Member Info for Martinigirl

Timeisourfriend, that would be true if it was only GR selling, right now it's pi getting out

Have to say that whilst this new deal could have been much worse, it's not great. Lots of things to consider for the mid to longer term however short term I'm out. Plant out of action until "early Autumn" no product expected to be supplied before November and then at only 1000 tonnes per month. The penalties for non delivery are quite harsh and I'm not convinced that PREM will have the cash to make those payments in the event they cannot deliver. Will Canmax accept payment in PREM shares? Unlikely imho, they've been given an option for a share of Zulu which I suspect they will take given the opportunity. Interest continues to be accrued at a much higher rate.

£2 million of shares to be sold into the market. Anyone any idea how long £2 million might last?

DrPineapple, I'd like to see Canmax and PREM come to a suitable agreement and move forward in partnership, that would be the ideal situation. I think it's in both their best interests to continue working together. However PREM need to get on top of the issues at Zulu, it's all well and good blaming Stark and saying it's their issue to resolve, as the CEO of PREM George Roach has failed in his duty to effectively oversee the build and operations at Zulu. He needs to be a leader and be proactive, unfortunately all I've seen is someone who is reactive and apportions blame elsewhere when ultimately he has culpability. Can he keep Canmax on board? Can he negotiate a suitable deal with a third party? One or both of these things needs to happen as well as getting the plant operational and producing the right grades.

I'm not convinced he's the man for the job, I'd like to see him step back and take on a more advisory role and bring in a hard hitter that can negotiate for PREM.

Acker my view is that 2 separate agreements exist. A prepayment agreement which supplied funds for the plant build to be repaid through product or directly should PREM have the funds to do so or if Canmax terminate and provide 90 days notice.

Secondly an offtake agreement which affords Canmax a guaranteed 50% of any SC6 produced subject to them maintaining their 13% (ish) shareholding in PREM. This agreement also affords them first refusal on any future placing to maintain that shareholding.

If Canmax walk away from the prepayment agreement, the offtake agreement stands much in the same way as it would remain if PREM paid them back in full either directly or in spodumene

MarcusPD, that's a hilarious assertion. They managed to conduct an interview over zoom or some such medium. If they've got Internet access then they have a means of communication. In a previous interview he apologised because his phone was ringing or getting message notifications.

Acker my view is that 2 separate agreements exist. A prepayment agreement which supplied funds for the plant build to be repaid through product or directly should PREM have the funds to do so or if Canmax terminate and provide 90 days notice.

Secondly an offtake agreement which affords Canmax a guaranteed 50% of any SC6 produced subject to them maintaining their 13% (ish) shareholding in PREM. This agreement also affords them first refusal on any future placing to maintain that shareholding.

If Canmax walk away from the prepayment agreement, the offtake agreement stands much in the same way as it would remain if PREM paid them back in full either directly or in spodumene

Horult you haven't answered my question as to how the headroom can be used if no new partner comes in time.

Apparantly it's not difficult to understand, please explain it to me as I must be a bit thick

Canmax have first refusal in any future fundraise so as not to dilute their percentage holding under the offtake agreement

Horult uou clearly stated

But if that deal is not signed in time he needs to use the headroom instead It's not exactly a difficult thing to understand. All the genuine long term investors here understand it.

I'm having difficulty understanding could you please explain to me how the headroom is used instead?

Sorry Horult, maybe I'm being a bit thick here. If a new partner doesn't arrive in time or a deal cannot be struck, how can the 5 billion headroom be used to pay off Canmax?

If PREM raise the full headroom at 0.4 that equates to £20 million before expenses or roughly $26 million (give or take). This falls significantly short of the Canmax investment without the interest payable up until force majeure was declared.

Horult I thought there was going to be a new partner that would pay off Canmax. A placing for 5 billion shares at current price won't raise anywhere near enough to pay back Canmax.

Thanks for your thoughts Acker, I think the force majeure might only apply to the supply requirements of the contract and the requirement to offer canmax first refusal on any future placing remains. I guess we will find out at some point in the future.

Gazza 5 billion shares at today's close is just under £22 million but I imagine there will be a discount som maybe something between £15 and £20 million is the maximum that can be raised it's unlikely to be at a premium to the current share price. What's likely to help is the progress with the plant modifications and essentially any production numbers

I'm assuming that Canmax will want to maintain their position with the offtake agreement. They may choose not to but if they're determined to play that hard ball game then the cost of another 3 billion shares at the placing price could be a worthwhile investment.

I'd have to disagree there, hhe 8th March RNS states that Canmax have a right of participation in any future funding so as to maintain Suzhou TA&A's shareholding of 13.38 per cent in Premier at all times.

"Any future funding" being the relevant clause here

If its a yes vote for the disapplication of preemptive rights then George can raise via the markets up to the maximum amount of shares he is allowed through the headroom.

Canmax will have first right of refusal in order to maintain their % for the offtake agreement. Any additional shares are then available for a 3rd party (parties) to buy. If he is looking at a new party to invest and then pay off Canmax, they have around 3 billion shares so would the additional 2 billion shares make it worthwhile for a 3rd party who could then be eligible for the other 50% of offtake? Seems like a pretty naff deal if Canmax take up their allocation or am I misunderstanding something here?

I'm fairly sure pretty much everyone is unhappy with the current share price. At present level most are sitting on a paper loss, some at break even and only those that invested early doors will be sitting on a profit.

ALGW is in name and nature a growth company and has grown significantly in the last couple of years and for whatever reason the wider market hasn't recognised their achievements. Perhaps the move towards a more traditional insurance type company rather than focussing on the uncorrelated SLS funds is the reason. However the SLS element is key to the insurance side of the business so they go hand in hand.

The lack of a proper business update is disappointing and I'm glad this was made clear to the board at the AGM, hopefully they'll take it on board and strive to provide these updates on a regular basis.

They're clearly focussed on the business and achieving the 2B plan ahead of schedule which is great but only good if we can better understand the revenues from each of those individual parts of the business. To that end I've asked for a detailed breakdown which I hope they will provide but I'm not confident. Going forward we are well positioned to make big inroads into the $2bn AUM target and those inroads can be without additional dilution which I think was a concern. I'm also pleased to hear that GS isn't relying on the exercise of warrants and to that end I'm kind of hoping that the SP remains below the 3p exercise price until the warrants expire.

In summary I'm happy with the progress and both disappointed and happy with the SP, if it stays below 3p it's unlikely warrants will be exercised if it goes above 3p and warrants are exercised then that's great too as it gives the company cash to use.

I agree with cszjrh01 on timelines and I have my own ideas on projected SP at various stages all of which are significantly higher than where we are now.

Last day in NZ today, flight to LA tomorrow and back to blighty on Friday been a fun filled bucket list few months but looking forward to getting home and back on the boat.

Delboy, it's good that you manage your risk by keeping up to date with RNS etc. You also need to consider what you're not being told (but should be made aware of) that perhaps could influence your decision to buy or sell.

Going back to the stockbox interview that you also say you rely on for information, about 12 minutes in GR is asked about production and states that he doesn't have the analytical results (grades) but is "expecting them at any moment"

I'd suggest that having made that statement he is now in possession of that information and has been for at least a week. Why then is he not releasing that information to shareholders?

The onsite lab should have been up and running a couple or more weeks ago yet no confirmation, not even a rampy twitter post confirming it's operational and analysing "product"

What GR isn't telling shareholders is very telling and is a big red flag as far as I'm concerned.

Good Morning all,

If anyone here is attending the AGM I would very much appreciate a comprehensive update on what was said by Gobind and Jason (if he's there) along with your thoughts and feelings of their reactions to what I hope will be some difficult questions.

Greetings from Aukland, our worldwide journey comes to an end in 3 weeks so I won't be able to attend the AGM this year but will make sure I'm around next June to meet and greet some fellow shareholders.

I've voted on the resolutions and have voted against 1, withheld on 1 and in favour of the remaining motions.

I've voted against the remuneration report. As much as I think the company have achieved over the last year (which isn't reflected in the share price) I don't believe they've done enough to warrant the options that have been awarded. This motion is advisory and my vote will have no effect other than to show my disapproval and perhaps cause the committee (of one) to reconsider and do the right thing. I would urge other shareholders to also consider their position on this.

I've withheld my vote on the ability to issue further shares in the future. I think it's important that the company has the ability to issue shares for any future acquisitions and I trust that they will keep their word and use dilutive issues as and ONLY when necessary.

Everything else is good as far as I'm concerned, with a few issues but on balance of probabilities I'm happy

Bamb, why is funding a concern? Company is making money, BOAGF is performing well (on target to achieve returns that will trigger the hurdle payment again), insurance side of the business we have been told is generating a lot of leads, granted not all of those leads will turn into actual policies but some will.

If you're concern is funding for new acquisitions then they find themselves with a number of options.

Firstly there's the 3p warrants which may be exercised by those warrant holders, those warrants if memory serves are worth around £5 million.

Secondly the company now has significant assets which can be leveraged to raise funds to acquire other assets at a discount which can then be leveraged etc.

Finally there's the option to go to the market and raise funds. However the company have made it clear that this is not what they want to do. They're cognitive shareholder dilution and have openly stated that a raise would only be done if absolutely necessary for a particular accretive acquisition.