Member Info for newbuoy

Yep! Optimism springs eternal but by Christmas they were back where they started. Just remember the previous year they were about 90p and the year before 200p was not unusual. The secret is taking a deep breath and knowing when to sell. Who knows happy days may well return. Good luck.

Extraordinary yes as he was the man of vision and a great understanding of the nuances required to do business in the various African nations. Bearing in mind that the two most important revenue generating assets are in Zimbabwe, removal of Mr Mpinga who seems well received in Zimbabwe and the two Zimbabwean non-executive directors will be a slap in the face to the inner circle of Zimbabwe people of influence and we might well see repercussions. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread! My worst fear is nationalisation of Mwana assets in Zimbabwe or an embargo on repatriating capital from the operating companies.

Thanks tradingstock247 - now much more is revealed as there are two more interesting articles at the link you have given. Seems to illustrate clear collusion of disaffected parties. One can but hope that all arms-length shareholders have not been taken-in.

Your point of SP performance and the continuing tenure of the CEO would be fair in normal circumstances and I would be at the front of the queue demanding heads roll. But the circumstances were far from normal and well beyond the BOD control. During the period Jun 05 to Jun 08 the SP was typically above 40p with an excursion to about 80p in Jul 07 but then the SP dropped between Jun 08 and Oct 08 from 50p to 4p which just happened to coincide with the World collapse when even the FOOTSIE went down from some 6000 to 3600 and commodity prices were severely hit. Of course prior to this collapse there was major economic problems in Zimbabwe and whilst the mining activity seemed profitable in Zimbabwe Dollar terms it was loss making in US Dollar terms and could not be sustained. The BOD took a very sensible view and retrenched placing the Mwana assets onto a "care and maintenance" basis and as "cash is king" they conserved their resources until the global economy would allow them to restart which as history shows took a considerable period of time and it is debatable whether the recovery has yet been achieved. Rather than criticising the CEO I believe he ought to be congratulated for securing the company and at least allowing our investments an opportunity for recovery. A pan-African multi-commodity enterprise such as MWANA has much potential but requires an expertise to bring it to fruition which is somewhat different to that adopted in the western world and we should let the CEO get on and do his job without the interference presently being witnessed.

Wuffle, yes the Dearing papers allegedly on behalf of the Requisitioners arrived Saturday seeking support for the proposed resolutions. Both my wife and I read the submission in detail along with the company rebuttle on its web site. In digging around in the history I noted particularly that, on the resignation of Oliver Baring, Mark Wellesley-Wood, now proposed as a NED, was appointed Non-exec Chairman in Sept 2013 and left with immediate effect in Feb 14 hardly an auspicious reign of 5 months. I also noted some allegations of there being a conflict of opinions and ethos during that period seemingly the cause of the unduly hasty departure. I therefore question what possible benefit there would be in re-appointing a person who the existing Board are arguing against. It is difficult as a Shareholder not privy to the terms of Mr Ning and his CIMGC agreement to fully understand why there is conflict but it seems to be Mr Ning et al who have taken the matter to court. Since moving to court Mr Ning seems to have sold his interest in the company and significantly reduced the holding of CIMGC and the company has stated they are seeking resolution to the dispute and court proceedings are stayed so is the argument relevant? Also messrs Morris and Botha have stated that they are resigning at or before the egm so why bother trying to oust them? Frankly I consider this egm to be an interference in the management of the company to the point of an inferred vote of no confidence. I suspect that there is some sour grapes in the background. Mr Mpinga has a vision for the company that he was instrumental in founding and I believe he ought to be able to get on and run the company with people who he feels confident in working with and who understand the nuances of doing business in the various African nations. For what it is worth I am firmly AGAINST the resolutions

I do not know but on another company board somebody apparently knowledgeable on such matters advised that MMs adopt a code of low volume transactions to indicate to each other future intentions. If anybody has any knowledge on this I would like to hear it.

It may not be that simple. Why did Ning sell at a price well below what he paid initially and where are the other 80Mn shares that he disposed of? All this coincidentally happening at a time that the EGM proposes resolutions that Ning wanted to be passed at the last AGM and if successful causes a major change in the Board.

Tracy, as you have said for some time this share is a longer term wait. We need the market to have confidence in the company with some positive statements, of which there are several to come, which will probably take the SP to 2p plus and then the major driver will be gains in gold and nickel prices which frankly are still in the doldrums albeit showing signs of recovery.

At current prices it will only be hard cheddar

Thank you Tracy, I suspected something of this ilk. An attempt to circumvent the board structure by way of a chink in the armour would at best be an annoyance but gives rise to other PIs being able to deflect the disruptive tactics and remove funds from the company.

Can anybody shed any light on what is behind this requisition for a General Meeting?

Yes patience is wearing thin. This situation seems like we've got some bad news and some bad news which do you want first - the failed bond fund raising or the failed Q3 performance - or both together to really destroy confidence. The worrying thing is if the Q3 performance really is not available then the management information system has failed and the company is flying blind. To date I have fully agreed with those opinions that MWA has great potential but I believe that management needs to beef up its message to the investors and re-establish confidence.

Oops decapitated The model does work as long as the personnel involved are competent and work as a team.

In raising this question you are addressing a fundamental issue so many companies fail to address - a clearly articulated vision from which strategy and tactics may flow to determine operational procedures. May I suggest that the future direction of MWA – the holding company – depends on the vision of the key players who, at present, appear to be Mr Mpinga, Mr Ning Yat Hoi, and Mr Stuart Morris – or whomsoever becomes Chairman. In naming the foregoing no slight is intended to the other very able directors who must inevitably have an input to the vision nor, indeed, do I ignore members of the original shareholder group who joined with Mr Mpinga to create the embryonic Mwana Africa Holdings (Proprietary) Limited and may possibly remain involved in the background. Whilst, in my experience, companies are frequently and woefully lacking in determining and communicating a vision this cannot be said of Mwana. The company web-site opens-up clearly and unambiguously with “Vision & strategy”. We see Pan-African reach; multi-commodity exposure; synergistic development through skills transfer; formation of Trusted Partnerships; all led by a highly skilled and experienced management team targeting beneficial deals, projects and returns. Note at the strategic level of the holding company the management team is not planning to be miners but to develop projects which involve mining - therefore requires a totally different skills mix to that of the operational mining and mineral projects. Months ago, I read a comment to the effect that MWA in its operations moving forward must, inevitably, accommodate a delicate balance of aspirations and sensibilities of various interested parties which appear at the present time to be Mr Mpinga et al, Zimbabwe government and Chinese government. Given the vision of Pan-Africa reach and the present MWA interests in DRC, South Africa, Angola, Botswana in addition to Zimbabwe there is likely to be a need for MWA to simulate a chameleon accommodating an evolving range of aspirations and national sensibilities as project developments are implemented. I venture to suggest that the role of MWA must be that of a holding company allowing independence of operations of its subsidiaries whilst putting in place strong management controls; providing a mix of management skills in support of the operating projects; analysing and implementing new business opportunities for group development; establishing sources of financing to allow developments to happen; and providing corporate liaison with a wide range of partners to accommodate those partners sensibilities. MWA should derive income in two ways: firstly levying a top-slicing management charge against individual operating projects; secondly taking a return from profits by way of a dividend commensurate with any other investing partner. I have worked with this holding company model both in the UK and in the Middle East. The model works as long as the perso

Probably a very good idea but has anybody told Randgold. Just goes to show how analysts can stir people up with rumours