Member Info for mv01

Typo 60m meant 75m

Rover there are are close to 300m shares but you made the point beautifully.

To get 20% you need to issue 60mil more shares.

As that is 75m/[300m + 75m]

To get 50% you need to issue 300m

As that is 300m/[300m +300m]

To get 80% you need to issue 1200m

As that is 300m/[300m +1200m]

And this is the exponential nature:

The first increase by 30% from a hypothetical increase of 30%: between 20% to 50% requires 225m more shares.

But the second increase of again another 30%: between 50% to 80%requires another 900m shares.

So to add a fixed further % of equity you need 4x more dilution.

Whomever is going to come in at best in my guess will put 300m. For pure arguments sake lets assume everyone agreed from corners (i am sure they will actually not!) to give them 80% of the mine.

So what is the price?

300m gbp divided by 1200m shares.

25p a share.

Do the same at 1p you wipe out everything and you give them 99.5%+ of the mine for their 300m

chess,

pun well intended :)

bring on the arabs, now thats fanciful!

hehehehe.

all well intended.

i live in london.

i am visiting my unwell dad in cyprus today...

letting of some steam. i am at the beach, at 44, broke my world record of visiting the beach as early as april in cyp.

it's a gorgeous 31c at larnaca bay today with mojito's flowing.

it's not just jm the snake and the ratter who yolo...

take it easy all... and bring on the arabs...

sometimes, honestly, i really don't get ****ed on how far under i am with this hzm. but i effing love the game... to bits. love the math, love the logic, love the strategy, love the play...

game on, bring on the arabs!

hah!

life's too damn short, enjoy it!

KRSS, that 3bil is 12x dilution or put differently thats the 3/4 cornerstones gaining 95% of the share.

240mil you said. New corner at 120 getting 45% of the company. Rest 3 collective putting 120mil getting 50% total.

But here is the positive catch to them:

In putting 40mil roughly each, and the price say recovering from that 8p to say 15p. Then that is instantly subsidising a good 15-20m recovery from their former investment. They put 40 and instantly mark up a recovery of 15-20mil.

What mark up does a 1p give? 1-2mil.

It wont be at 1p.

The math doesnt work.

I am not saying it will be anything.

But if it will be for something that something is not at 1p.

20p, 2bil new shares, 91% of the mine.

10p, 4bil new shares, 95% of the mine.

5p, 8bil new shares, 97% of the mine.

2.5p, 16bil new shares, 98% of the mine.

Why destroy the price 8x more times only to increase holding by 7% at the two example extrema.

There is a sweet spot. There will be some care on the 250m initial moneys thrown in.

I wonder if a new investor really cares on sp or on how much percentage of the mine they get...

""In the end it will all come down to how much of the company the cornerstones are willing to give away to the new investors for a given amount of investment. ""

This is the exponential function I have been describing: baselining against a sum of 400m to be assumed as new equity.

At 20p you issue 2bil shares corners + new investors end with

Exactly rover. It is a proper game.

An exceptionally intriguing game with a sub-zero sum on actually bidding low. 250mil as wasa said.

Play the game with a bit of higher placement price to the current sp. Yes multiples of it.

The game turns positive.

Sure glen can screw me, and you and orion a bit more if they play tough with 1p. Or the new bidder...

But at 1p it is a sub-zero game.

At a higher price it turns more positive.

Call me all the naive you might like, sure prices are never above prevailing market trading prices. Sure I get that.

But at 1p you can find no equilibrium to this game.

I am really trying to think of it from the cornerstone perspective from 2 angles. (A) Weak cornerstone: i cannot put more money in and (B) stronger cornerstone: i can put it all by myself but need to do some convincing. Further let's assume moneys to be raised as new equity is circa 400mil GBP (rest debt).

If I am in group A, what suits me best?

An as low as possible dilution as I am not contributing. You all have to agree.

You hope for a low dilution as you are not contributing, directly manifesting at a higher share price, then a bit of a market recovery (which will be a function of that raise price) such that in hope you make some recovery on your initial investment.

If I am in (B) :

I take all the risk for putting all new moneys in.

Hence the higher dilution the more % of the mine I get as all new share is coming my way. What is the problem here: to convince the rest of the cs to agree to my dilution plan as I need a majority vote.

Yes it can be done on 1p. But tell me this:

If one corner put 80mil at over 100p sp, why will they accept a placement price of 1p and write off 79mil hoping at best to double up to 2mil.

Why?

They won't do it.

---

Bring now in a 4th cornerstone. The problem is not all that different, you cannot accept a low ball offer if you cannot contribute yourself - dilution.

They have to bid you higher to get your vote.

Yes I accept, that a price may not be possible to find.

But What I absolutely claim here is that you cannot make a deal with the price being 1p. You simply cannot.

What is valuable here to the bidders?

Not the sp. Its the licences the half built mine, the not having to start all over from scratch.

Take me to admin is not a bluff to the weak cs here.

It is a real bargain chip. You want to bid?

Give me a fairer price.

It's not 1p.

I am going to have to stop. As the last thing I want to do here is to annoy folks.

But convince me please as to how strong cs convinces weak cs to take 1p. Buy my vote.

In the face of losing 80mil I don't give a dime if your 1p offer saves me 1mil. I d rather risk lose it all in hope you bid me higher.

I was merely answering a question.

What will take LM or O to sell to Glen.

Why take 1p.

Hold.

Fight it differently.

But I think the concealed question is this:

If not all Cornerstones have the money to raise more equity, what would they be happy to accept as a diluted price from the rest of them and thus avoid putting it to a general meeting vote?

We are in stale mate I think. Nothing yet can find a right price.

Rover the figure I have in mind is 30p.

In my most ideal scenario where all 3 corners contribute the whole new equity at par between them. i am thinking it would be circa 400 mil (rest debt) and at price of 20p implying 10x dilution.

This means their 51% grows to 95%.

They already own 150mil of 300mil shares,

They will be owning 2.15bil of 2.3bil total shares.

Now on such a raise I might expect the positive market reaction to up to double up the price. 40p.

So they might be thinking: if I will be bought out 40p is probably the top best I could have hoped on my existing pre-raise equity to have risen to had I participated in the new equity share on an existing cornerstones only scenario.

So someone offers me 30p whilst if I participated at best 40p. The haircut of 25% because only one of the corners puts that extra money taking that extra risk.

Them (as in the cs buying them) they hopefully make it on the spot market on full funding announcement sp rise.

I know chess, and it is stressful. But it was never relentless here!

It's not a crazy amount of money in my case, and I abide by the other adage only risk what you can lose.

Seeing a 99% collapse is very telling on the odds this being saved - uber thin.

But I built a whole thesis around the fact (rather the lack of any fact) on what will be the price should this be saved.

It's subtle but I see a difference!

It's not even a pyrrhic win for this to be saved at 1p!

Well it won't!

Last time corners put monies in, 20mil, price shoot from 8p to 19.5p.

Let's see if they are sniffing there is an interested forth, if there is another rns of interim funding... another 20mil again them 3.

HZM is solely driven by RNS's.

Try me at 40/45x times chess.

I first entered at 140,

Exited fully at 57,

Reentered at 20,

Exited fully at 14,

Reentered at 10,

Doubled up at 4.

Breaking even at 7.

I started with 30k shares.

I now have 1.25mil shares.

And I never spent more than twice the moneys of the first position at 140p.

So yes. Whilst the corners did absolutely nothing with their holding to see the price collapse 99%

I went 45x times up.

Let's see them out of their own will accept a 1p from a 4th.

They will either put the money.

They will either take it to admin.

They will either co participate with a 4th.

Or they will sell.

They will never invite a forth to take it wholly at 1p.

And here is where it gets petty:

If you put 400mil at 15p new share you get 45%.

If you put 400mil at 1p new share you get 49.9%.

I ask:

Why would you stretch it to 1p or 15 more times and wipe everyone else off for a petty additional 10% of relative share?

Strike it at a balance.

Chess here's now what I don't get.

Why do it that way then?

If the scenario is to find 400mil via equity, and say all on a 4th CS.

Why do it via equity raise and not a bid?

If I am an existing CS why should I take the 1p from an alien CS?

The answers I find:

As a 4th CS you cannot actually bid for the premium on equity to acquire and take public and then assume the 1010 debt.

Hence you want to do it with a portion:

I offer a max dollar figure, say 200 or 300m (I make the numbers up) to get a share of the mine.

Then I ask as this 4th CS: how much should that 200-300m buy of this mine, which is half built, and will cost 1010m before first metal.

What is the sensible answer to this?

Lets put figures down.

30% fair?

40% fair?

50%? More?

We require the answer here. And do it on fundamentals. Not on a skewed sp.

How much should my 300m buy?

50% is not doable.

45% is up to 20x dilution.

40% is up to 10x dilution.

30% is up to 7x dilution.

Let me take the 45% example:

We agree as the existing 3x cornerstones that 200mil buys 45% equity for new cs.

we put the other 200mil to match it and not get diluted.

So 400mil buys all new issue. Which after dilution represents 90% of the total new interest in shares.

So you have to issue 2.7bil new shares so that with the existing 300m shares the new issue represents 90% (to give 45% to new cs).

400m / 2.7 is about 15p a share.

Rob, this is exactly what I meant by the idiosyncrasy.

It's not a proper market - you have 3 corners.

What usually trades daily is less than 1/10000th of the market cap.

You have to have all 3 move in unison, else the dilution dynamics get massively skewed against a cs that cannot participate.

The sums are borderline big: not one extra cs will give the whole pot via equity raise. If they do, noone will take 1p, as that wipes off everyone.

If they share the cost, the only scenario for 1p is if all can participate, else the existing cs who cannot will resist the low price.

All I am spending time here to explain as a thesis is that by working out plausible scenarios I cannot discover low placement prices and high dilution. It is not fit for purpose. And I am not doing it with passion, i am really trying to do it with reasonable arguments.

My naïveté here to charge me any is maybe in really thinking that there is too much idiosyncrasy to violate the principle " you cannot massively raise above prevailing price"

But I do. And I am not doing it because it suits me personally. I am doing it because it actually does not suit the bug sharks here the 3 cs's if i didnt!

Anyhow, I am so repetitive by now that is redundant conjecture... let's for once get the break or make RNS, and the rest is history.

Never bought the argument on prevailing price in this idiosyncrasy. Never.

So you have a bunch of cornerstones messing the prevailing price with a bunch of RNS's only to shoot themselves on the foot with a crazy dilution in the end.

I just do not buy it. It does not suit them to go with a low price purely by virtue of what was the prevailing sp. It really does not on that account alone. There has to be another play here.

I asked you all again. Say come Tuesday the 3 corners come in and say heres another 20 mil interim funding...

What would that do to the sp? And what would the heck that mean to what price can subsequently offered/accepted by corner 4?

It is irrelevant.

What matters is the negotiations. The sp right now is absolutely distorted and irrelevant.

The price level tolerance is a function of how much the existing CS are willing to further invest.

For arguments sake, let's say we need 400mil new equity. And the 3 of them agree that 200mil need to come from new investor.

The negotiation: what % of the mine does your 200mil need to buy.

Say answer is 40%. Then they have to work what dilution do we need to do to make that 400 buy 80% of the total equity? Answer is 10x

If they want 50% it is oblivion.

You need to appreciate that for a linear rate of increase from 40% to 50% equity, the dilution factor grows exponentially.

For every 1% in equity increase, you almost have to double the dilution.

That bears a very severe consequence to your previous investment, and if disproportionate to what you can put now, then that is formidable.

My bet is the price will be 20-30p

And cornerstone 4 can easily get 30%+

I personally see no possibility for extreme dilution if (and is a big if) existing corners want to stay in but with a disproportionate contribution to the new equity raise as compared to their current holding.

It makes no sense to dilute themselves to oblivion just to shift share from 51% to 99.9%

They will be equally happy at 90% or 10x dilution.

I really fear that they just don't have the appetite for the monies needed.

The one scenario I see them relatively happy to accept an extreme dilution ratio is by virtue of needing to introduce a yet a 4th investor, at a crazy low price and start over by contributing equally with them (or at the same scale of things all adding tens of mils).

All other scenarios favour a descent price for new equity. Even if you had to put in 400mil you can still take 90% of the mine with a 10 fold dilution.

They really will not bother with how much they stand to own as a percentage but rather how much money the stand to make as profit.

With all that said, what is truly putting pressure for low price is really if they need a 4th. But get it all in your head, IF (and to me this not such a big If) any of the existing three are not happy to put new money in (at their proportion) they will resist a low price themselves to avoid dilution.

For instance if LM is asked put 50 more mil, to bring in another corner all at 1p, and if 50mil is a lot for LM, why would they then accept that 1p to be put by the rest? You are simply losing the pot.

So they are forced to move in unison.

All unison scenarios favour a higher price.

Not to me the little mike and little johns.

But to themselves, the 3 Original CS.

I truly don't expect a miracle. I don't.

But I am dead convinced that if the solution will include all 3 existing it won't be at the sub-10p's

Agree on this one. You cannot sort it in next week.

But I really hope that there won’t be no more enigmatic RNS next week which states no progress from the last RNS.

Enough with the soap opera, the BoD, the whole endeavour, in my view is under pressure next week to publish another RNS stating the affairs around deferred payments and whether further extensions are granted, and the issue of interim finance.

The reason why I think they are forced to give an RNS is because the current deferrals are carried only through to March end, and you cannot go into April without a clear statement.

So whilst I agree there is no particular reason for actually expecting the finance package be sorted next week, yet one can sensibly expect an RNS with something more solid this time:

Deferred payments.

Interim finance.

March was wasted with complete absence of any word on this.

Now as to why I say the current market cap is BS and as to why I say the current sp is BS and by consequence why I think any argument built on current mcap and sp is BS. We rely on RNS.

Just imagine, for arguments sake, come next tuesday there is another RNS for another 20mil injection for interim funding.

What in the heck would that do to the sp?

It really is irrelevant.

Until the fat lady sings... for the last time...