Member Info for mv01

It took an old bod to go. I choose to pick a signal that they went quietly.

The former chairman spent the good part of a decade to make this happen to see it all go in vain - I choose to pick up a signal from that and believe they issued a term 'i am leaving quiet because I see a positive end to that in doing so - else i need to stay' else you simply just dont give those years totally in vain.

O and LM have gotten board seats ahead of Glen.

I pick a signal from fact that is them 2 and not Glen.

The GlenTheApex narrative... and I am here to screw ya All is dead in the water...

That's the Signal.

I think this is a terrible RNS. ;)

What adding now an Orion on top of a LaM exec?

The Glen the Apex will come to devour them both alien cornerstones with a single bite.

DISCLAIMER:

Take this with a pinch of salt, pepper and chilly...

I am just joking as I am expecting all sorts of pub jokes here to data fit this story...

Cheers!

Mike.

I wish I had buddhaBob's guts and balls.

To me it's admirable.

I have the same conviction, thinking this is a lifetime opportunity and life changing moment I will come back to regret it for not loading some more.

I'm not primarily for the stir it has in my gut, but mate this so admirable.

Effing putting money where the word is.

Respect, from the heart!

Mike.

I am also the coordinator of an audacious choir of 100 cardinals preaching how they are always right about what not they fart from their mouths...

So yeah BillyV, watch it mate!

:D

Kindly allow me to express my thesis aside from the joking and long detour.

From where I stand, and without any ability to add fact to my conviction, I'll simply state that I am a firm believer that the salvage package driving the sp is not a one way proposition. In my NAIVE opinion the reverse can also be true.

Furthermore, if I were a cornerstone wishing to protect my previous holding value but without access to liquidity - what are my available options?

I'd say legal market price manipulation if we were to permit the term/oxymoron for a second as I don't know how to best express this differently.

Imagine you were one of those people taking decisions in these cornerstones, impeded by internal rules, forbidding you from some options to a package solution unless the sp was at given level.

What options do you have? If no access to liquidity and no good price. You will try to 'manipulate' or arbitrate the sp with some RNS.

And it doesn't have to be illegal, it doesn't have to be called manipulation, when you put out an RNS with real money on it. No bigger bond than a LOAN is what i say...

So what we have here? The marketCap at some point was 20mil at 8p and with the 20mil loan announcement at some point we hit 19p, the surge in sp momentarily surpassing the loan amount.

Now imagine you want to keep horizonte afloat and trading in exchange(s) for your own cornerstone reasons... and the sp is forbidding some options.

Who's to gamble here that you can only issue one RNS?

Who's forbidding a series of them?

That is my point....

Many RNS's can orchestrate a price here for the share to liberate the option sought. I am personally betting money on this.

4bil I meant as NPV.

I'll venture a pub quality prediction...

There will be 2 RNS's.

RNS1: cornerstones will put 50m more in form of loans for some favourable interest payment terms, and the full package with the banks is still being finalised whilst the whole gap is also being finalised.

Price jumps to 25p-30p

RNS2: banks happy to extend loans to xxx of the remaining yyy monies needed. With the difference being underwritten and guaranteed by the cornerstones apportioned at their original share percentage via an open offer at 20p.

Price remains at above 25-30p and the cornerstones getting the kick they needed to the tune of 25-50% for that open offer.

Finally sp never coming back from that 25-30p no matter how much dilution is implied to the rest of the share holders from that open offer.

Mine gets build, and somewhere down the line we still see the 2£-3£ for this share EVEN with the open offer diluted shares included.

If we need 200m to come from equity it really does't owe to cost 1bil for rhe life of mine.

And with super crude estimates of 4bil for life of mine without package... so be it for 3bil even with a full safe.

I think it's a lifetime bargain. But don't take me as a gospel here! Pub pints are punts...

'Really really can NOT' is of course what I meant to type!

And I wonder why that is! I convinced myself that sp is risk adjusted npv to bridge gap!

But here's me again coming on my key argument of what I meant earlier by 'all things equal'.

I really meant if we had previously the price of 1.40£ and that market sentiment. What should the price now be,say, with the same sentiment and a slash of 25% to the npv (mind that being a billion which is so far fetched!)

It can't be 1£ right? It must be 1.20£ or something...

But like i said on my caveat I really really can put a timeframe for that... if we will be over £1 within a years time...

I am honestly merely advising patience. I am saying again it feels it will even be 2-3£ Sometime in next 5y that is how it may be, that is certainly how it feels, but I'd be a fool to predict exactly when.

I'll just try my best to keep patient....

Not to play Wasa's advocate but to try to digest his word in the layman's word.

We need to be thinking what the cost is here even if favourable offtake terms are extended to glencore say, as an option to say avoid equity issue dilution.

There is indeed no free money here in the sense that if we now go and agree a lower price of the offtake, means the cashflows to Horizonte gets reduced.

(Less influx££ per tonne given to Glen at a discount)

That impacts NPV for horizonte,

The share price is a function of the NPV.

That is all, as I understand it Wasa is trying to say to pick this up from a fundamental's analysis point of view.

So be that as of may there is no dilution, the npv reduction either by more debt or these more exotic solutions really does depend on the deal glen will demand.

Take two extrema as an example:

Glen to give 100mil now and demand terms:

Either as: after my 10y of offtake as already sealed invthe current deal, I want another 5y of the offtake at a 20% discount to the traded nickel price.

Example 2:

After the 10y, i want a float rate discount of 2k per tonne, enough to cover my 100mil plus 10% interest accumulated over 10y. (Do now 100*(1.1^10) to see how much that is, and then discount it back to today to see how much that affects the NPV.

There will be no free meal, in the sense there is no free money as all folks are saying.

But really any analysis to try and rederive a stock price now, by baselining on that 1.40£ say I first bought it at before all recent RNS's and what it may get to be after a finance deal is signed, all really depends on what the deal may be. There shouldn't be questions on that.

Of course recovering to that 1.40 takes not only fundamentals but market sentiment and confidence to come back...

...but to be frank, and allowing all things equal other the shortfall (here I mean assume sentiment comes back at par) I really find it hard to believe that we will see a 30% deficit to the npv.

Some calcs were giving an npv of 4bil with nameplate. Say we even needed 1bil of full finance pack in place plus the service of that over life on mine. Thats a haircut of 25% and not the what is predicted by 1 -1.40/(1£) if 1£ is what we predicted as recovery here.

I really think the broad brush calcs are too conservative.

But the caveat here I am not talking about first year, talking about life of mine price.

I think we will see prices of £2-£3 in any time in next 5y. I really do.

I bet the (pension) on this...

And well done I say to me because i really do not know how to trade this short term! But geez I really do believe this in next 5y at some point will find an sp of £2-£3

Wasa I bet its more structured from these professionals.

They set up a trade at 50p as you say, but call it one unit short. They are proven right to 20p and then they gear up 5 units short. Then they are proven further right when it drops to 8p and they start betting the house going 50 units short.

So it is not so much that they want to be making whats left from that extra 16% left per se... but it's that boasting and feel good feel right feeling: "I've gotten it right for 42 ticks, and made 100units profit, let me now make another 1000units on the last 8 ticks because of my gearing".

That's the way of those professionals...

Ever heard of that silver and gamespot short...

Them professionals...

;)

People should never ever trust again someone when their credibility have been compromised. Not even for pouring a shot of 0% beer.

De nada, zippo, nothing, dead in the sand cats.

Enough with this pub joke.

I am going to start singing soon like this other nutter (pun intended)

"Fly away to the rainbow in the sky...

Gold is at the end, for each of Us to find..."

A loved oldie.

"I think that you will find that the issue of 8bn shares at 20p will raise £1.6bn……."

With apologies to all before it became dire misinformation.

There are just under 270 mil shares.

A 10-fold dilution will issue 2.4bn new shares each at least at 20p raise. So thats what? 480mil to be raised.

My argument put differently:

Even if we needed to raise anything to the tune of that figure, and all of it equity, then it won't be a 10x dilution if the sp now moved to 30-40p.

We won't be above 2-3x times diluted is my guess.

Hence in my view the low sp value now, is not at all factoring in a high dilution multiple. It's rather factoring in a high risk still, of no deal at all.

Further, and having said that, should sentiment now start turning and improve the sp, then that in itself can influence a further lower dilution ratio, because still to me, the actual sp is relevant on the equity leg of any finance deal. The higher the sp, the better.

I semi-agree with you rover on the equity raise terms that will be dictated by the cornerstones. It cannot quite fully be irrelevant of the sp and where it was or would be around the time of the rns announcing the finance terms. Therefore it really would have to be a function of how the share trades at the time.

Let's think about this for a second.

How can you sensibly issue new shares and raise above the traded price? You have to do it for all, and the small pi's will go and buy at the market, which to me raises the issue, why would I as a cornerstone agree to raise a small dilution multiple of a lesser number of shares at a premium, when every john and mike like myself here can go and find that small liquidity and buy it at the market?

To me that doesn't fly at all for them to get a worse risk/reward ratio to the small investor.

Flip side: you can raise at a discount (yes that incentivises you to sell to the market at a premium) but you cannot raise at below the nominal value.

And here we are with both an upper and a lower bound to the problem:

The lowest being 20p, the highest not truly and sensibly being higher where the sp currently trades.

I'd say the quota will actually be where the sp traded or ranged in a specific date(s).

All a function, for me, where the stock recently or currently traded at the time of the finance agreement announcement.

And by that token, indeed exactly relevant at where the sp is at time of announcement. To me it is very much is relevant the sp to this.

The tricky part for me is how much would be needed to be raised by equity.

Under all scenarios though, the stronger the sp till any deal is announced the better and more probable it is. There should be no doubt to this.

Thus it just has to be relevant the sp.

And I got the math embarrassingly wrong but not the point. 8bn at 20p raises 160mil and not 400mil as I badly first stated. But think how much more equity raises if we see prices at 30p or 40p.

The amount to need will be fixed. But the sp going up now will reduce the dilution multiple.

I think the sp action in the next few days may prove to be rather instrumental on the dilution fears.

A 10x dilution multiple today raises 400mil.

As a proposition, 10x means 8bn more shares at a min capital raise of 20p. So wheres the sp now, and how much do we need.

We know only answer to former. But what happens to that dilution multiple if say by the time we knew the answer to the latter, the sp rallies to 30p or to 40p or even to 50p before the rns on the exact cost?

This is critical time, as in above-par sp territory the actual sp may influence the RNS for a change instead of the latter.

I an sure this was seen this before:

We need (put cash amount) and we will raise a (put fraction amount) portion of that via a new share raise at the (put a definitive sp value as traded on put a known future date from now) and we will all be coming here with calculators to figure what is the new number of shares needed and therefore what dilution multiple.

But what's at the heart of this is where the sp is between now and the date of the RNS.

So I dare to ask:

What if sp goes to 30-40p till such rns, and what if at the same time the figure needed is 400mil all assumed to be raised by equity.

Sp 20p implies 10x dilution.

Sp 40p implies 5x dilution.

If 400 is needed...

Just exaggerating the point here that a good sp would give better terms on deal, and market all of sudden believing this can turn it by virtue of the price action.

Hi again Folks, and happy new year.

It will be really promising to see the sp breaking and stabilising above 20p soon, as that I believe frees up some more of the financing options.

I don't know how realistic the scenario was that the cornerstones wanted to be vindicated by the market to see the sp rising above 20p after they pumped that short term 20m debt, but I should real hope the market to send them a true positive signal in the end...

Here's hoping, with surely more hope now!

Good luck All.

Correcting a bit too much for my liking... but got to be patient.

Happy New year ahead All...

I have other questions that have been bothering me here, on Risk neutrality, and how us as small PI's fair against the big cornerstones.

I mean what we risk is in the scale of 10k-100k as PI's.

What cornerstones risk is in the scale of millions.

What is more, what indeed objectively comes to the rescue at this point is more millions pumped in by the cornerstones, and they may be asked (come a package in 2024Q2 is to risk some more millions).

I mean I as a small pi have such a smaller risk compare to them, and I am even breaking even at 20p.

So if I want to buy a little into the narrative: "they should take more because they risk more" then where do we put the stops?!??

And the actual question:

Fair game I might make say a profit to the tune of 100k in the next few years, would the cornerstone be happy with me for that for the risk I took (if say they made a few million?)

Or does the argument hold:

No Mike, life is tough, you risked pennies against my risked millions, so you shouldn't be making bags to the tune of 100k, I as a big Apex here should be making more and more millions.

I am just trying to put a scale on things...

Would really, if this proved to be so successful in the end, end as such a petty game?

Cornerstones instead of say making a billion in profit, they will bother for only making 900mil, and leaving the 100mil on the rest of us the small pi's?

I don't buy it, but of course I cannot justify convincingly why I don't buy it.

I just don't believe investing with all parties involved is such a precise science. And I don't believe in just the big utter ruthlessness of big corp Apex sharks even.

Again totally naive - but come on leaving 10% on the table, is huge for small pi's. And it is such a small tree this 10% when you are truly struggling to save the forest here...

I am not testing you at all.

I am the genuine naive here.

But showed my true colour here. What I love is structured propositions here. Not the boasting bs.

And true smart people simply do not show it off! In fact an attribute of true smartness for me, is shear modesty!

Back in 2006 i went all the way to some conference in japan to present parts of my thesis work.

There were 3 physics nobel laureates at the time, and i took 3 questions at the end, put forward very naturally and naively trying to elaborate on what i presented. Two of them became nobel laureates subsequently.

Point being: its never about the person who says it. Its about how they say it, how they come across and how they structure it.

I love a beautiful argument.

I hate the 100 cardinal choir, the 'told you so', the 'this will sky rocket' and the what not statements without the essence.

And I bought some more too... sitting on 450k shares now. YOLO.