Member Info for mv01

Again the point here: either of those possible outcomes, requires an RNS update. So mid Dec I expect this, as was stated...

I don't know anything of an RNS coming soon. BUT I certainly expect one by mid December as to me this is clearly insinuated by the previous RNS.

Somewhere it's been stated in the most recent RNS we have had that ops will be held to-only-on-a-what-is-necessary-basis and should last till mid December. Then there was a caveat in the same RNS stating that IF some interim solution is found with suppliers, or some other positive development then ops will run till quarter end 2024Q1 where the finance agreement is expected to be put in place [if one say is found, personal comment].

So by this token alone, I expect with full probability an RNS to be out by mid Dec. Because there is only two possible outcomes from what's stated above, either there will be some cash found to continue minimal ops to Q1 end, or a complete halt of works [not necessarily bad, but halting it all down to a safe state to wait for the finance deal break or make come Q1 quarter end].

So until mid Dec for me...

Oh very much so too Strow. I agree with what he was saying yesterday, but not because he was the one saying it. It's just that the narrative at the time was transiently coinciding with mine.

My point still holds. it's not what one or another says, by whatever motivation. Especially in an unregulated forum where things can be stated freely by anyone.

people should do stuff by their own convictions.

There is a bitter dark side to this too, but at no surprise as it down to basic human nature. People gloating at other people's expense: 'Big pay day' at HZM... hehehehehe.

A good day at work... that paid off... but why twist the knife in dead bodies I don't get it. I am not talking morality... I am very cynical with these things... It's just bad taste mate...

The stock is SHG to save some folks the trouble.

Point being to all folks:

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. DO NOT BUY ON A HYPE NOR ON A GLOOM. FORMULATE YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS.

As a facts lover, on the p&d i am observing the below...

There was a certain strong bear here.. proclaiming doom when the stock was in early teens... stock went all the way to sub 10 when they converted to all bull. A nice up date yesterday...

then this post in verbatim on another AIM stock chat:

Brought a big payday over from HZM and topped up today

Increased my stake by 35 grand

It’s ready to fly

And that’s added to my long term position.

:) :) :)

Some people are just hard at work...

People simply need to be appreciating a forum for what it is... just a forum.

A bunch of sells this morning... interesting.

I bought up some more yesterday. Even more tempted now.

Break or make. This will eat up my entire sipp contribution of the year or give me 2-3y of early retirement.

I can live with the former... but honestly at peace with myself as to how I am doing with this stock, for the info I had at all points of me trading it...

Good luck all.

Now I converge Publican.

I never buy into hypes nor glooms. Fear and gloom spells. I always try to solve puzzles with reason. I am a professional logician. Trying stuff with logical propositions.

(You should see how great I do with the wife — self-glorified-sarcasm here)

But seriously not about me this. But I would love in a conversation is to always be able to be as propositional as you can with the fact and not fiction presented, process, and see if that leads to anywhere you can call sensible or even probable.

My unchartered conclusions is that admin is plausible albeit how improbable .

I see this finding an equilibrium value between 50-80p soon and I will hold to that if I don’t dare to gamble more on it.

Wasarunner thanks again!

I might think one or more if them won’t cut it.

Instead I would think it would have to be all of them to bid/agree. Hence my relative comfort for a non extreme low ball bid.

It sounds by your calcs that the two scenarios break at par at a bid price is for 165mil as that is where the stock is at 60p.

So I wonder who may be tempted for that.

But i get the more comforted now..

You see that is the utility of ‘just’ 65-115 more on the bid. So if you had to as a bidder still pay that 300 for the debt, then your overhead as a bidder to entice your bid as compelling is a mere 20%- 30%.

It all is very hopeful sounding to me.

And before I raise suspicion I am happy to state my history here.

I first bought at 147p. Managed to sell the lot off at 52p and bought it all back with what proceeds at 20.

Then did the whole thing again at selling all at 14, buying it all back at 11, with another 50% cash added at 11.

So whilst I started at a position at 147p, I am now 9x bigger the position at 8p with 60% cash value down, roughly breaking even at 24-25p.

I don’t want a low ball bid, nor a consortium dilution, nor admin… and hence my line of thoughts and questioning :)

Not so much as a suggestion - a bit of an overstatement. More trying to gauge worst plausible scenarios.

So far in my mind I am eliminating the intentional admin. But I still see that as the default position to be at in the accident of no solution found.

So thinking on the nasty low ball bid scenario I see that as a possibility - yes. In the lack of no other alternative, a bidder coming knowing you have no options, and say without terribly deep pockets, and seeing that the only alternative is to bid that low, then i see the 50-100bid on equity as plausible.

This is saying in the scenario of just some bidder else definitive admin, then the bid can be that low. This is what i might be suggesting: highly contextual to such a rather specific scenrio.

I'll throw for completeness my worst feared scenario as well. A consortium of the 3 cornerstones and then agreeing to dilute us to oblivion. Of the three plausible scenarios I fear this the most.

Then seeing a number that is needed.

Them then coming back and saying:

Here's allll the money but lets do it on an apportioned rights issue to what we previously held, and a crazy dilution ratio.

Thank you Mumbles. I feel the more positive all of a sudden in the event of a bidder coming along.

By power of a bad analogy. If I was to be looking for a car then the difference is like this:

If I could merely afford a 50k honda but I am eye balling a 100k porche then it is a big big leap to buy the porche.

But if in the other hand I could outright afford a ferrari at 150k what might be to me to through in another 20k for the premium ferrari red paint.

In the grand scheme things, the red paint is the equity and the asset with the debt is the ferrari. And we don't want a honda bidder.

To be clear where I am getting a bid of hope here, is that should a bidder appear in the horizon they most certainly have to cover for the deabt. Which is such a disproportionate lion's share of the pie from where the mcap implied by the share price has gone.

So if they are willing to put a good 300mil for the debt the extra 50-100mil for the equity sweetener may not be that extreme of a feat.

For what is worth i am thinking that in a scenario of a takeover the bid will be between 50 and 100mil on the share.

I meant 350-400 where I wrote 350-450 in my post earlier. So pay of the debt, plus the bit of either 50 or 100 mil on equity essentially.

Folks I have some questions on the dynamics of offer.

Say there came someone to bid to buy us fully. With some bid price. What would that price actually have to pay around debt. What are the rules in this case.

Say we have a 300 debt facility and used up 200 of that.

If I am a bidder, do I just bid on the equity leg, and if I win I assume the debt situation AS IS at time of purchase?

Or does my bid have to pay off the debt fully? Or whats been spent?

What does actually apply?

Reason I as is this: what is the minimal cash I would have to pay upfronts to make a successful bid.

I think if you have to assume some debt buy off along with equity buy off (and not just the latter) makes the proposition for a better bid more probable and I will tell you why I think that.

If I was to try to bid on just equity. Say bidding between 50mil and I get the whole thing vs bidding 100mil ( 16p vs 32p roughly) has an 100% spread for me as the bidder.

But

If I had to pay off the existing debt facility with my bid, say 300m plus my whatever bids on equity, then it is the diff of bidding 350 v 450 mil which only has a spread of 20%.

Point here being: if I were a bidder, and I had to pay off the debt with my bid upfronts and was prepared for that, its easier to spread to the full extend if the the margin is at a 20% overhead vs 100%.

This really is in the psychology of things when one entity buys stuff if I make sense in the point i am trying to articulate here with my question.

A broad brush calc and my digest of yesterday thanks to all folks involved with answers.

Strictly personal opinions.

Admin won't be favoured intentionally - it will be a mere accident if it happens.

A 10x fold dilution may raise 200mil of cash.

Hopefully par can be raised with further debt for another 200mil.

So if a deal of that sort is stroke and say equity returned to pre RNS levels, we are looking for a 15-18x recovery from current levels. Divide that by such a dilution, takes you roughly double up from here.

Folks are kindly invited to chip in and correct if they see something fundamentally foul with this calc on those broad brush assumptions.

So if i understood this (and thank you all for the lessons!) a 3:1 rights issue on half the shares is a 5 fold dilution.

Meaning if that were sufficient to complete the mine and roughly take the current stock back to £1.40 say, that means a current price of 28p factoring in the dilution?

So roughly 4x from here with those 2 big IFs:

Indeed the moneys to raise is 30p a share.

And the rights issue ration being 3:1.

Not bad nor grand...

So we are holding shares in a company not possessing the asset?!?

Thank you again...

I am just dismantling the Glen-the-Apex-I-am-here-to-B4TT-F**K-you saga which I don't buy for a sec that it can be that easily beautifully cynically and precisely engineered...

If something might happen, and does so in the end, does not mean it's all planned all along...

There's quite the few more chapters to be written here.

Whatever else is been said at this point is just fear spreading and hope dependent on the side...

Thank you Magnum.

It feels like a stale mate to me situation. No one cornerstone can outsmart the others by offering a petty offer in fear of block. No cornerstone [in my own thesis - to present this as opinion and by no means as fact!] will want to see this intentionally going to admin, and nor by negligence out of their own action I would argue.

And I would say that we are headed to admin if no agreement can be found.

So why not naively argue here that there has to be some fair equilibrium value to agree to here?

in exploring this thought I have one bigger fear now but don't know if it is at all possible:

Is it remotely possible that all 3 cornerstones sit down and agree to offer a low ball collective apportioned bid to buy the company?

I mean it this way: say in simple terms they own 15%, 15%, 20% of the equity correspondingly [numbers made up], and then say lets bid a total of 1mil to buy the company, 300k, 300k, 400k each.

what are the mechanisms of

(a) avoiding this going to vote?

(b) assuming it does, do then bidders still preserve the right to vote given clear conflict of interest?

On (a) does the BOD have power to reject such a bid, or do they have the obligation to put it to RNS and call an EGM.

I am using extremes, as I see the stale mate deadlock if cornerstones forced to act in isolation, but not if they can collude.

Magnum, want to explore this idea:

I do not think it will be a (Glencore) buyout as Orion and La Mancha, as someone said earlier, can potentially block the sale vote to try and get a better price. A dangerous strategy because if no higher offer comes through it will be admin.

what is the mechanism for that? I mean, if there is any sale talk under the above scenario, should there forcefully be an RNS? And if yes, with the disclosure of what is the price? + A general meeting to vote?

I am asking with this in mind: can there be a bid that is blocked without putting to vote in a GM?

What I am hoping on this scenario is an RNS. To get a market reaction.

My own very thesis is that if a cornerstone really want the asset, and no debt solution is found is to bid.

The bid they make, it will be at a discount to their existing share holding. whatever bid they come up with.

the moneys they will spend on their bid will serve the utility of avoiding all uncertainty getting the asset at auction with no disruption. Yes they will have to serve the existing debt fully [as opposed to whatever discount they could get to that at auction, which is the only bit they are saving in an admin-buy strategy]. But they will reduce their added costs by the extra delays, degradation for halting everything for whatever admin time.

So I as again, what is it worth to an apex to come with a bid of 20 or 50 or 100mil to bid to buy the whole thing now.

I genuinely see it as more likely, and the whole thing be put to a fast track GM vote.

Folks I really don't see admin as good thing for anyone. really noone.

2/3 of the cornerstones will be wiped out along with the PI's. A liquidator will come in, set priorities, will have to first service debt. Say bids come in, they can be as nasty as not even covering the debt.

Even if 1 or more of the cornerstones come together to bid, still the PI's are entirely wiped out as per point above. however I would argue that it won't be a favourable strategy even to the cornerstones to allow things on purpose to go all the way to buying it back at admin. timeframes, uncertainty, further devaluation, and... even looting!

More costs to cover to, bring in the administrator to charge a fee. moneys spent to secure the place, etc etc etc.

It really is not a simple thing.

then the admin auction timeframe. IT will NOT be controlled by the cornerstones. it will be done by the admin.

admin will have different priorities to cornerstones. they service the debt first.

So I don't believe for a second that it will be let to go to admin intentionally, with an ulterior plan by a cornerstone to buy it on the super cheap there. I do not believe it for a second this is sensible intentionl strategy...

Having said that, it is actually all the very possible indeed we ended up in admin? Why because it is actually default position to be at, if all else fails in the interim.

Point though, is that I firmly believe its even in the cornerstones, and Apex's to sort it before it gets to that.