Member Info for Muck165

As far as I’m aware Alpha and Mercuria are the only secured creditors.

The accounts show the following owing to them;

2023 - Mercuria $3,546,600. Alpha $4,665,643

2024 - Mercuria $3,922,939. Alpha $5,573,699

2025 - Mercuria $4,374,673. Alpha $6,001,205

So over these years the Mercuria debt rose by $828k and the Alpha debt by $1.335m - a total of $2.1635m

I can only assume that increase represents extension costs (if added to the loans), or unpaid interest.

Certainly we have just repaid $1m of the total (from a capital raise), but I can’t see how it’s right to say we’ve been servicing the interest unless the entire $2.1635m represents extension costs.

I don’t doubt that what’s left to sell is better than the majority of what’s been sold.

Am I confident it will average at $1084 or above? - I’d say I’m very much 50/50.

The lack of clarity and the poor maths/wording in the recent RNS, combined with AP’s history of spin and, dare I say, porkie pies, just doesn’t give me anywhere near full confidence.

And then of course there is the big question of when they will be sold and whether we can keep creditors sweet until then. I certainly don’t think they’ll be sold by December 31st and, unless I’m mistaken, Vast won’t be able to raise beforehand unless the SP rises significantly (because they’re running out of time to call a vote to consolidate).

I for one will be hugely sceptical of any RNS between now and then that sounds like great news. Spin. Pump. Raise.

The 18/11 Q&A RNS said 12,591 carats of “HIGHER QUALITY GEM ” was going to tender

The RNS this morning admitted that, in truth, this number of so-called higher quality gems included 8,211 of “rejection high stones”, 695 carats of “cleavage stones”, and 718 carats of “low quality gems stones”.

Now, to be kind, “higher” quality is not the same thing as “high quality” - it just means better than other stuff. But I bet that’s not how many on here would have read it, including me. Some might say it was misleading, and potentially by design.

So what’s left to sell? In this evenings RNS we are simply told that what remains to be sold is “gem quality”.

So what does that mean? Remember, the “higher quality gems” we were told was originally going to tender turned out to be little better than board/industrial. So how do we know that what’s left is HIGH quality, and not just “higher quality”.

We don’t. We can hope. All we know is that AP reckons the remainder will benefit from further beneficiation and represent the most value to Vast, all of which implies they’re good stones.

But if they are high (not higher) quality gems, then it would have been great if AP could have said as much in this evenings RNS.

Just knowing they’re “gem quality” doesn’t instil me with confidence give the tender updates we’ve had.

Any thoughts on this….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQa1JGi3Y0

Liked this bit…

“ Recycling will be a major pillar to make up for the dearth of existing European mines and long development time for new production to come online.

"You need input materials for recycling. All options are on the table in terms of trade measures," the senior EU official with knowledge of the package said.”

Another consideration is that Taj is sandwiched between China and Russia and has strong military/financial dependencies on both. If the US goal is to shore up critical mineral supply chains to defend future economic aggression from its enemies (China/Russia), I’m not sure Taj would be the first pick as the most reliable partner.

Very true.

But we also know the remainder didn’t sell - people weren’t prepared to pay the price vast wanted.

On that we agree.

But there is no getting around the fact that AP has manipulated the numbers. The reality, as far as I can see, if that we sold nearer 9,820 of what AP had described as higher grade gems in the 18/11 RNS. If he’d used that number, instead of 216.97, in yesterday’s RNS, then I have no doubt the average higher grade carat price he quoted would have been very substantially lower.

And let’s face it, the biggest reason people remain confident here is precisely that average.

No I am not Amy.

There were 8461.97 of the total parcel that did not go to tender.

The numbers I’ve quoted below ONLY deal with those we were told we’re going to tender. And the numbers, at least by grade category, do not add up.

As it stands, we have (or at least should have) a total of 11427.65 yet to be sold, and all supposed to be of higher grade.

Sorry, but there has been some numbers manipulation by Vast.

On 18/11 we were told the following was going to tender

Higher quality Gem at Tender: 12,591.77-

Lower quality gem: 63,091.75-

Industrial 50,993.98

So, there were supposed to be 12,591.77 of higher grade gems, and 114,085.55 of low grade/industrial being sold.

Yesterday however, we were told that 123,711.8 carats of low grade/industrial had been sold. That’s 9,626.2t more than we were told we were selling.

Put another way, we were told that we sold 216.97 of higher quality diamonds, and that the balance unsold remaining after the sale was 2965.68 carats of higher quality carats. That totals 3182.65 high quality gems in the sale, being substantially less than the 12,591 we were told.

The ONLY explanation is that, for the purposes of yesterday’s RNS, AP has recategorised some of what he’d previously described as higher grade gems as lower/grade industrial. Moving c9600 from one category to the other will, at least in my view, have served to inflate both average sales prices you prices cited in yesterdays RNS.

He’s cherry picked only the very best stones sold to give the $1084 higher grade average.

Now, that’s not to say all the remaining stones won’t achieve that. They are, after all, ones which AP thinks will benefit from further beneficiation.

But the constant flip flop doesn’t engender confidence in anything AP tells us.

China looking to work with Taj too

https://www.globalleadersinsights.com/news/china-to-deepen-trade-and-investment-partnership-with-tajikistan-nwid-1232.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Thanks for posting all this excellent research guys - hugely appreciated.

Im sorry, but AP can’t say in RNS a few days ago that Vast are tending c114k carats of industrial and lower quality gem quality gems, and then tell us today that you’ve sold c123k carats in those categories.

The only way this maths works is if you’ve shifted c8400 carats from “higher grade gems” into lower grade gems.

If they hadn’t then Vast would be telling us they’d sold nearer 8600 carats of higher grade gems at a much lower average per carat than they’ve cited.

Anyone?

This makes no sense, unless some of the stones we were told were higher grade gems weren’t.

The Q&A RNS said we were tendering

Higher quality Gem at Tender: 12,591.77-

Lower quality gem: 63,091.75-

Industrial 50,993.98-

So we had a total of c 114,085 of industrial and lower quality gem being tendered, yet today we are told we sold 123,711.8 carats of the low-grade gem and industrial stones.

How can we sell more than we were tendering in these categories?

Perhaps the saving grace is the price per carat of the higher grade gems that were sold.

Given it’s only these we have left, future sales might yield far better results.

That’s if they can be sold at those values - seems to me Vast set a reserve on those tendered that may have been too high given the small number that sold.

I think the real point @ifiknew is that the whole process is digital (to be expected I suppose)

So barring tying up anomalies like any tied bids, I’d be very surprised if AP doesn’t know by now what has been sold and at what prices.

For anyone interested, the TAGS tender process is well explained in their T&C’s

https://www.transatlanticgemsales.com/terms-and-conditions?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I can’t see any reaction to this news from MKA, Dawes or Hypromag (apart from the quote in the govt press briefing).

That seems odd to me given how it places us front and centre.

Maybe reaction will come via RNS tomorrow? Who knows, maybe they’re holding off in their reaction this weekend because they have more to tell the market about just how well aligned to govt policy we are.

Heavy leaning towards “ramping up recycling” in the policy.