Member Info for okenia

AIMtodeath. Archer has grown the mcap (via shares out) not the SP. You're quite right in the focus - it's to nurture the financiers (Trisse et al) with scant interest in stimulating the secondary market. Investor roadshows are almost non-existent - SAV don't present at general shows like UKIS etc. The result is that the trading liquidity on the secondary market has ground lower and lower over the last two years. There's nothing Archer is doing that will particularly change that. The focus is on people who will give money to the company to use , not on the SP.

Trisse you know exactly my point. A TR1 holder saying "I'm in for the long term" doesn't have much weight I'm afraid.

Trisse - TR1 holders don't have much choice but to stay for the long haul and hope for an eventual exit. As Nigel Wray says when he takes a big stake, he assumes he'll "go down with the ship". The decision-making process for a small shareholder who can exit (due to liquidity and not trashing the SP by the sells being disclosed) is very different.

And Tshipi is still throwing off cash at a tremendous rate because it is producing in excess of the 3mt figure. The asset is so large that even that level of production hardly scratches the reserve. Target 4-5mt pa going forward, all goes straight to the bottom line. You seem to be conflating your "I lost �9k and need someone else to blame other than myself - where's that rotter Andrew Bell?!?" with the actual value of one of the world's biggest and lowest-cost Mn mines. Ie a "well it's got a link to Andrew so it must be sheet" flawed logic. BTW if you'd worked at the living wage in a fast food joint for the same same number of cumulative hours you've posted on RGM/RRR boards you would have more than recouped your losses, and would have met a few smiley human faces in the process. Just a thought.

Nice to see Jupiter describing future returns to JMS shareholders as a "dividend" - which is what I have always called it, despite bashing my head against the table with one particular person here - and not the technical mouthful of "equal access buy back" Also looks like Tshipi has had a cracking year, exceeding the 3mt production forecast and with cash flows that hit the ball out of the court. "Jupiter CEO, Priyank Thapliyal commented that "the Tshipi operating and sales strategy for FY2019 is broadly similar to that of FY2018. The results for FY2018 when manganese prices averaged around US$4.742 demonstrate the cash generation potential of Tshipi. With current prices at US$7.232, significantly higher cash flow is being generated. Product has been sold through to April which will result in cash in the bank for Tshipi of approximately ZAR 1.5 billion at end of May. Should the markets hold, this raises the prospect of a substantial HY2019 distribution to Tshipi shareholders, and in turn to Jupiter shareholders under the Company's dividend policy as stated in the replacement prospectus."" - from the RNS JMS looks like it will be a continuing and growing cash-cow to RRR with dividends and one hopes a similar uplift in the capital value via the market price on ASX. The market will readily value Tshipi/JMS simply on a dividend yield basis.

So you're happy for them to get a Oman-related LTIP for delivering a project late, and having failed to declare even an ounce of additional copper/gold despite having spent in excess of £4m on exploration in Oman?

Full accounts here: http://www.savannahresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Annual-Report-and-Financial-Statements-2017.pdf See p34 Archer and Ferguson have nearly doubled their remuneration for 2017 compared to 2016. Now they are getting a LTIP on top of a very substantial pay rise AND a bonus.

I wasn't tempted at all to hit the Sell button today.

Cadis. At the risk of making my posts longer and duller than they already are: Britdaq requires you to be a HNWI or SI. The former is classified as �250k+ liquid assets, the latter a selection of things including having done some pre-IPO funding recently. This isn't really a topic for argument, it's in clear explicit text as part of the Britdaq onboarding process (I can't remember if you only see it during that time or if it's public to all on the website though).

The option 'HNW' is not "available to all" - it's available to, er, high net worth individuals. Britdaq are FCA regulated and this is a compliance declaration as part of Britdaq's Know Your Client onboarding process. If people want to make a false declaration then that's entirely a matter for them.

DaveyDo: do you meet the FCA's definition of either a High Net Worth or Sophisticated Investor? Ie have funded at least to pre-IPO equities in last year, liquid assets in excess of £250,000? That's the requirement to qualify for Gold on Britdaq and thus find someone to trade your certs with. Costs are ~ £50 per trade plus whatever your broker charges to issue paper certs (usually £25-£50 depending). So around £100 in total. YMMV.

So why did the Alabama coal mine get dropped into Flagship instead?

GS - you've been very happy to repeatedly post very long and details posts with NAV calculations based on a range of very large asset valuations. As you say, we actually have no idea as to the assets nor their valuations. So humour me. �50m asset, shares increase 5x to achieve that. From a corporate finance perspective that would be an outstanding success, one any shell company CEO would be delighted with. What would be the NAV per share in that situation?

I have never said they would issue billions. Flagship trebled its shares in issue in order to do one deal (which is only for part of GEM). They issued 100m. WHET has current authority to issue 73m shares (which would more than double the shares in issue). Let's say they get WHET (an empty shell with essentially no cash) to one that is holding a few assets with a real NAV of �50m - that would be a tremendous achievement. And they manage to go from the current ~ �400k in cash to a �50m NAV (a rise of over 100-fold in NAV!) by only increasing the share count five-fold (again a 100 fold NAV increase would be a tremendous success). If I were running the company I'd be over the moon at that sort of performance, empty shell to �50m with only a 5x increase in shares in issue. Do me one of your NAV per share calcs for that scenario, GS.

GS - if you re-read Aidan's March 2nd post you will see that he says not once, but THREE times that assets will be acquired for shares. Allow me to put the relevant text of his blog in capitals for you: "For an acquisitive company, in parallel with the market strategy of not issuing discounted shares, it is a key objective to persuade vendors that it is in their interests to sell their business or asset at below fair market price. Why would the vendors sell their business or asset at below market price, you may ask? Because, ultimately, they will receive more than fair market price for it. If a vendor sells an asset clearly worth �1 million to the listed company for �1m then investors in that stock market company will be completely unmoved by the transaction, and in fact the shares (and therefore the VENDOR SHARE CONSIDERATION too) would probably tend to wilt on the news, as investors express their lack of appreciation by selling their shares, driving down the share price and eventually stock market volume too. On the other hand, were the vendor to sell the asset into the listed company at a 50% discount to fair market value, for example, the transaction would be seen as being very good news for the listed company, investors would respond by buying the shares, SHARES WOULD APPRECIATE (INCLUDING THOSE OF THE VENDOR), volume and investor interest would also increase, and investors would be enthusiastic about the next forthcoming transaction causing the shares to increase ahead of it. In fact it is entirely probable that after the second or third acquisition, THE SHARE CONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL VENDOR would have appreciated by more than the discount he accepted for the asset in the first place. You therefore have happy vendors, happy investors and a listed company with genuine momentum to complete further deals that continue that virtuous cycle. " I'm not sure Aidan or Whetstone can really be much clearer in what they intend to do. Which is to buy assets in return for shares in WHET.

GS, addictnk To be fair to WHET, they're not the ones saying people will be giving them assets free of charge. Yes someone outside the company may have "secured" the deal (like putting down a deposit on a house, to gain exclusivity etc) but that's not the same as someone having bought the asset and now intending to give it to WHET for nothing in return. A few points: - WHET state explicitly in their NEX admission document that they will use shares to acquire assets: "Following the completion of any investments, the Investment Manager will work in conjunction with incumbent management teams to develop and deliver a strategy for performance improvement and/or acquisition-led strategic and operational enhancements.Investors should be aware that it is an express intention of the Directors to utilise its share capital as partial consideration for acquisitions." - WHET have recently obtained authority to issue 73 million new WHET shares: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10905791/filing-history 06 Nov 2017 Resolutions Resolution of allotment of securities LIMITED allotment of securities 19/09/2017 Resolution of adoption of Articles of Association - Flagship is acquiring part of the Alabama mine by issuing 100m new shares (more than trebling those in issue), giving an example of how this works. - Aidan is quite clear that what the vendor gets is tradeable paper. That's his entire point about why a vendor would do the deal, the logic of the SP increasing etc. The vendor benefits from that by holding stock. - WRN themselves were quite explicit that they would use shares to acquire things, read the text that was on the bottom of ever WRN RNS: "The Company believes that exceptional shareholder returns can be achieved by utilising its main market Sterling paper to acquire investments in these sectors worldwide." - WHET only has a few hundred grand in cash so can hardly buy much for cash. It can however issue new WHET shares, which currently trade at 25p/share, to pay a vendor for an asset.

I said at the beginning that I thought mid-June for resumption of trading and I'm still sticking with that timeline. There's a lot of moving parts here: - raising funds (debt, equity, off take etc) - sorting out the fine details of the deal - a new prospectus, which will then take several weeks of 'ping pong' with UKLA as per their normal timeline - announcement of a General Meeting in order to grant the authority to issue the shares needed (this will require a fortnight minimum notice to shareholders) - hold GM Only at that point can we resume trading - so even after the deal has been done and funds raised, there's quite a bit of tedious admin to do. They may well get the funding and deal sorted by end of April but there's easily 4-6 weeks admin work subsequent to that before shares start trading again. On the plus side they seem to have got decent lawyers as the Standard List prospectus went through UKLA like a breeze.

Brycen - you're spot on re the ex-PJ shareholders. They were expecting a much shorter-term story (with a more aggressive ramp). PERE is a different game. Not better or worse, just different. I don't know how many of the PJ fan club are still shareholders here, wistfully harking back to the days of 71 RNSes a year - many I suspect have move to pastures new. Another quirk is the fact that much of the last placing was to Beaufort Securities clients. That stock (where still held) is now locked away indefinitely. That could be very positive for the free float once we resume trading - especially if much of the fundraise is to institutional sticky hands (as I suspect it will be). A 3p fundraise and a tiny free effective float on resumption of trading could make for a few fireworks!

And as Levi says, whether it is 'dilutive' depends on the price. Think cake and slices. If we get a smaller slice of a cake that is so much bigger that we get more calories in our individual slices, that's anti-dilutive. Thus the fund raise price is key. Let's just hope DL likes his chocolate cake and isn't on a low calorie diet!!

Brycen. Debt and equity are both dilutive just in different ways. See WTI. All their 'profit' goes into paying their debt, leaving nothing for shareholders. And they pay for the privilege (interest payments). Taking on debt is a really good way to end up going bust if things go wrong. With equity, a slowdown in the commodity price just means reduced profits. With a big debt burden you end up so feared that below a certain commodity price you go bankrupt. A bit like owning part of a house (outright), versus owning all of it (but with a massive mortgage). There will be equity raised. The questions you need to ask are "from whom" and "at what price". Those are the key ones.