Member Info for mv01

Beautiful response wasa.

Thanks for your time and effort to put it together for all of us.

Thanks Wasa, another question.

What then goes into an npv calc then?

And that is not the naive question.

I hear we sit on ground reserves to the tune of 20bil.

Maybe net profits of 5-6bil for life of mine.

Any combo of 300extra debt now why does that upset the npv so dramatically?

Is that to do Opex, and servicing that extra debt?

I am stunned to such a small relative proportion of extra debt to ore-value-reserves having such a profound impact on npv if you see what I mean.

But I am very naive I always issue as a personal disclaimer - i don't understand at all how mining ops are priced.

Please explain crypto.

Where is my naivety. Asking genuinely.

Wasa and other Folks, I have a hypothetical scenario but still can't figure how it may be priced.

Assume survey capex analysis is out with a 300m deficit. Further assume banks say no more loans, and for arguments sake each of cornerstones comes with a 100mil loan, at 20% interest which trails all bank loans. No dilution. Further suppose they give a 2y term to collect 144m 1Mar2026.

Further assume that this reassures market fully that mine will build.

Further assume nickel is exactly priced as it is today.

With all these bloody assumptions, what might be fair value to the share?

Whichever way I try to cut it is not a price less than 50p unless I am incredibly naive here.

By a similar token, getting that 300m fully raised by dilution i've seen exercises of the same not giving a value less than 30p.

We are 11-14p now.

The only sense I make is that market still risks an end to end solution.

Anyway my question is really how to price the 100m loan per cornerstone scenario in.

I would agree Earl...

But only if GlentheApex as a narrative, have put 15m of the 20 today...

But I choose to pick a signal from the fact that there is a 5 aside from each cornerstone.

I also choose to pick up a signal from fact that the ceo now on the board is a non-glen cornerstone veteran.

So as us physicists like to say, one man's signal s another man's noice.

And we just hit 10p...

Not to count my eggs before they hatch but I couldn't and I certainly now can't help thinking what some interim good news will do to the funding options if that news pushes the stock price above 20p.

Good luck all!

Less than 4 times dilution

Do your math now

Bligh me the simple splits and posts incomplete

Disclaimer:

I sincerely apologise for posting 3 posts in a row now just like a f4ckng troll to my fellow forum folks...

...disgusting!!!

... and

If I were a gambling man I will put all chips on

>2x and

I am bullish don't take me wrong, and even if I am betting the (pension) house on this...

... I really think we all need to take it a little easy...

But but but... please you all folks...

DO

NOT

FEED

THE

F4CKNG

TROLLS!

I beg you folks...

.. do not feed the trolls.

Thanks Wasa, but where are we getting that 160p from?

Seems to be the previous high pre the news of the shortfall.

But fair game though I got my answer!

So an up to 3:1 dilution and say a former return to 120p (allowing for some additional debt) should at least see us to ~ >30p pre production.

Okay… lets see..

thanks again!

Hello to all Folks again, I have a calculation question.

Suppose an investor comes in today and buys 1000 shares at 8p.

Further suppose that in the coming days/weeks there is an RNS announcing a 3:1 dilution at the par nominal value of 20p.

Let us without loss of generality assume that every other investor takes the option and ends up with 4x the shares. Except our hypothetical investor who bought 1000. They don't buy more.

My trouble now is what would those 1000 shares be worth after this rns? I can't put a price on the following two antagonistic things.

A. Dilution

B. Good news rns that all funding is agreed and 3:1 is part of the deal

What does that do to my 1000 shares folks?

Venture a calculation for me?

Many thanks.

Mike.

Just want to throw one question to the mix, on this theory of fast track admin.

Why would the old BoD not leak such news, if that was the taken up strategy?

And don't tell me they wouldn't have known so, and don't tell me because they signed an NDA.

In my view, there is hope, as if there is any basic level of decency to someone who spent 9y on a project to see go belly up - this is what that decency would dictate.

To not just get a payout to keep quiet and screw up knowingly a huge proportion of the moneys spent investors because they are no big co's.

I would have see this as more possible and complicit if they stayed on as BOD actually.

Now if this JM had any basic human decency, and if as some folks say lost a dear friend consequence of the events of the share crashing, then their basic level human morality will demand to whistle blow this strategy.

I am still a hold, and still a firm believer in basic human decency.

In my view ousting the old BOD is a good move.

It's almost forced upon the old.

For what is worth I hope it was done in full consent of the responsibility, albeit how forced it may have been on them, and not out of bitterness.

In my view again, based on the remarks of some folks posting here whom I've come to respect - I really hope that when they were handing those resignations they were doing them with still a duty of care towards all who put good money on the shares.

As in it wasn't an act of the sort: "i don't agree with what solutions you are trying to put forward therefore i have to resign"

But it was rather of the sort:

"Yes I appreciate I have to step down, as misses and mistakes occur and i have to pay the price for the better possible good of existing investors and trust in markets".

Of course it goes without saying this is just my own personal wishful thinking. Not subscribing to any conspiracy theory or fitting too much into the story other than the obvious. I am damn sure that legal advise and safeguard was taken in the means to step down, NDA's were signed and all the blah blah to try to act quick and safely.

GLA all. Strong hold here, in a YOLO mode :)

Appreciate it. Read it. Article even goes to discussing rights issue.

From what I gather one cannot surpass the issue of being able to do an offering below nominal share value.

And if I am concluding this correctly, even if you were to be offering a rights issue then the ratio of doing so would somehow have to play through the math of the nominal price of the share and the current trade price of the share.

For instance if our nominal is 20p and current share price is 9 and you wanted to raise capital via a rights issue then if I am not wrong with the math you have to at least offer a 20:9 issue ratio. Ability to buy 20 new shares per each 9 held.

Anyways... got to say my goodnights for today. Thanks again!

Thanks Strow, I have another question, might be naive.

What's actually forbidding to raise below nominal.

I mean is there a rule that says one cannot raise below the nominal of 20p?

(I am genuinely curious as to why this seems not be allowable; asking regardless of whether desired or not)

Is it essentially some MM rule not allowing this?

What I am scratching my head on here is how can you possibly do an equity raise on any nominal which us above current trading price. You can't - right?

I mean why would an interested party be willing to buy something at say 20p (or even 15p if you offer them a discount) when they can go to the market and buy at 9p?

There may be a liquidity argument (i.e cannot buy volumes without pushing the price up)

Or an announcement argument (news of a solution can push the actual trading price above the nominals discussed)

But even so...

Isn't this kinda a chicken and an egg argument? Or putting the chariot before the horse kind of argument?

I always thought an equity raise is primarily a function of the current trading price.

I have a question on your 3 points Tornadotony. Just thinking them through as plausible, all 3.

For 2/3 as they are the most positive sounding, my reason is telling me they won't announce anything before some wet signatures are put on paper. hence I'd say, conservatively, the company is acting with caution on this one.

Now my question on 1: Who stands to benefit here, if this say is the actual scenario to be played out, and therefore intentionally not publishing an RNS. Who stands to benefit from this, if this is the scenario we are at, and information is concealed right now?

The more concealed question I have is actually this: is it remotely possible that by announcing something now, things may be put at jeopardy for scenarios 2/3. i.e any RNS, whilst discussions may be in flux, may prejudice the outcome.

One plausible read of the situation is that we might be hovering over scenario 1 and the lack of info is telling in itself.

I sure question it myself that we are having absolutely no info on the cost, or what has gone wrong here.

But speculating it here... without any possession of fact, is just fear spreading.

So once again, who stands to benefit here?

I can't actually quite see a clear cut winner on scenario 1 without ending in an ugly situation - honestly I don't.

But again calling it back as I was always introducing myself on this: very new and naive. It could be very much how some biz is done by those apexes and all that...

but why so much pain and uncertainty even to them, I ask myself...