Member Info for MF2017

5. Final Stretch: The “Small” $5–10M

Harry mentioned KEFI still needs $5–10M at PLC level — yes, likely from us PIs.

That’s

What KEFI Has Actually Delivered (And It’s More Than We Think)

Now, let’s look at what KEFI has specifically delivered — not in headlines, but in real terms:

1. TK (Tulu Kapi) – Ethiopia

9-party syndicate for $320M is locked and frozen — names disclosed, contributions outlined.

Roads, grid power and pre-construction planning are complete or underway.

Security clearance now granted after years of regional volatility.

KEFI didn’t just find a mine — it helped push a nation to enable its financing.

2. Saudi Arabia (GMCO)

Multiple licenses now fully structured via GMCO JV with key local partners.

New JORC resources declared — incl. Hawiah (copper-zinc-gold-silver) and Al Godeyer.

Decision pending on whether to sell or retain KEFI’s 15% — not ignored, just not finalised.

3. Exploration

Saudi exploration accelerating (JORC resources, feasibility stage).

Ethiopia exploration deprioritized due to focus on TK, but licenses still held.

4. KEFI's Fingerprints on Systemic Change

Ethiopia has never had a multi-party syndicated mining project like this.

KEFI has helped shape gold export rules, project finance law, and capital repatriation systems.

If anyone can verify KEFI’s direct input on these reforms, I’d love to see it. But even Harry’s allusions suggest the team played a major role.

5. Final Stretch: The “Small” $5–10M

Harry mentioned KEFI still needs $5–10M at PLC level — yes, likely from us PIs.

That’s

Context Matters — Let’s Zoom Out Before Zooming In

Bonkers, an incredibly fair post to make — and I’ll be honest, at times over the last year I’ve felt exactly as you do. So I’m responding here factually and without emotion, as you asked. And I want to say: I really value your posts. They’re not personal attacks — they’re well-framed, tough questions. We need that.

But first, let’s zoom out.

KEFI is not trying to permit or build a mine in Cornwall or Queensland. It’s doing it in a frontier market that only recently emerged from civil unrest, in a country with no modern precedent for syndicated project finance, no robust gold export framework, and limited capacity in institutional banking.

Now add COVID, currency restrictions, and conflict on top of that — and KEFI is still standing. In fact, it’s the first ever LSE-listed company to assemble a $320M+ syndicate to develop a gold mine in Ethiopia, fully structured, named, and awaiting final sign-off.

> That’s not business as usual. That’s unheard-of.

So while the delays are frustrating (and I feel that too), when Harry says: “You can’t sell your house in a month,” he’s not just reaching for an excuse. The combination of jurisdiction, partner layers, government coordination, and legacy system reforms makes this one of the most complex AIM investments going.

And it’s worth reminding ourselves: This is a gold mine. It needs to be built. Ore needs to be extracted. These aren’t ‘just’ RNSs — they’re steps towards production.

Harry gave clear explanations yesterday around the timeline shifts — and for me, they were fair. While we wait for signing, it’s worth stepping back and reflecting on what this team has achieved. Over the past five years, we’ve seen COVID, civil unrest, and financing complexity in a frontier market. This was never a short-term trade. It’s a mine. That means building real infrastructure, moving rock, delivering ounces — and yes, that takes time. I thought Harry did well to remind us of that. This is not a SPAC or a turnaround play — it’s a serious, long-haul, high-reward investment.

Harry and the team deserve credit for getting this far — coordinating syndicates, navigating Ethiopia’s challenges, and sticking it out. If anything, I’d love to see a future webinar that clearly re-establishes the KEFI investment case: what’s been achieved, what hurdles were overcome, and what comes next. That’s how we reset confidence. So to fellow long-term holders — maybe now’s the time to fill this board with recognition for what’s actually been pulled off. Can anyone do that?

— MF2017

I just wanted to share a few reflections after today’s session.

First off, I was really pleased to hear Harry’s strong focus on “getting this done.” His frustration with distractions was palpable — and rightly so. I’d like to congratulate him on the sheer grit and determination it’s taken to get KEFI to this point. It’s clear this hasn’t been easy, and his commitment has kept the lights on when others might have walked away.

On the topic of Harry’s remuneration, I think he made some very fair points. It doesn’t appear excessive, certainly not when compared with CEOs across AIM-listed companies. And frankly, given what he’s navigated to get this far — across jurisdictions, stakeholders, and financing — it deserves recognition, not knee-jerk critique.

He also made a great analogy about how you can't sell your house in less than a month — and applied that to the realistic timelines for financial signing and execution. It’s a helpful reminder.

I appreciated Harry’s sincere attempt to engage with questions, but I did pick up on some underlying frustration — calling one question “all over the place,” for instance. That’s understandable to a point. But I think what’s needed is a reminder: we’re all doing our best to make informed decisions, not trying to trip anyone up. Sincere, patient answers help immensely. And as Harry himself said, humility in communication goes a long way — not in dismissing his achievements (which are many), but in recognising the shoes private investors are walking in.

On the Saudi asset, I felt the matter still wasn’t fully clarified. There’s no definitive timeline yet for deciding whether to retain or sell KEFI’s 15% stake in GMCO. Harry shared that the partner in Saudi even questioned why KEFI’s funding requirement (roughly $5–10 million) was so small, given the potential scale of the asset — and that’s telling. But that $5–10 million is still a meaningful figure for us PIs, especially if the funding comes via dilution. The key point: what feels “minor” from a strategic or institutional view can still feel very significant to individual shareholders. And until TKGM is up and running, every funding ask matters.

That said, it’s good for us private investors to be reminded — as Harry did — that this is potentially a billion-dollar project, and KEFI could become a billion-dollar company. That scale is easy to lose sight of when we’re zoomed in on day-to-day RNSs and dilution anxieties.

Lastly, I really valued the transparency throughout the Q&A — the slides, the answers, and the tone (on the whole). As a long-term investor, I make my decisions based on evidence, facts, and clarity. So to Harry and the team: please keep that transparency coming. And do take a moment to pat yourselves on the back. We’re almost there — and it shows.

Looking forward to the next phase.

— MF2017

From my perspective, the shift from July to August isn't a red flag in itself. If anything, it might be the Board giving themselves breathing room—setting a more realistic public timeline, possibly still aiming to land signing in July and surprise the market early. That would be a smart move, and I’m open to that more optimistic reading.

But the concern for me isn’t just the slippage—it's the validity of certifications. If we’re still waiting on final approvals, who exactly in the syndicate is holding us up? And what happens if those certifications expire again, forcing reapproval? That’s when a 4-week delay becomes a 6–9 month headache.

I think the market reaction today is more about disappointment than disaster. No new news isn't bad news, but it’s also not what the market wanted. As someone else put it nicely earlier: The market wasn’t expecting fireworks, but it was hoping for a decisive movement. Today’s presentation gave neither.

For me, the goal isn't a one-day rerate. It’s a producing mine. So I'm focused less on the August signing date and more on whether we’re still genuinely on track for first gold in 2027. That’s the benchmark that matters most to me.

Until signing is done, we are where we are. Every delay—however minor—amplifies the risk of dilution, and that remains my biggest concern as a PI.

— MF2017

Hi all,

I've just had time to go through the new presentation deck ahead of today's webinar and I have to say—there are some clear improvements.

For example, NAV is now disclosed, and that’s something I and others had raised concerns about previously. A couple of other welcomed additions:

The TK GMCO ownership structure is now clearly visualised.

There’s more clarity around project timelines and sequencing post-financing (even if we may still want more depth).

There’s a high-level Saudi JV schematic that at least offers a little more visibility on relationships.

That said, I’d prefer the webinar not to be just a scripted read-through of the slide deck. That would be a wasted opportunity. We need something more than a narrated PowerPoint—we need leadership candour and substance that builds confidence.

However, my disappointment is this:

The presentation has only been made available on the morning of the webinar, and unfortunately the question submission window is now closed. That’s frustrating, especially when we now have enough substance to ask deeper, more specific questions.

Had this been shared even at the start of the week, I think the market—and us as PIs—would have had time to digest the new info and submit better, more meaningful questions.

I’d prefer the webinar not to be just a scripted read-through of the slide deck. That would be a wasted opportunity. It’s our chance to press for clarity, not just listen to headlines.

As things stand, I still have five key unanswered questions, even after reviewing the updated deck:

1. Why are standard financial metrics like IRR and project payback period still missing from the presentation deck?

These are standard benchmarks investors use to evaluate project returns and risks.

2. What is KEFI’s timeline and decision-making plan regarding its 15% GMCO stake in Saudi Arabia?

Are we aiming to sell part of it, or retain it long-term? There's been mixed messaging over the past few months.

3. Will the required $5M equity contribution for the Saudi JV come from internal funds or a new raise?

Some language in recent communications has shifted from a firm “no more raises” to “other sources may be used.”

4. How does KEFI plan to rebuild trust with the market and long-term PIs given the persistent pattern of slippage and missed timelines?

We're clearly still seeing a credibility discount in the share price.

5. What’s KEFI’s plan to finally gain meaningful institutional support?

And does the board believe historic CEO criticism is a factor? What are they doing to address those concerns?

Would welcome any thoughts from the board on these. As ever, hoping today’s webinar rises to the occasion and tackles these questions head-on.

– MF2017

Yippee

Please elaborate MrPlumper

FYI.. fir my 18th birthday.. my friends bought me my first and only dity mag called 'Plummpers'.

Not my thing at all. Let's see if you're similar.

Hi Stringer,

I hear your concerns, and I share the frustration around dilution — but I’d like to offer a different take, especially on the suggestion of replacing Harry as CEO.

As has been said before, KEFI has been in an entrepreneurial phase for years just to survive and get to this point. I think that’s now shifting. Both Stebo’s analysis and the recent Q&A updates from KEFI have made it clear that once the syndicate is contractually bound to the same timeline, KEFI enters a different gear operationally. That gives the management team — and Harry — a structure within which they can finally deliver to a fixed schedule, rather than constantly chasing alignment across moving parts.

As an investor myself, that’s what I’m looking to see in Friday’s webinar and at the AGM: What are the concrete plans that show KEFI is moving from entrepreneurial story-building to operational execution? If that plan is clear and credible, then I believe there’s a strong case for Harry to remain and see it through.

A broader question to everyone: What do we think would actually happen to the share price with a change of CEO? Not just a short-term bounce, but long-term impact — over the next 12–24 months. That kind of thinking can feel like a trader’s mindset — chasing sentiment shifts. I’m more focused on whether our current CEO is best placed to get us to gold pour. And given how far Harry has brought KEFI, how well he understands the Ethiopian landscape, and how he’s secured this complex syndicate, surely now is exactly when that continuity becomes an asset, not a liability.

We also need to judge Harry on his strategy for Saudi Arabia. It’s still unclear whether KEFI intends to retain, monetise, or dilute its position in GMCO. And as Stebo pointed out, there's even the idea of KEFI being bought out. If that’s on the table, then surely shareholders deserve transparency. Is Harry prepared to openly state whether the board would entertain a serious buyout offer?

And lastly — a genuine question for those calling for change: who would replace him? Who has the experience, credibility, and stakeholder alignment to take over mid-transition?

There’s been noise from TW (Tom Winnifrith) and others who’ve shifted tone frequently — from “strong buy” to deeply critical. I’m cautious about giving too much weight to that. What matters now is whether KEFI can operate like a development-stage miner, not an exploration outfit.

For me, the test of Harry’s leadership starts now — not ends now. Let’s judge him on what happens between now and first gold. That’s what matters most for long-term value creation.

Here’s a reply you can post directly to Stebo on the LSE bulletin board — plain text,

Hi Stebo,

Fantastically informative posts as usual — thanks for taking the time to lay out your reasoning.

What I’m really curious about is: how do you arrive at these ideas? Where are you pulling this from? I try to stay across all the available materials — RNS, Q&A, investor decks, annual reports — but I honestly couldn’t find some of the points you’ve raised stated that clearly.

If what you’ve written reflects the internal thinking or timeline that KEFI is working from, then it makes sense. And if that’s what we’re told during the webinar or in the next comms, it’ll help calm a lot of nerves.

But that’s part of the problem. If this really was the rationale behind the raise vs. a GMCO sale, why wasn’t it communicated more explicitly beforehand?

I don’t think many of us would have objected to a short-term raise over a rushed fire-sale of GMCO — but clarity would’ve helped manage expectations. That’s the frustration. Like you, I’m glad we’re talking about no further shareholder value erosion — but KEFI has to do a better job of saying these things clearly and early.

Appreciate your posts. Please keep them coming.

How so Doze?

I see KEFI as one of the most exciting investment opportunities currently available on the AIM market — should the opportunity be realised.

Given the current gold price environment, the macroeconomic trends toward precious metals, and the sheer scale of TK’s potential, the value proposition is obvious. As I’ve said before: KEFI is my top AIM pick because the fundamentals stack up. But execution is everything.

My concern is the leadership potential for strategic flip-flop.

Just a few months ago, there was a clear emphasis that TKGM was the primary focus — that bringing the Ethiopian project into production was the key priority. That made sense. Now, the narrative seems to be tilting again, with more emphasis on the Saudi assets.

While I recognise the potential long-term value of the Saudi asset, what matters more urgently is having an operational mine producing gold. A producing mine — especially one that can demonstrate high margins and robust cash flow — is the fastest route to sustained shareholder value and wider institutional trust.

As someone who lives in Saudi and understands the local market landscape, I do see the potential in KEFI’s JV here. But Harry would be wise to retain a manageable stake — one he can afford to develop — and keep the bulk of attention, energy, and capital focused on making TK a success.

That alone, if executed well, could be a billion-dollar venture. Secure the first win. Then build from there.

But clearly the market doesn’t feel the same way I do right now — hence the current share price. Institutions clearly aren’t backing Harry and the team with the same confidence that many of us private investors are.

Happy to hear what others think.

We are at what should be a pivotal moment for KEFI. After years of delays, Harry and the team are suggesting that July/August could finally see the sign-off and the first real shift into execution. If true, this is not just about project momentum — it’s a moment for leadership to shift gears.

Harry has often had to operate entrepreneurially in a high-risk frontier market. That deserves some credit. But if we are now entering construction and execution, then we need execution-focused leadership with more sober communication and less market-pleasing optimism. The days of sliding timelines and vague assurances must end.

Too many institutional-grade investors will simply not engage if the CEO continues to release overly optimistic projections, unsupported by clear delivery plans and transparent data. This is a credibility threshold moment.

Final Thought – I’m Not Negative, I’m Sober

I’ve sent two emails to KEFI’s info address and I’m pleased to see that some of my questions may have been addressed, either directly or indirectly, in the latest Q&A updates. I remain supportive of the company’s long-term potential. But like many others, I’ve made major personal investment decisions based on past public communications — including the idea that there would be no further equity raise at parent level, and that the Saudi asset would provide future upside, not new risk.

If things change, that’s fine — but they must be clearly stated.

I will be attending the upcoming investor presentation and hope it’s a real opportunity to restore trust and realign the company with its long-term shareholders.

Outstanding Questions I Still Need Clear Answers To

(These are based on the latest May investor deck, June Q&A, and 2024 Annual Report)

1. What’s the actual payback period forecast for the TKGM project, based on the latest modelling?

2. What are the full financial assumptions behind the 89% IRR figure (gold price, capex, opex, discount rate)?

3. What is the timeline and strategy for monetising the Saudi GMCO stake, and what dilution risk remains?

4. If signing slips beyond August, will KEFI raise again at the parent level? If so, how much and under what terms?

5. Why is KEFI not including key metrics (NPV, AISC, capex breakdown, payback) in investor decks if institutions and PIs are receiving the same information?

6. How much cash does KEFI have on hand today, and how long can it run without further drawdowns or equity?

7. Is KEFI in full operational control of the Saudi assets, or just a minority participant in a larger JV?

Looking forward to hearing what others make of these issues, especially given how crucial the next 6–10 weeks will be.

Hi all,

I wanted to highlight some important concerns — especially as KEFI has stated that information given to private investors is the same as what institutions receive. It’s not about accusing KEFI of opacity; rather, it’s disappointing that the May 2025 investor deck omits core metrics that serious capital allocators would expect to see clearly presented.

Section 1 – Metrics that should be in the investor deck

The following figures are available across RNSs, the 2024 Annual Report, and the latest Q&A, but are all missing from the May 2025 investor presentation:

Capex: approximately $320 million (2024 Annual Report; RNS May 2025)

AISC: approximately $960/oz; All-in Cost around $1,206/oz (June 2025 Q&A)

Annual gold production: ~135,000 oz/year (RNSs)

NPV at $3,000/oz gold: more than £800 million attributable to KEFI (based on 80% stake)

Payback period: still not publicly detailed

These are essential benchmarks for validating project economics and should be front and centre in any presentation claiming to target serious investment.

Section 2 – Additional red flags

The 89% IRR is mentioned repeatedly but without stating the assumptions behind it (capex, costs, timelines, gold price)

No clear breakdown of the capital structure (equity vs debt), or dilution scenarios

No published life-of-mine schedule, cash flow forecast, or gold production curve

The reported $2 million legal spend (Annual Report) has no clear explanation or breakdown

Section 3 – Saudi asset and funding risks

While KEFI has indicated more detail will be shared at upcoming meetings, several concerns remain:

KEFI holds only a 15% stake in GMCO (the Saudi JV), yet continues to refer to “its” project, without making the terms of ownership, governance, or future dilution options fully transparent

There is still no clarity on how KEFI plans to fund its future capital contributions to Saudi development — i.e. whether it will dilute further, sell a portion, or IPO the stake

The strategic value of the Saudi asset is repeatedly emphasised, yet no guidance has been provided on monetisation timeline, or potential impact on KEFI shareholders

Public communications imply KEFI is not in operational control of the Saudi JV, raising questions about its ability to drive value extraction or enforce timelines

Finally, as stated in the June 2025 Q&A, KEFI now accepts that further equity or debt may be required if closing and drawdowns are delayed — a significant shift from earlier “no further equity” assurances

Section 4 – On Stebo’s ‘we can wait’ position

Stebo makes the fair point that after signing, KEFI should be able to control timelines more directly. I accept that historically, the syndicate and government processes have slowed things down. But now, as we reach the point of certifications and signing:

KEFI must activate drawdowns quickly — the market is expecting that

It does not have the

Great points tintin.

I had overlooked that KEFI management would be looking forward to an agreed contractual environment.

Looking forward to the sign off RNS for the new phase and leadership.

There’s been a lot of discussion recently about whether KEFI can hit its target of mid-to-late 2027 for first production at Tulu Kapi. That’s the official guidance, and yes — on paper, a 30–36 month timeline from full financial close to production is achievable for a project of this type. But that assumes everything goes smoothly from the moment signing occurs.

In reality, we’re not there yet. As of now, we still haven’t had financial close or formal sign-off. This is now the fourth or fifth year we’ve been told that signing is “close,” and honestly, that phrase has lost meaning. You can find RNS statements going back to at least 2020 expressing similar confidence about “imminent closure.”

Now, I’m not here to criticise for the sake of it. I’m a long-term investor, and I fully recognise that a project of this scale, in a country like Ethiopia, requires entrepreneurial resilience. You need someone who won’t give up, who’ll keep pushing forward when most others would walk away. For that, Harry deserves real credit. Many others wouldn’t have stuck with it.

But if this latest RNS is correct, and signing really is expected around July or August, then the project enters a new phase — and with that comes the need for a different kind of leadership.

Up to now, KEFI has operated in a kind of entrepreneurial holding pattern: high risk, high uncertainty, lots of moving parts. But once construction starts, this stops being a speculative venture and becomes a multi-year infrastructure build — a real mine, not just a long-term promise.

That requires:

Clear, realistic timelines

Disciplined communication with stakeholders

And project planning that reflects institutional-grade execution, not PI-friendly optimism

Harry has spent the last decade reporting mostly to private investors, often managing sentiment. I don’t think that’s been intentionally misleading, but it has created a culture where overly optimistic forecasts and constantly shifting timelines are the norm. That can’t continue into the construction phase.

If KEFI really did spend £2 million on legal costs last year, then my question is: why not spend 10% of that on improving the clarity, quality, and consistency of company communications?

We don’t need more “talk.” We need proper project management.

Harry himself has called Tulu Kapi a “vanilla” open-pit mine — and Stebo has rightly pointed out the same. So let’s treat it as such. The construction itself isn't the complicated part. What's complicated is managing expectations and coordinating delivery.

Going forward, I’d like to see a shift from entrepreneurial leadership to execution-focused leadership. This includes accurate dates, sober timelines, and fewer narratives that feel like sentiment management.

Sticking to unrealistic timelines, given KEFI’s track record, risks becoming absurd — even gaslighting. That’s what needs to change now.

An

Thanks for the reply Setbo. Compelling and sage.

.....and the quicker we will shake the African discount sentiment... and the HAA discount. The nan gas trapped himself in a justification pattern for stalled progress.

I've shared my thoughts before on KEFI's price movement, but I think Winston's post strikes a more realistic tone—especially his point about consistency. As many have said, the fundamentals suggest a far higher valuation than the current market cap. Stebo in particular has done a great job grounding that in NAV-based logic.

But the market doesn’t just price value—it prices trust in delivery. KEFI’s biggest issue has been inconsistency. Until we start seeing consistent execution, I think we’ll see the price rise and retract in waves. Some PIs will understandably skim profits, but over time the share should drift toward its logical value as confidence grows.

If I had to crystal-ball it: I see ~1p on sign-off, followed by a pullback as PIs take profit. Then, assuming solid construction updates, maybe around 2p. First pour could push that to ~3p. And if KEFI manages a full year of delivery, no dilution, and a steady news stream—then I think we could see 7–8p as sentiment starts to reflect the fundamentals.

In the end, it’s all about consistency. The more KEFI delivers—clearly, credibly, and without surprises—the stronger the market response will be, and the quicker we will