Member Info for PuzzledPete

You mean its dead of course

Do, please, set out any drivel I've posted Mr Viper. And set out the evidence that it i s drivel.

We would all agree with you Sid. But we don't know what the revised capex is t o get going, and no bidder is going to incur that if too large. as well as to pay the cost of his bid.

Because, you blind fool, what I'm posting has helped the sensible avoid - big time - what you have lost. I'm keeping posting because, although the shares might coast along at this level for a bit, (spiked now and again by the likes of you only to collapse again as usual) )reality will strike when Krugel tries again to raise the cash he won't now get from the warrants but desperately needs, and can't do it except with another sickening lurch down in price and even more fatal dilution for mugs like you. (Look up 'dilution' please before continuing your drivel on here)

So you think 'they' got the Met1 shares down from 45p to under 3p do you Mr obviously-never-quite Maidit (past kindergarten).

And of course 'they' (including Blofeld and his villainous henchmen on here) - as well as moi) also got Mast down from over200p. (I bet we all made a ton of cash on that - haven't had tiime to count it yet)

What a child you are.

Get your facts right Mr Element. I stopped commenting on GGP when it had fallen to the bottom - as I had predicted - well before gold started rescuing it. In fact its resurgence is all down to the gold price. The underlying economics are now worse thta when I stopped following. But then as you're ramping here, its obvious you can't get any facts right, let alone understand what they mean.

Yeah ! Walter Mitty had a good story too. But he had the money to bring it about.

Bah1 I don't have a grudge against Mast. I have a grudge against its CEO for having consistently misled investors about the realities of his business - going back to his time at Kibo when persuading mug investors to pay too grotesquely much for Bordersley, and then with more economies with the truth, persuading more poor deluded mugs to pay 10 times too much fort Mast on its spin-off from Kibo. If you'd bothered to read back on here and the whole history including the charts for both companies you'd understand the picture.

Zen ! "Perhaps those who wish ill for Mast ----"

Ever thought of those who Mast has dealt 'ill' to ?

Thought Not.

So there you have it. A trade at 4p. If no higher Mast gets no more of the cash it desperately needs to escape insolvency. (figures, all derived from published info, described a short while ago) One of Walter Mitty's 'Remarkable', 2025 achievements

Pjh In reply to your other remarks earlier. Yes of course an NPV will change over time - eg after one year's production on the original plan it will theoretically reduce by the NPV of what has been mined . I'm talking about analysts' publlished pre-production 'targets'. Once in stable production, everyone switches to dividend yield potential or price/cash flow measures

I see this goose person claimed to have bought 3 million shares at a time when shares were 140p - costing £4.2 million. No wonder he wants mugs to help him recover the £4.1 million he's lost. (just like TraderMan I expect) That's unless he's another Walter Mitty.

TYretread. No treads left on your tyres obviously. Got that wrong . Mast is on a sub-set of the main market called Equity Shares Transition while LSE decides where to put it, after it has abolished the even less regulated than AIM, 'Standard Market' (a real misnomer) where .Mast was listed. Thats why Mast has no nomad to keep in withing market regulations and why and the fca itself has washed its hands of it. I(See its two prospectuses) Its why Walter Mitty has got away with all his failures to full y explain the awkward details behind his ramping and misleadingly economical with the truth announcements of 'progress'- which isn't anything of the sort.

I've been a fully qualified analyst at top and medium brokers with prior experience as a management consultant with MBA and of financial assessments and buusiness analysis of subsidiaries of FTSE 100 companies. I've specialised in mining shares for 20 years, and one of the few analysts to explain to fund managers the realities of NPV's. I'v e probably written about for institutions and banks nearly 1,000 companies, in all capital goods and energy sectors. I don't care if you don't believe me. I'm retired and like to keep my hand in.

Unfortunately pjh - I've found in 40 years as an analyst, that investors don't give much credit for 'other' assets than the main one the market focuses on at the moment. Its the same with 'conglomerates' where brokers analysts (don't forget they are there to flog the shares, not to warrant their value) try to add up a 'sum of parts'. It never happens, for all sorts of reasons, only one being the timing each comes to fruition might be different, and the more 'parts' the more danger one will go tits up or ned support from the others. There are other reasons I won't go into. As for 'value' coming out, look at Solgold, about to be taken over for a fraction of its NPV only a few years away from possible start of production. Admit no one knows yet what has gone wrong there, after derisk after derisk this year.

KefiGold Mining shares never, ever, approach a NPV value even when in full production. Its because investors demand a higher annual return than the mine owner does (at the discount rate - which is merely his cost of capital) especially for such a short life mine. I monitored 70 miners in the last, 2011, mining boom. Very few exceeded 1/3rd brokers' NPV based 'targets'. They might spike for a while when a dividend is on the cards. But won't hold. If you ask AI it will tell you an NPV is merely an internal measure used by a company to check whether a project is profitable for them. It is not a price to pay to buy shares in that project.

Dear oh Dear.

If desperately accepting a deal that, only so far, involves your own shareholders losing 90% of their share of their business, is cause to rub your hands in glee, I wonder what else Krugel has in store ?

Its not very difficult other Pete. Doesn't need to be comprehensive either. Starting figures are all in the half-year balance sheet. and 2nd half figures can be worked out from 1st half P&L details, plus whatever has been announced including use of Prepaids and probable costs of eg Bordersley and partial loan repayments. Add them all up and Hey Presto. Anyone can d o it. But not of course the rampers who either don't want to know, or didn't pass kindergarten numbers tests

I see the serial market abuser TraderManJT71 has had my reply to profitjock's assertion that Mast has plenty of cash removed.

Well thanks PJ, that is clear evidence for the City of London police of your abusing the market by suppressing true information from a professional analyst.

At end June Mast had £0.24 million cash, against £2.9 million current liabilities. Plus £2.4 million other debts due within one year, plus £2.1 million owed on Pyebridge. Half year overheads were £0.5 million, and cost of gas and cash operating costs on Pyebridge revenue had been 74%. on £727,000 electricity sales.

Since then all the pre-paid warrants £5 million cash has been received, less £2.4 million 'costs', and as of Dec 2nd, 14.7 million of the cash warrants had been converted, producing another £587,000 cash.

Based on its latest figures Pyebridge might produce £850,000 revenue in H2 and £220,000 profit. But with £2.1 million repayments to Riverfort before 2029, it won't be able to pay anything to Mast, who will show another loss around £500,000.

So as of now, some £3.2 million has been received in H2 from warrants, against total debts excluding Pyebridge of a net £2.66m working capital deficit at the start, plus £2.4m one year debts, plus £0.5m Mast 2H loss.

That means that as of now Mast is still at least £2.4m in the red, excluding Pyebridge's near £2 million debt.

Thererfore to become just solvent by end year Dec 31st, another 60 million of the cash warrants will have had to be exercised taking the total to around 200 million, and assets per share to less than 3p

Mibb. PER's are never accorded to a short life project such as Kefi's Tulu Kepi. It's more appropriate to use a NPV, but discounted much more than the 5-8% used internally by Kefi. That means the market might accord 1/3rd the NPV in the run up to production.