Member Info for Notperfect

Lewis
Recent mentions in company docs have specifically said the FS is a definitive feasibility study (DFS). For example, from the March quarterly management discussion - " ...currently working on a definitive feasibility study (the
“Feasibility Study”) which is expected to conclude during the second quarter of 2022."

Also if you watch Alexander Lemon's interview he corrects himself to confirm it is the DFS that is about to be filed.

The company did talk about a BFS early on but for many months, perhaps since the restructuring, it has clearly been a DFS underway.

MKA have consistently said they expected to complete the DFS by the end of June. In the brief interview on twitter from ITM Online on the 24th, Alexander Lemon actually said the DFS had been completed and was going through its final checks and would be lodged in a very short while. They may only report when the DFS is filed.

The MDA may well take longer. The timing is as much about the government as MKA but hopefully, again from the interviews, is going well.

The next step after that may depend on whether the restructuring of the company relates to strategic players in the background, perhaps just waiting for the MDA to be completed. If the funding is a more conventional debt and equity model then the next step may actually be to produce a BFS.

Sabrage
It still sounds like your buy process is trying to get a quote for the old ISIN as other platforms seem fine. Can you speak to a human and ask them to check the ISIN code is correct or explain why you're aren't allowed to buy?

I can guarantee that some of the trades going through currently are buys.

Sabrage
There is a very narrow spread at 136-136.9p, below mid price, so buys and sells are all being labelled as sells.

Also, the ISIN for the consolidated shares has changed. The new code is GB00BMXLQJ47. Check you're not trying to buy the old unconsolidated shares, ISIN GB00B11DNM70.

Tufftrader
The latest position seems to be from the supporting docs for the 28th April RNS.

"Mkango ... is currently working on a definitive feasibility study (the “Feasibility Study”) which is expected to conclude during the second quarter of 2022."

"The MDA confirms the fiscal and legal terms for project development upon completion of which, the results of
the feasibility study and valuation metrics will be announced."

"Negotiations for the Mining Development Agreement (“MDA”) with the Government of Malawi are also well
advanced... both Mkango and the Government of Malawi are prioritising its successful completion."

So we should be expecting a DFS rather than a BFS. It will be completed by the end of June.
The DFS will be announced once the MDA is completed which isn't entirely in MKA's control but does seem to be a priority for the government.

from 28th April

"Mkango completed a NI43-101 compliant technical report and upgraded Mineral Resource
estimate for Songwe Hill in January 2019, and is currently working on a definitive feasibility study (the “Feasibility
Study”) which is expected to conclude during the second quarter of 2022."

DFS in next 7-8 weeks?

I think you overstate Lara's importance to AP103. Lara moved on well over a year ago - Sep 20. If Lara going meant the end of AP103, they've had 15 months to break it to us.

Amryt included several slides on AP103 in their corporate presentation in July this year, long after Lara had gone, and showed multiple ongoing activities on the work stream with clinical trials in 2022. No one is pricing AP103 into the SP at this stage but it should be pretty clear that the company is still working on it.

Do you really think JM is delaying? The ball is with the banks.

HZM can "anticipate" completing the package in H1 but the key decisions and timetable are controlled by the banks, not HZM.

I see where you're coming from, RedRoy, but I don't expect the consolidation itself to have any significant effect on the share liquidity and so no significant effect on the SP.

As long as Cu stays popular with the traders and the company progresses its turnaround then I expect the share to be popular and the liquidity to be just fine, only the number of shares in an average trade will be smaller - noob's £800 punt will buy fewer shares.

The company will have run the consolidation proposal past CE Mining before they announced it to us. So it was a done deal from the off. But as Lekka says, it will only be confirmed by vote at the AGM on the 26th.

Spot on, Propinquity.

antharry
dj trades a lot so it's quite possible he felt the sp had gone too far. He probably helped the fall, mind you, selling around 100 mill shares, lol.

"Multiple components of the Araguaia project finance package reaching final stages."

For me that's the key message. And since the cornerstone investor is there, we're really talking about getting the banks over the line with the debt package. That has always been the biggie.

As long as the world is heading out of covid, and the world still plans to build its way out of this hole, and that road is to a greener future then people are going to need the nickel and I won't be setting artificial date/month/quarter targets.

I have no doubt the mine life will be extended. The Feb drill results were very encouraging and support the CPR view that it should be possible to move resource into the reserves category. I have no real sense how much will be added, gut feel we were seeing another couple of years, but really we need the company to flesh that out to give confidence.

Copper Keel North surface results were impressive but where are the underground results? It is exactly 3 months since they said they were pending. They could be very significant.

Beyond that we're into proving other prospects and while the company is very optimistic it's difficult to know what they will be worth and how much it will cost in time and money to develop them and at what average grade.

The other key area I have no handle on is when will Minto finally pay off its commitments and be in a position to give PERE its share of profits? From the funding statements it seems like the company is not expecting income before 2022 but does anyone have a view here? The current Cu price must be a help, surely?

For me it is these uncertainties that hold the SP back. Once the company can give the future some clarity I would expect a rerate.

pp/TDT
Yes, you might be surprised at the range of customers on the nominee platforms. Certainly not all PIs but most PIs end up there.

I also agree about warehousing, Hiding below 3% does happen, it doesn't trip holding checks on the platform and of course the platform's customers are invisible to the registrar. I have seen this kind of thing in the form of a small company fronting for a larger unnamed player.

Where I disagree with TDT is the idea that this kind of activity would ever involve deliberate manipulation of the Significant Holders page at HZM. It is so laxly regulated and policed and so infrequently updated that no one would ever need to.

If we saw a full platform snapshot immediately prior to the placing and another immediately after then just maybe it would raise a trivial question for the company to answer about placees but that just doesn't happen and, critically, didn't happen. The churn since the placing pretty much guarantees the nominees will now have picked up plenty of the placing shares.

I have no doubt that HZM has either not got round to updating the platforms' holdings or hasn't yet been given updated holdings and will not be bothered about it. They are acceptably compliant. The important stuff is the shares on issue and the real major investors who update via RNS. Platforms don't behave like a single large investor in terms of voting or influence and companies don't report them to investors in the same way as the Glencores and Tecks of this world.

If there was anything odd with the placing and the platforms and registrar didn't pick it up then there is zero chance it will be visible to PIs on the Significant Holders page. That really is a grassy knoll too far.

TDT
Again, if the company really wanted to conceal placing shares going to the nominee platforms they could have sought updated holdings prior to the placing. It would still be the latest update they received and would be given exactly the same declaration on Significant Holdings.

TDT
OK, I may be seeing what you're getting at (finally, you say!) So, if the company is updating the Significant Holders page to take account of the increased shares on issue, is it deliberately not updating the nominee platform holdings?

I still think not. It's more likely the company only receives the platform updates in line with the reporting requirement, i.e. every six months. So it means it hasn't yet received the next report to update the figures.

If the company had easy access to the figures and really wanted to mislead you, it would have taken a platform snapshot just before the placing and reported those as the most recent figures. We would be none the wiser.

It's an interesting idea to use changes in the platform holdings to see where a placing has gone. Certainly not what the Significant Holder rules were aimed at but I can see why qualitatively it might point to where shares went. Even more interesting if they report again after the churn period. When we do finally see the updated platform holdings I'll be watching for your comments. If they take another 6 months I might believe you.

TDT
I've never worked with a registrar so if they take responsibility for reporting platforms then that's interesting. I have always assumed with platforms it was a regular reporting arrangement, not event based (like a placing). Perhaps it is the same with the registrar. If you have more info I'd like to read it.

For the other significant holders the company will always wait until the holder notifies them of a change, regardless of whether the registrar would be able to tell them earlier. That is how it works.

Either way HZM are still just reporting the latest holdings they have been given. In this case they wanted to update the shares on issue and didn't have later figures to update anyone's shares.

The page will have been updated to report the new number of shares on issue. Obviously this changes the percentages so they have been updated for consistency. However, the company relies on shareholders to notify it of their holdings. If the platforms haven't provided new figures yet then it has to go with the latest it has been given.

You can see they've left Barclays on the page even though the recalculation pushes it below 3% and they say at the top they are only reporting above 3%. After the platforms provide new figures it will be sorted I expect.