Member Info for Mumbles2021

The recent action has given everyone an opportunity to buy in to probably the most viable and undervalued critical mineral project any where on any bourse at stupidly low price. Prior to a substantial rerate, as risk to reward potentials go, there is none better, IF YOU HAVE DONE THE WORK YOU WOULD KNOW THAT!!!

I did not know Paul Atherley before buying Pensana shares. As with any serious investment, I did the work: attended meetings and AGMs, reviewed what was in the public domain, and formed my own view. It hasn’t all been easy.

Through that process I’ve come to know the board and PA. I’ve not come across a more compliant or straight group of people. Yes, I’ve met PA personally, as any substantial shareholder does, but he is extremely guarded on what he can and cannot say and fully respects market-disclosure and insider-trading rules. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn’t understand how this works.

The recent capital activity also makes sense if you think beyond the daily SP. They have one remaining committee step before EXIM board approval. Ahead of that, the company is strengthening the balance sheet: improving liquidity, converting debt to equity, and reinforcing financial resilience. This is exactly what ECAs look for.

Add the proposed $100m equity participation (with formal documentation) and the picture is clear: this is about presenting a robust, investable structure, not managing short-term price action.

On the resource side, the drilling is not about discovery. The company already understands the likely scale of Longonjo; this is about certifying it. Longonjo already works commercially — certification toward a billion-tonne-scale resource materially strengthens the project’s strategic position.

This is limited short-term shareholder pain ahead of potentially very significant shareholder gain.

If you want to contribute, do the work.

If not, get a life and stop polluting the board.

The price may seem a little unpalatable to you, but where does injecting £6 million on to the balance sheet add "NO VALUE" sat at 90p but not doing anything adds no value to the company only to the individual shareholder.... and i in the same boat as you, assuming you are a holder

These guys are leveraging on that deal, not the other way around

Admittedly it doesnt look good, but if they were compelled to sell down because at £1.50 there share volume and consequent value exceed internal value obligor limits, but now the price has dropped. they are no longer overweight and have bought back in. At least this way, they have liquidated a lot of the capital gain from SP increase and then reinfected it back into the companies balance sheet, where it does more benefit. i also have some issues with the price and they way it affects my current holdings in the short term, compared to the 100 million strategic which can be fully justified. but it is short term..... before value multiplication event occurs

Ask him yourself

The invitation is till there, why don’t you have lunch and ask him…. PA only want to know what you Beef with him is…. An maybe alleviate your concerns or correct your perceptions. And if you are wondering how i know, it’s because he told me!!!! That and he likes a lunch. Both yourself and smart punter are avoiding direct discussions with the targets of your vitriol. Ie PA and myself. In both cases, we just want to understand where and why you are arrived at your respective positions. And get cracking good lunch out of it as well..

Fregatr.....you may be right

Trying to work out when i unfiltered you SP.......never mind easily remedied....... un, deux, tres, and poof........ hes gone!!!!!!!

Yes, really.......

Absolutely true China, Theo has an open invitation to lunch with Paul Atherley. But for some reason won’t take him up on the offer

There's a hell of a lot of questions to answer their, and im not sure i have the stamina to carry on any more with this. needless to say,, this year the land scape has changed dramatically. form March when financing was announced to present, the potential structure has changed, very much in the shareholders favour. take the EXIM facilty, it isnt a loan, it is a guarantee that sits on top of the 160 million debt facilty, Due ot this, loan becomes totally non recourse and all the CPs fall away, meaning no longterm offtake guarratess are needed. ABSA export credit guarantee isnt need, the intrest rate cane almost 10% less, and the 50 million that sat onto of the 217 million CAPEX, that consisted of arrangement fees and reserved intrest isnt required. But it is also re-iterated, that all the existing arrangements are still in place, until advised otherwise. Saltend was always Pensana Priorty, but Saltend wasnt the UK government and capital markets priority. with all the unseen events including a priminiters responsible for killing the bond market. Would the board be looking after the shareholders best intrest if they didnt change strategy when it became evident that the UK and Europe dont have stomach for this eprojects...... and still dont. lots of strategy papers (UK has had 3 in 4 years), but no policy. Consequently, the pivot to the US

Of course it does, so as it hasn't been made you have to assume that they stake will not exceed 30%... re FSDEA they still have a 15 million USD loan to either cover or be maintained as a loan, should it be converted, their shareholding will increase to 28% of 400 million.... demo 25% of 300 million

Novice157, a bit black and white, but not wrong.

Re the strategic investment and perceived dilution

Bottom line: existing shareholders now own 75% of a materially stronger company, with $100m of real cash added to the balance sheet.

Anyone who still wants to argue dilution should take the time to understand capital formation. Further explanation is on my blog.

Question to Novice157. Does the no credibility part apply to the CEO of every miner in development or just PA. Considering the progress made. Also PA is the only the chairman, does that apply to the whole of the executive team. The CEO, the DD, the COO, the CCO etc…..

@KEITHKARL you once complained it was difficult to log into LinkedIn. I would like to thank you for that statement. Consequently i have curated all my essays into an easy access Blog site, if you are still interested, a more comprehensive explanation of my position can be found in www.thebrownpaper.net

Theorist, the share price at completion is irrelevant.

The deal is based on a fixed $400m valuation, agreed when discussions concluded.

That figure was taken directly from the market value at the time, which put Pensana at roughly £300m / $400m. It reflected the fair market valuation when the agreement was reached.

So:

• If the share price is 60p:

The investor still puts in $100m and receives 25%.

• If the share price is 120p:

Exactly the same. The terms do not move with the market.

Pensana has also passed every major DD thrown at it — ABSA, AFC, FSDEA, Angolan regulators, EcoVadis, the MSP-linked U.S. process, and the first phase of EXIM’s $160m facility. There is nothing to suggest a different outcome this time.

For anyone wanting the broader context, The Brown Paper (thebrownpaper.net) is a straightforward set of essays explaining the rare earth market, project valuation mechanics, and why institutions continue to back Pensana.

Tbow, my posts are not directed at you any more...... you dont want to understand, as it doesnt suit your narrative. i cant put it any simpler than i have

MAA86, because no institutional or strategic investor wanted to pay a price that was based on speculative valuation driven by retail investors,

For anyone genuinely trying to understand what has taken place here — and this isn’t aimed at the deliberate detractors — the mechanics are actually very simple.

The company had a market valuation of about $400 million. That figure was nothing more complicated than the prevailing share price multiplied by the 300 million shares in issue. It reflected the development work completed, the project’s fundamentals, and the market’s sentiment at the time. But, as with any listed business, that valuation existed only as an implied number. It could not be accessed or reinvested. It was simply what the market believed the company was worth.

To turn part of that valuation into real funding, the company agreed to sell 25% of its equity for $100 million. This was not a discounted deal. The buyer paid exactly the value that the market had already assigned to the company. If the market valued the whole business at $400 million, then 25% of it is worth $100 million. The buyer paid that amount. Nothing was marked down.

After the transaction, the overall value of the company did not shrink or fall away. What changed was the form in which that value was held. Before the investment, all $400 million of value existed as an intangible market valuation. After the investment, three quarters of that valuation remained, and one quarter became cash held by the company. It moved from being entirely intangible to being a mixture of intangible value and liquid capital. No value was lost; part of it simply became usable.

The use of proceeds is important. The company has already stated that a portion of the funds is allocated to the heavy rare earth recovery circuit, which its own published assessments associate with a significant uplift in project NPV. That is why converting part of the valuation into cash is meaningful: it enables development that wasn’t possible when the valuation existed only on paper.

So for clarity: the buyer received no discount, and no shareholder lost any of the company’s underlying value. What existed solely as market-implied worth has been partially converted into funding that can actually be deployed.

This explanation is for those who genuinely want to understand the structure of the transaction, not for those committed to misunderstanding it.