Member Info for SickOfTheRatRace

Is there a definition of "junior miner?". Is it based on size of deposit, number of employees, market cap, turnover?

I'll see your £2 and raise you £1. Will cost you £3 to call....

"Additional Project Acquisition" - page 21.

Are we now losing ground again because of something already known about? FFS.

I think this was already expected, didn't the resolutions put to shareholder vote include this?

Thanks again Alfa that would appear to clear it up.

Thanks Alfa. I have no problem with that aspect (the raise for simplification which is speculated to be used to buy out Sojitz), just who is paying for the expansion plans right now. If "Vametco" are paying from cashflows then there is no real issue but in which case why did BMN need to raise part of the money to fund Vametco expansion? If BMN are paying then are Sojitz paying their share - although this may have been the case for previous expansion already completed why would they be paying for further expansion if they are being actively bought out - unless they receive a refund as part of the overall package or receive no benefits for expanded production they haven't funded.

Personally I would like clarification of the expansion plan funding. It was promoted that expansion plans were being funded from internal Vametco cashflows which certainly makes sense whilst Sojitz is a partner. If there are expansion costs you take these from internal Vametco cashflow/sales which means any profits/dividends paid to parent organisations are reduced by these payments ensuring the burden is shared proportionally. BMN raising money and then paying for this themselves as per the fundraise doesn't make much sense unless Sojitz are also funding their share - not sure why a company being bought out would be putting money in for expansion. Why do BMN need a capital raise to fund Vametco expansion at all given that Vametco is making millions per calendar month? In the most recent Junior Indaba presentation on page 9 all three expansions are listed as "self funded capex" which is ambiguous at best. Self funded by who, Vametco who the slide is about or BMN who made the presentation? Hopefully the annual report will clear this up.

Honestly? I expect selling if not a short attack. Probably some new faces appearing and some late night counter argument sessions again. It's the black and white numbers that many want to see but as Nick has already posted the results are probably going to be negative and show a loss. I don't need to repeat the reasons why but suffice to say there will be those looking to take advantage of it given that everyone here is generally positive. We know that the situation today is very different to what it was in 2017 in terms of income. It's a shame because we know production and guidance both of which are regularly extrapolated into income/EBITDA/share price expectations but the fruit will only be picked when the black and white numbers for H1 show the true picture. Then the price reaction could be quite interesting. If it is an annual report with the same quality as last year then I will be very happy. I hope that there is significant forward looking emphasis on what is already known. In terms of release time I don't think it reflects badly on the board as these are expected historical timescales.

Pdub agree with what you say. However your last line is a key reason for the disconnect between different PI's and the company. On the one hand you have PI's like your good self with some money behind them, already retired, enjoying the sunshine as you say. On the other hand you have PI's looking to retire (primarily from this share) who are currently sitting in an office patiently waiting to flip the bird to their CEO. You also have PI's with smaller stakes who probably won't retire on this share but it will certainly be life changing. There is no reason not to believe that this share will provide many with the retirement they so crave, with a three figure price seemingly nailed on. In fact it is likely that this share will exceed expectations by some margin and/or provide an excellent dividend stream over the coming years (subject to not being taken out first which is also likely). Therefore I fully appreciate the frustration from some quarters that the share is not moving as quickly as it should as value seems very disconnected from what we already know regardless of mining timescales - V prices increasing whilst our share price drifts is also a particularly poor show. It isn't a lot of fun being blasted out of bed in the morning without an RNS, every day at 18p is a day longer until retirement! So please Fortune, if you have news, let us know so we can get this boat sailing again!

Whether we like it or not millennials will be taking over as time progresses. However horrifying that thought is to the generations that came before many do seem to take ecology seriously and VRFB's are of course a useful tool. If the Sabrina Kihms of this world all start banging the drum for energy storage (in their unique way) we all ultimately benefit as policymakers will start taking more notice. "It's a yes from me!" "A million percent yes!" "Deryanartameen?"

OK, it's not the best advert in the world for VRFB but the fact that someone more interested in fashion is vlogging about it may show that actually the message is starting to get through on a wider scale which can only be a positive thing. Sabrina Kihm is seeing this before a lot of investors are!

If those items do indeed rely on the charter then yes they are likely to be delayed. Drafted by end of June and then public comment means they then need a feedback period and then possibly more drafts/revisions over the coming months. However the key is the first draft as that reveals the expected structure which is what investors are waiting for. Subsequent revisions are likely to be minor changes. Of course as said before, if the "once empowered" stays largely unaltered then it will be straight back to the courts. T

Live updates here: https://twitter.com/ewnreporter

Timely article given this discussion: https://www.bee.co.za/single-post/2018/06/12/Ashwin-Willemse-Gayton-McKenzie-And-The-BEE-Deal "The list of 72 was intended to "empower" some people because they were personally connected to McKenzie or because they had political status, but all because they were black. By virtue of a controversial relationship, Willemse was given an obscenely large amount of money because of the colour of his skin. Whichever way one looks at it, this deal was the worst type of deal that could possibly reflect on the empowerment of previously disadvantaged people with the overriding criterion being skin colour."

@Alfa It's the "I am alright Jack" and of course subjective as to whether you as an individual benefit from a given policy. You didn't give detail as to whether you were for or against the policy being introduced in the UK. As a business owner I am sure a part of your position would have been whether you would have benefited or penalised under the policy. When personal taxation changes the loudest voices are those who will be paying more with those unaffected somewhat silent. I wonder how the UK population would react to a similar policy to the one you mention in relation to UK high streets which are continually in the news and under pressure from all sides. I am sure you would find the majority of citizens in favour of a policy where big business would be mandated to spend 25% of procurement with small independent retailers/SME's - "They are big business, they can afford it". Now apply that policy to the UK population as a whole and try and mandate that every UK citizen has to spend 25% of their shopping budgets with independent high streets, compliance of which determined by credit card/contactless/debit card spend. Uproar. In relation to BEE the problem is that there is no mandate that mining income be spent or distributed to the people who are historically disadvantaged. The only requirement is that it is a black organisation. So the challenge to the policy is one of whether the money actually reaches the people it was designed to empower or just enriches the few. If the latter then has anything really changed compared to the oppression that came before it? Some scoffed when it was revealed that Vametco had provided footballs to members of the local community. Although a small gesture (perhaps amongst many we haven't heard about) I would hazard it is probably more than they ever received from past BEE mining partners. Personally that's what I love about having Fortune at the helm. It's clear that he wants to do the right thing, has solid core values and social responsibility as well as wanting to build a world class business.

Absolutely. How they will give that guarantee or if indeed there will be any guarantee is the uncertain factor. Any new government will have a slightly or not so slightly different agenda to the one that came before it. What the mining sector (and definitely investors) will be looking for is a guarantee that there will no further cost impact revisions to the charter for a defined period of time - and as we are talking about mining where "imminently" could mean five years I suspect anyone with interest will be looking for a guarantee of at least 10-20 years. Anyway what do I know, I am not a junior explorer or mining giant. What investors do like is a level of predictability and ability for future forecasting. Knowing that there is less scope for increased regulatory costs for a defined period is of course a positive for the investment case.

Alfa I am not making any comment regarding what Jaxson did or didn't put in to the company, I didn't mention them by name. I am just highlighting how a company that is forced to ensure a % deal is met could put together a deal that wouldn't exist in any other circumstance. This situation is a policy failure from a government that had little idea how to ensure fairness, only that the previously oppressed should get something for nothing as some kind of compensation. It took no account of how successful a company was or who the company was run by. By packaging it up into a "partner" it also ensured there was no emphasis on getting funds to historically disadvantaged citizens, only to an organisation that may or may not have done something altruistic with any income they received. History is littered with junior explorer startups that went nowhere. What's 25% of zero? Zero! It's the "something for nothing" and "why should they have it when I can't" mentality, parallels of which exist everywhere including the UK. Forget about knuckling down and working hard, just get it given to you or worse just take it without consent. Granted it could have been worse for SA, look at Mugabe. Here is hoping that the next charter isn't just a continuation of the last, but takes real opportunity for reform. I doubt it will, but there is always hope.

I would love to be able to go and take a 25% stake in a new company, not put any money in and just tell the company they can deduct my original capital requirements from any future dividends. If the company goes bust I haven't lost anything, if the company is successful I collect dividends later on. The risk in the deal is very one sided. This kind of deal would exist because effectively the company is mandated that a BEE partner has to be the owner of a certain %. So they find a way of transferring the % by any means even if the partner doesn't have the funds to buy upfront, just to be compliant.

YTSS/Vauch very good point. Indeed why buy out Sojitz now if the mining charter means that the company has to up the BEE percentage. As a holder Sojitz would need to contribute their part of the percentage, then we buy the rest. If we buy out Sojitz before the charter outcomes are known then we may be paying money for something we then have to give away. Would certainly explain the delay. Probably went largely unnoticed yesterday but there is a Mineral Resources meeting in SA this afternoon where they will be advising regarding progress and outcomes of stakeholder discussions.