

If II’s tried to acquire £8m worth of stock in the open market, IMHO Empire just isn’t liquid enough for that to happen without moving the price against themselves very quickly, which is exactly why funding calls exist.

The other issue is “stickiness”, If you somehow managed to generate that level of demand in the PI open market, how much of it is actually long term capital? Realistically, a decent chunk (30%) would be short term money happy to take 10% and move on, leaving us shareholders with a big overhang and a stagnant share price for months as Empire shares get recycled.

In terms of timing, if this is potentially linked to the ASX process requirements, a placing gets done almost immediately and with certainty. An PI open offer could take weeks, and in that time you anre guaranteed uncertainty, leaks, and the obvious forward selling by those in the know and who have no real interest in Empires development.

Also, using your own numbers, 32p versus 32.5p is a discount of roughly 1.5%. That is less than the spread on many normal trading days. In all my years, ive never seen raises being done at such a tight discount and if buyers were genuinely lining up to pay 32p, we would probably already be seeing them at 32.5p in the market, but we’re not.

I understand the theory, I just do not think it is practical, efficient, or actually better for existing shareholders in this particular situation.

The good news for anyone feeling left out, the current SP is almost as low as the II’s got but the PI’s have the added knowledge and comfort of now knowing that the cash position is £14.5m and we’re as far away from another raise as you can imagine.

I hope for the both of us and everyone else, that this time next year we’ll be laughing about how we debated the 30p - 32p funding channel and which way was best for shareholders.

Who knows, we might be discussing a 15p funding call then and thinking “I wish the II’s took £16m at 25p last year”.

If only we could see into the future, I’d have taken more at 1p but you’ve got to leave some on the table for others.

ATB

ML

Hi TBow,

I’d be interested to understand your thinking on the “higher price” point.

Why would simply opening it to a wider pool automatically result in a higher raise price rather than just a wider allocation at whatever discount was required?

It might create an oversubscribed funding round but I’m not sure how it would raise the discount to average market SP at that time.

Thanks

ML

The macro tailwinds help, but I’m not suggesting a supercycle means with Titanium just go up. It’s much broader than that.

One, we are not a producing miner leveraged to daily commodity pricing, we are still in the development and de-risking phase, so the benefit comes from elsewhere.

It’s not actually about Titanium, its about the wider backdrop of what a genuine mining supercycle can do for development stage mining companies generally, with us being one potential beneficiary if our own execution continues.

The biggest positives relate to improved capital access, stronger II appetite, a fully supportive ASX backdrop, greater strategic interest in resources, and a likely re-rating of quality development stories.

If we do see a genuine supercycle, funds, strategic investors, industrial groups and even govts start looking further forward for scalable supply, not just current producers. This is where the likes of Empire become increasingly relevant.

I would compare it to someone being asked to do a Premier League review. The headlines would naturally focus on the big 6 (no idea how Spuds are in a big 6 🤷🏻‍♂️) because that grabs the attention. That does not mean Fulham are irrelevant, just not the immediate headline.

Mining is similar and as you’ve read the supercycle narrative naturally centres around copper, lithium, rare earths, uranium, gold and iron ore because those are the obvious names. That does not mean others have no role to play.

Another important point is investor behaviour and if they are making strong returns in larger names, then rotating capital into the next tier down looking for bigger multiples is what happens. Thats how these cycles behave with capital flowing from majors into mid-tier developers, then smaller companies where investors chase 2x, 5x or 10x returns. That is particularly relevant in Aus, where mining is understood and speculative capital is far more comfortable backing earlier-stage resource stories.

Another football analogy here, in the early 00’s supercycle, the main story was China, steel demand, iron ore, coal and copper. Lithium was barely part of the conversation and most people hadn’t even heard of it. Fast forward 10–15yrs and lithium is one of the hottest commodities around. The point is things change, and I remember Man City being in the 1st division, now they are the most successful team in recent PL history.

What is secondary today (Titanium is listed as a CM) can become strategically important tomorrow depending on demand, geopolitics, technology shifts or supply bottlenecks but Pitfield still has to execute.

SB and Co still need to deliver on multiple topics and if that doesn’t happen, a strong mining supercycle will mean absolutely nothing.

But if execution continues and the mining sector backdrop strengthens, that combination could be extremely powerful for us.

ML

As I was saying earlier.

https://discoveryalert.com.au/critical-minerals-supercycle-australia-demand-debate-2026/

https://www.australianmining.com.au/is-australia-on-course-for-a-mining-boom-in-2026/

https://www.mining-technology.com/features/green-demand-australia-transition-metals-supercycle/

https://www.fool.com.au/2026/03/11/5-key-drivers-of-the-new-commodities-supercycle-experts/

https://resourcesreview.com.au/news_article/critical-minerals-surge-sparks-supercycle-debate/

ML

Thanks guys.

ML

Hi All,

Now that the ASX listing is confirmed as going ahead it would be good if some of us could drop a thought every now again into the Hot copper Forum in Australia.

I have already set up an Empire Thread with bits and pieces over the last few months so I can only assume we will have Aussia investors looking for the company on HC as soon as they hear about the listing officially.

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/empire-metals-district-scale-high-grade-easy-strip-low-impurity-pitfield-titanium-project.9087421/#post-83416468

Anyway, I've updated the thread just now with latest interviews, RNS's and my own thoughts from earlier.

ML

The Australian market understands scale, mining pathways, metallurgy, strategic minerals and development financing far better than AIM generally does. That should not be underestimated but equally will there potentially be volatility at the start? Quite possibly.

We could easily see an initial rise followed by pullbacks as Australian investors position themselves and attempt to secure the best possible entry prices. That would not surprise me whatsoever and I’ll be watching closely. CG will now have to issue an updated target price (£1.24 undiluted NAV & 64p with 0.5 risked NAV based on 3-4 items unconfirmed. We should have some confirmed by then so I believe the risked NAV factor will go to 0.75 for example from 0.5 meaning close to 90p risked NAV).

But mid to long term, I am absolutely convinced that the ASX provides a significantly stronger platform for us and for Pitfield to ultimately achieve valuations far beyond where we currently sit.

And again, I do not like throwing around random round number valuations, but once you start looking beyond the current MC and begin considering what happens if multiple value adding milestones get ticked off one by one, it becomes increasingly difficult, at least for me personally, to see how this remains below a £1b valuation long term.

We are talking about continuous pilot plant consistency, expanded and upgraded MRE, successful ASX launch, product qualification confirmation, customer engagement and potential MOU's/offtake pathways, possible strategic partnerships or JV involvement, engineering and economic study progression, and ultimately proving Pitfield can evolve into a globally strategic titanium development asset.

If those boxes begin getting ticked, then personally I struggle to see how the company remains valued below £1b. That would equate to somewhere north of £1.20 per share on the current SiC figure. For clarity, I’m not saying this is an immediate rise to £1+, but all company metrics and mining industry peer valuations suggest it is entirely plausible with a potential “mining supercycle” in the wings to offer a strong macro tailwind.

Of course DYOR, everyone has different valuation models and risk tolerances, and plenty will disagree, which is absolutely fair enough. But for me, this RNS feels like one of the more important and reassuring ones we have had in quite some time.

Not because of the £8m itself, but because of what it appears to confirm about where the company and the II’s believe this story is now heading.

ML

The RNS dot never showed for me on LSE so only saw this by someone flagging it 🤷🏻‍♂️

Genuinely didn’t expect a raise to land now especially not one taken entirely by existing institutional shareholders, but IMO this is a very strong signal in the wider context of where Pitfield now sits.

Would I personally have preferred it at a higher price? Yes, probably.

Given the average trading range performance over the last 6 months, I thought maybe 35p could have been achievable. But equally, I have never met an investor who thought a company could not or should not have raised slightly higher. I said the same at 5p, 12p and 40p and probably would at £1.30 so that’s shareholders for you.

What gives me some comfort here though is the context of the previous raise were II’s took £7m at 40p, which was 17.5m shares issued. This latest raise is 26.67m shares at 30p, and my suspicion is that a lot of this has likely been taken again by the same cornerstone investors, particularly the Hong Kong and Saudi based parties who have backed the story heavily already.

If that assumption is right then, in reality, they are effectively averaging down to around the 35p region across sizeable positions, while also reaffirming support for mgt, the strategy and the development pathway. Remember guys, no matter what anyone says, these guys will have been given F2F information and verbal expectations on what’s ahead in the next 1, 3, 6 and 12 - 18 months time. If they were happy to proceed, then I’m happy they did. If you think you should have been offered the chance to buy also, then ask yourself why you didn’t pile in at sub 28p a few weeks back?

And when you think about it logically, if those investors are highly confident in where this project could be heading over the next year, then securing another meaningful tranche at 30p now probably makes more sense to them than potentially paying 45p, 55p, 75p or higher post ASX listing, post pilot scale validation and post further MRE expansion.

One thing I am not surprised about though, and actually very glad to now see confirmed, is the ASX listing.

Effectively we had previously been guided that we would receive an update on the ASX process before the end of H2 2026. I was personally expecting details around it or confirmation of intent but we have now received full confirmation that the ASX listing going ahead, with CG acting as lead adviser on the Australian side.

That is actually the biggest point in this entire RNS, even though technically this is a subscription announcement.

Most people know I have been pushing for an ASX listing for the best part of two and a half years, many of us have, not because AIM has been bad to us, far from it, that is where we all started and where many of us remain invested, but because the ASX is simply a much stronger and more sophisticated market for globally significant mining development stories.

CTD…..

Going by his historical performance in terms of doing what he says, it’s hard to doubt him.

This is as bullish as it comes.

https://streamable.com/0goykt

ML

Hi Zippy, my own personal opinion is that you are absolutely right. I think there is an extremely strong possibility that an ASX due diligence exercise is already underway behind the scenes.

I had posted on Telegram the other night that Empire appear to have taken on at least three additional staff members since January, none of which were formally communicated by RNS, namely an Administration Superintendent, a Geology Assistant and also a Community and Environmental Manager, all seemingly with strong and relevant experience.

The Administration Superintendent appointment particularly stood out to me given her background appears heavily geared toward exactly the kind of governance, reporting and operational coordination that becomes increasingly important during any potential ASX process. Over 20 years experience across mining, construction and oil & gas projects, combined with responsibilities involving senior management reporting, board coordination, government-level minute taking, submissions and complex organisational administration, is not the typical profile of a basic office support hire. To me, that looks far more aligned with strengthening internal corporate infrastructure, compliance capability and executive coordination, all of which would naturally become more demanding under an ASX-listed environment with increased regulatory scrutiny, governance expectations and institutional oversight.

Also, SB himself has referenced on a number of occasions that an ASX listing would be “desirable”, albeit without committing to any specific timeframe. From memory, I believe we were also told previously that an update would likely come around the end of H1.

Again, purely my interpretation here, so please DYOR, but I do get the impression that SB and the BOD view an ASX listing as a potentially very exciting development both for the company and for shareholders. Equally, for obvious regulatory and commercial reasons, they cannot comment too specifically or prematurely on mechanisms, structure or timing while any process may still be ongoing.

Personally, I would not be surprised at all if a formal market update arrives in due course, because to me it certainly feels like meaningful work is happening quietly in the background.

ML

Hi Ageos,

We got there in the end 😉

Many thanks & to be honest I had not heard of this particular company, but will certainly look them up.

Enjoy your evening.

ML

Oh great, super, so you are not the person we think you are. Brilliant, that is genuinely great news. In that case the board can continue to behave normally and we can move on.

Fantastic.

ML

Interesting that an account with circa 20 posts, exclusively focused on EEE, MATD and PHE, arrives with a level of familiarity, tone and antagonism that certainly does not resemble a genuinely new poster.

Even more interesting when there appeared to be prior references on your other account elsewhere about “coming back”.

Also, please do not have the audacity to suggest I attempt to derail or suppress meaningful discussion on this forum. Over many years I have contributed a substantial amount of factual, research based and verifiable information to this board, far more than most. People can agree or disagree with my opinions, but the posting history speaks for itself.

My light hearted comment regarding letters and abbreviations was not an attempt to “kick posts down” whatsoever. In actual fact, it was very obviously an attempt to establish the identity of the trading entity Ageos was alluding to, without him directly naming it publicly.

The reason I did it on a separate thread was specifically to avoid disrupting the original discussion, not to bury it as you rather conveniently tried to imply.

So yes, Dusty, or whatever variation you have returned under, perhaps do not come charging back in here attempting to lecture others on conduct or contribution levels. You were boxed off and dealt with before and, if required, it would not take much effort for that to happen again. One email to ADVFN and the “legend” becomes exactly that, and nothing more.

The human skidmark is back staining.

ML

Excuse me Legend?

What exactly do you mean “I arrived all blaise like it never happened”

ML

Thanks Ageos,

You can’t blame a man for asking.

Good commentary today and SB’s latest interview courtesy of Sorbz on Telegram.

https://youtu.be/1mVucCdt0C0?is=698bX1as1kkgLfTf

ML

The podcast is so good I posted the detail twice!

Topic 3 is probably most relevant being based on our initial MRE and upcoming MRE likely to have changes to resource classification and certainly confidence I.e. inferred, indicated & measured.

ML

Food!

ML