The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Thanks for the warning on EUZ. It's always good to find out if the board are in it for the paycheck or whether they have a decent stake invested in the company.
One little miner on the rise again is UFO. The price has crept up over the last few days after they appointed a new non-executive director. Part of his package is share options that are exercised at a higher price than what the share was trading at when he joined. It gives existing holders confidence that the price is likely to rise in the future.
https://miningindaba.com/Page/investing-in-african-mining-indaba---china-ro
A profit is only a profit once you take the money and run. A circa 9 bagger is amazing and I'd be thrilled to do that.
I bought in here at 23p when attempting to catch a falling knife. I finally bailed out at 18p. Luckily my initial stake was under £1000, so just took a small hit!
My only 10+ bagger has been EUA where I started buying at 2.45p and have sold at up to 37p. Buying into OMI again at 15p looks tempting...
My first EUA purchase was at 2.45p and it was fairly easy to trade EUA pre-suspension as there were big daily swings then. My "dream" price at the time was seeing the share price going above 27p and the price kept climbing to over 40p. I held and watched the price drift back down below 27p again, so I also wished I took some of the profit so I could buy more shares at a lower price. This week I sold 2000 shares at 37p and bought back in at around 29p which added an extra 537 golden tickets to my modest holding. I've already set-up another limit sell of 2000 at 37p...
The RNS clearly states that a no vote kills the deal. This statement is probably true. The directors have worked hard putting a deal together and let's face it BiVictriX are in the stronger negotiating position as MTFB just burns cash when it is a cash shell and not actively trading.
If we assume BiVictriX won't negotiate further about allocating existing MTFB shareholders a bigger slice of the shareholders a higher allocation of the BiVictriX pie, then the chances are it will be game over for MTFB. The directors will be unmotivated and will continue to draw a wage and expenses from the MTFB pot until it runs dry - I assume the directors chose BiVictriX as they looked to be the best long-term bet out of their shortlist of RTO candidates. They are in favour of this deal as they have negotiated a good cut for themselves at the expense of the existing MTFB shareholders.
Another question is if shareholders don't vote are these votes just disregarded or can the directors count them as a yes or can they only do this if the shareholder agrees to them acting as a proxy on their behalf?
There could be 25% or so of LTH who assumed MTBF was a dead duck and are not actively following developments and may not hear about this vote before the deadline.
Yes, the existing MTFB directors probably realise that the peasants are revolting and if the majority of small shareholders don't vote in favour then they're unlikely to receive their last big income generating chance!
Magpies1862, either that or a Freudian slip from Lucky after their boss battered our chances of seeing a decent deal in this RTO. Unlikely to be a current MTFB shareholder so probably batting for the other team.
Goldstinger, I've gone through the numbers in your post and noticed you have a little error. You said that we can pay 20p when redeeming the warrants, which is incorrect.
The Wed, 26th May 2021 15:00 RNS states: "Proposed warrants to be issued to existing Motif shareholders on the basis of one warrant per two Ordinary Shares held with an exercise price of 30 pence and valid for 180 days following Admission (the "Admission Warrants", see below);"
So they want existing shareholders to accept a 220:1 consolidation and then require us to pay 50% more than the other investors paid to buy additional shares!
Yes, IMO they seem to: 1st they floor us with the MASSIVE DILUTION and then kick us in the b@lls by charging us an EXTRA 50% for the privilege of purchasing a few additional shares! That sounds like a great deal (for them anyway)!
The additional 50% cost for purchasing the 50% additional shares that we can buy knocks up our break-even point in new company to £1 or so.
What if you started the MTFB journey buying at 22p and your average is 4.5p? Everyone's entry point and average is different, but most LTHs will be somewhere North of 95% down on their initial investment...
Agreed Saint68, BiVictriX saw how much MTFB was at suspension and their aim will be to buy the cash shell at a discount. IMO the only way we could have achieved more is if the RTO candidate was also interested in all the Iclaprim IP/studies but BiVictriX working in another field.
The problem is there are 100s of small shareholders and people who reject the initial deal all have different expectations on what they would consider to be an acceptable deal. For example I have 77,777 shares in MTFB and usually buy shares in weird combos and a 77:1 share consolidation could appeal to me. A 100:1 consolidation isn't a great result but is a nice round number - on opening our shares would only be worth 40% of the pre-suspension price. There is the hope value that the share will start to fly in the 1st year as demand from new investors push the share price up. Issuing warrants - personally I'm not that bothered but Saint68 wants warrants. So we agree that 100:1 consolidation is acceptable but there is a question mark over issuing warrants. If doing warrants what would people want? Some may say they they aren't bothered, others may say warrants at 100:1 and others might want warrants at a 40:1 ratio. The problem is when there are 100s of small PIs they all have different ideas and expectations of what they would consider to be an suitable deal. Whether BiVictriX would want the hassle of engaging with shareholders and making a counter offer is a gamble. I only have £70 stake money for this bet but there are other people holding much larger amounts of shares in MTFB.
At the moment your money is tied up and worth nothing - are people willing to accept the 220:1 offer and take the guarantee of a few pennies in the pound and have a few shares in a new company that may fly? Are people willing to risk their current stake and do an all or nothing gamble on getting a better counter offer from either BiVictriX or maybe another company? If the majority of shareholders vote no, what do shareholders think is the likely-hood of receiving a better offer against running out of cash and dying? Is it 80/20 certainty, 50/50 coin toss or 20/80? Nobody knows and each person will have their own ideas and risk profile on whether to take the guaranteed IMO derisory 220:1 offer to still be in the AIM game or go the high risk route hoping for a better deal...
I look forward to seeing other people's views on this thread. Kettle, are you in the yes or no camp?
Kettle, I have no idea how this reverse takeover will pan out. I've historically invested in FTSE 350 companies and MTBF was my 1st AIM share. I've no experience with cash shells and RTOs and have no idea if we voted no whether it would be game over or if BiVictriX would counter with a better offer for existing shareholders.
I guess it depends on whether there are other AIM cash shells available right now that BiVictriX could reverse into with the same level of investment. The current directors have put their time and effort into getting us an RTO deal and the daily cash burn will make us look less attractive as time drags on.
I guess saying no would be a coin toss - if lucky BiVictriX decide to make shareholders an improved offer to keep the deal on track and if unlucky they walk away and the directors would need to look at alternative candidates for the RTO. They are backing this deal so they probably won't want the hassle of starting another RTO negotiation. The cash in the shell would be reduced so the next company could offer even less or we may just run out of cash and die...
Kettle, the SP was 0.5p just before suspension. If the new SP opens at 20p on launch then we would need a 40:1 share consolidation to avoid taking a hit on the pre-suspension price. I had hoped that the new company may have had an interest in Iclaprim so they may have paid more to the MTFB shareholders to secure the company and the IP/research around Iclaprim. This doesn't seem to be the case and it looks like BiVictriX were just looking for a cash shell to reverse into to save time/money.
Obviously BiVictriX will want to buy the existing shareholders out as cheaply as possible and knew the original value of the company at suspension and have put IMO a lowball offer at 220:1 consolidation and threw us a few crumbs by issuing us warrants that allow us to purchase a few extra shares at 30p which we would only exercise if the SP took off. I've never had warrants before and IMO issuing warrants for piddly amounts of shares (in my case anyway) is just generating excess admin costs. I'd feel better if BiVictriX kept it simple and offered us a better consolidation rate, say 1 new share for every 100 old shares and didn't bother with the warrants.
I only have 77,777 shares so if the deal goes through on the current terms my original £3.3K "Investment" in MTFB would become £70 and I'd have the opportunity to buy another 176 shares for another £53. It's not a big deal to me whether the BiVictriX RTO goes ahead or not as I'd already mentally written off MTFB anyway. In fact it would probably be easier from a capital gains tax calculation to take a total loss on MTFB if EUA pays a decent special dividend within this tax year.
As an aside I had a dream the night before the fateful RNS dropped - I rarely remember dreams but this was pretty vivid. It was that one of the shares in my portfolio did a 100+ bagger and went from around 0.5p and hit above 70p briefly before settling at 61p. In this dream I tried to see the ticker to see which share soared but I didn't get to see it. Maybe it was BiVictriX taking off, but unfortunately we would still be well underwater if we only get 1 new share for every 220 old share! :-(
Maybe because today was tomorrow yesterday? :-)
Hydrogen fuel cell technology EVs seems to be the choice that both Japan and South Korea have made rather than going down the BEV route.
Toyota has introduced the Mirai FCEV in the UK https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/
Hyundai has introduced the Nexo in the UK. https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/nexo
South Korea is also investing heavily in hydrogen FCEV vehicles https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/061020-south-koreas-hydrogen-ambitions-propel-hyundai-motor-into-top-gear
The great thing about hydrogen FC vehicles from PGM miner's perspective is they use around 10x the amount of PGMs in the fuel cell than petrol or diesel cars use in their catalytic converters. Unfortunately these FC vehicles are still a bit pricey - costing £60K + for a family car. It is going to be interesting to see which of the technologies really takes off. BEVs currently have a head start, but FCEVs seem to be more scalable and has the edge regarding sustainability. The disadvantage is filling up with green hydrogen costs more than charging a BEV via the electrical grid.
Historically, the platinum price was higher than gold up until 2011 when Pt took a dip and has stayed below the price of gold. Palladium did the opposite - it was historically cheaper than gold for years and then started going crazy in 2016 and overtook the gold price in 2018.
https://www.amergold.com/gold-news-info/bullion-charts.php
The industrial demand for PGM metals is exceeding supply, with palladium now being more popular than platinum. With hydrogen fuel cells, it looks like Pt and Pd can both be used. Platinum is currently much cheaper than palladium, so Japan and Korea may start using more platinum which will drive it closer to the palladium price.
IMO all precious metals will continue to rise in the short-term. IMO the biggest percentage risers will be silver and platinum and the palladium price could start to drop as production of new petrol and diesel cars drops in favour of BEV and FCEVs.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology EVs seems to be the choice that both Japan and South Korea have made rather than going down the BEV route.
Toyota has introduced the Mirai FCEV in the UK https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/
Hyundai has introduced the Nexo in the UK. https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/nexo
South Korea is also investing heavily in hydrogen FCEV vehicles https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/061020-south-koreas-hydrogen-ambitions-propel-hyundai-motor-into-top-gear
The great thing about hydrogen FC vehicles from EUA's perspective is they use around 10x the amount of PGMs in the fuel cell than petrol or diesel cars use in their catalytic converters. Unfortunately these FC vehicles are still a bit pricey - costing £60K or so for a family car. It is going to be interesting to see which of the technologies really takes off. BEVs currently have a head start, but FCEVs seem to be more scalable and may also have the edge regarding sustainability.
Also large scale hydrogen or natural gas fuel cells can be used to supply energy to large buildings. The Minerals Council of South Africa building is powered by a natural gas fuel cell that uses "only 40oz" of platinum!
https://www.mineralscouncil.org.za/industry-news/publications/fact-sheets/send/3-fact-sheets/741-fuel-cell
*aren't following the crowd and building BEVs.
Toyota has introduced the Mirai FCEV in the UK https://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/new-mirai/
South Korea is also investing heavily in hydrogen FCEV vehicles https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/061020-south-koreas-hydrogen-ambitions-propel-hyundai-motor-into-top-gear
ceejay1awest, whilst Japan do make Li-Ion batteries they are following the crowd and building battery electric vehicles. They are developing electric vehicles that derive their energy from hydrogen fuel cells. This is great news for EUA as the hydrogen fuel cells require either platinum or palladium in their construction. A petrol or diesel car has somewhere between 5-30 grams of either Pt or Pd used in their catalytic converter. Hydrogen fuel cells need around 10x the amount of PGM in a catalytic converter to operate.
Also large scale hydrogen or natural gas fuel cells can be used to supply energy to large buildings. The Minerals Council of South Africa building is powered by a natural gas fuel cell that uses "only 40oz" of platinum!
https://www.mineralscouncil.org.za/industry-news/publications/fact-sheets/send/3-fact-sheets/741-fuel-cell