Member Info for masplin

I do like this guy but seems 2 major flaws in his detailed research

1. He is using 2019 costs to say all mines are now profitable. According to AI metals mining costs are up 30-50% since then. On that basis 75% of mines are profitable

2. it doesn't seem that he has included any restart data in his demand calculation. again according to AI it is 15% of 2024 capacity. so thats another 25-30mio lb of demand.

These seem really obvious flaws in his analysis.

The question seems to be that even on his calculations there is a short fall in 2027/28 where does it come from. If no reactor can run out of fuel then there is no price too high to pay for the marginal lb. Unless it can be supplied from secondary supply which is unclear in his presentation.

Broadly speaking think his post 2030 point is valid, but if people start signing contracts into the next decade at high enough prices to incentivize new mine exploration ($150+?) the near term price will react to that.

They said it was on the Aquis exchange which actually it isnt so having a row with them now.

Any insight into the new more aggressive buy back now around 10% discount and in £750,000 daily clips? I have had to sell all of my holding as IG index are not going to be supporting the exchange this is quoted on so been good timing. Just seen no announcement so assume someone has shaken up the board as per letter below?

Any clues the 1.5mio shares transacted at 64 yesterday?

And they managed to buy 100,000lb of spot which is a first

Sounds like maybe more just been poached by someone who wants to get in on the trend. Sort of thing that happens near the end of the move!!!!!

Anyone heard anything about the manager resiggnations? Seems odd timing when all theirs funds have had blistering year. Did they get their bonuses and do a runner?

Amazing how much stuff comes out of the Gulf I wasnt aware of. Probably applies to many metals. no idea if KAZ gets acid form the gulf, but wont be helping their production challenges. Hoping for another trip to £6 ($80) to go round again.

Interesting, but not sure its useful

firstly their spot price is based purely off Sprott which makes no sense as the ETF can easily trade 10% away from the physical price as physical price is only in 100,000lb . They even says 95% accuracy so that means 5% out!!!

their top bullish theses is US buying for strategic reserve but pretty sure that hasnt happened for decades.

they have an incentive price of $60-70 so that basis here is no deficit as people will be opening new mines at hell of a pace. no idea where they get that number from as seems to be out of line with most people view that $100+ is required to solve the problem

however nice to have another source of info even if needs to be taken with a pinch of salt

Thanks

On this I agree that assuming you exercise you option in full the NAV that is relevant as a holder is the full unadjusted NAV. I dont understand why Morning star quote the diluted NAV as doesnt make sense. The only risk is if they have some odd restrictions, as happened with GPM, where we all got scaled back because they were allowed to issue all the shares exercised and then sold them in the market. Des anyone know if everyone exercised can GCL actually issue 20% of their share capital to existing investors?

This is what happened with GPM

"The Board of the Company is pleased to announce that applications have been received from shareholders to subscribe for 13,895,182 new ordinary shares of no par value ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 48p per share.

As previously announced, as there is a cap of Euro 8 million on the value of Ordinary Shares that can be issued at the subscription price, each successful applicant has had the number of shares they have applied for scaled back to78.21 per cent of the number applied for (the "Scaling-back Ratio"). A total of 10,867,374 Ordinary Shares will therefore be issued to the successful applicants on the basis of 0.7821 new Ordinary Share for every five existing Ordinary Shares registered in the name of the successful applicants on the record date, 10 November 2025."

Managed to raise an extra $35mio. So in theory they could buy an extra 500,000lb. Given their miserable failure to buy any last Sep25 after the issue at $75 I'm not holding my breath

Actually much lower. Based off Numerco $86.85

2 81.75

5 82.00

6 82.00

7 82.00

8 82.00

9 82.00

12 83.00

13 83.00

14 83.25

15 83.50

16 85.00

19 85.00

20 85.00

21 85.38

22 86.00

23 86.25

26 88.75

27 89.50

28 92.38

29 100.00

30 101.50

31 101.50

86.85

So does this mean they issue shares around that rate and ycap price gets smashed?

Ah I wondered if it was something to do with the start of the contract. So today the price should be struck and guess its somewhere in low 90s? Anyone actually know the daily average so far? Might explain the sell off this morning. Sprott closed at $99.20 effective and yca $95.70 today 3.3% below which is first time in weeks. Good old institutions get to buy shares at a massive discount I bet and immediately sell them.

Does anyone have any idea why YCA have not exercised their option yet. Seems extremely odd? Could they be trying to raise more?

I've sold 100% of my yca as trading $102 equiv. Will buy sprott on open. Move in USD have cut 12p off NAV. Compeltely out of control. just buy miners if 102 is real price

Perfect thanks for the explanation. Very irritating structure!!!

So I understand the cap , but where do the 4mio shares come from that they sold. These must have been newly issues as well, so surely the subscription shares plus the ones sold come to more than €8mio . I cant understand how they can issue shares to sell in the market rather than issue them to us. Must be some odd thing where issuing them to us is one rule and selling them to market is another. As you say means the value I had attributed to the subscription was incorrect.

Thanks for info

Can someone explain the mechanism that resulted in my subscribtion being scaled back and then them having 4mio shares to sell? Thry should obly have sharss to sell if undersubscribed then we wouldnt have been scaled back. Thanks for any clarity.

Very good summary

Thanks