Member Info for SquirtyFlower

Doing a little maths on the shipment info.....

- 250,000kgs into US in July equates to an annual shipment rate of 3000mtV into the US or, perhaps more pertinently, would equate to shipment of 1500mtV to the US in 2H18 if it were sustained from now on
- if US is approx 50% of shipments then we'd be looking at annual global shipments of 6000mtV (or 3000mtv for the next 6 months).

Clearly these shipment rates are substantially above the production rates and recent guidance and so, if true, appear to be a short-term blip that is not sustainable. Either that or we will be shipping close on 100% of production to the US in 2H18.....which doesn't sound realistic imho.

Maybe we'll get the reverse of the infamous Friday afternoon short from last summer...........a Friday afternoon whoosh to pull the rug out from under a few before Monday.

I get the sense that today might be the bottom of the recent share price drift. Today is really the end of the summer holiday season in the UK and the market tends to kick into life once Sept arrives. This will be especially true if, as suspected by many on here, FM and the team have a number of announcements lined up for the next few weeks.

Personally I'm disappointed by the lack of an RNS on the grant. The grant represents a financial injection from an external source into one of the BMN companies and so, I beleive, ought to be communicated clearly and openly via the official financial news reporting mechanism.

In similar fashion, I believe the company ought to issue an RNS to clarify the status of the warrants due to expire on 25 Aug 2018. Did they expire and so the company is not getting the finance/dilution these would represent or have they been exercised? I can only assume no news means they've expired as the company legally must report additional shares being created, but shareholders ought to have this confirmed not be left to guess or assume.

I also think the company ought to have reported the 2Q strike in a more timely fashion as this was a significant unscheduled production outage. My concern is primarily about ensuring a level playing field for all investors as this type of event is something which South African investors may be more aware of than UK ones....and something the company needs to be even more mindful of when we get a joint LSE/JSE listing.

And, hopefully, reduce some of the pressures which led to the recent community action that impacted Vametco and other locations.

Nick, thanks for your reply. It was the 7% royalty that I was missing. Armed with this knowledge, I worked some numbers for 2H18 using the following assumptions:

- 2H18 production = 2H18 sales = 1600mtV. This takes FY18 production to 2960mtV so within the latest guidance.
- average sale price of $75/kgV
- 2H18 SG&A is $8.66M (flat on 1H)
- mid-guidance 2H18 production costs of ZAR 245/kgV ($19.44/kgV using Q2 exchange rate).

Using these, in 2H18 Bushveld Vametco (BV) would generate:
- $120M revenue
- $8.4M royalty payments
- $8.66M SG&A
- $31.1M production costs
- $71.9M EBITDA (of which $42.49M (59.1%) would be attributable to BMN).

Taken with the 1H18 numbers from this week’s RNS , this would give FY18 results of:

- $205M revenue for BV
- $114M EBITDA for BV

- $121.4M revenue for BMN (GBP 94.5M)
- $67.5M EBITDA for BMN (GBP 52.6M).

All-in-all, a very healthy projected set of results (cash elephant as you would say), similar to those projected by Alfa, Tyfoon and others and much more positive than those projected by our now departed cyclist (quelle surprise).

I've been struggling with the disparity between Alfa/Tyfoon's numbers and those posted by MG based off the recent RNS. In particular, why table 1 in this week's RNS does, as MG says, indicate a cost/revenue ratio approaching 50% when Alfa/Tyfoon etc have a much lower percentage.

From Table 1, in Q2 Bushveld Vametco produced 629mtV and the prod cost was 268.18 ZAR/kgV (268,180 ZAR/mtV). Thus the total prod cost was ZAR 629*268180 = ZAR 168,685,220. Call this ZAR 168.7M for ease.

However the delta between the revenue and the EBITDA (i.e what was spent) was ZAR 623.2 - 331.6 = ZAR 291.6.

Therefore, my question is what did the additional ZAR 122.9M (291.6-168.7) get spent on in 2Q? This is close on $10M. I see note 5 of table 1 says the production costs of ZAR 268 kg/V exclude depreciation, royalties and SG&A, but $10M seems an awful lot to be spent in one quarter on these.

Doing the same calculations for 1H18 leaves a delta of approx $15m so it looks like $5m was spent in similar fashion in 1Q.

The overall expansion program is costing around $18m so perhaps BV have spent a large amount of this already? Alternatively, if BV really do have an ongoing quarterly SG&A, depreciation, and royalties spend of $5-10m, then some folks will need to wind down their EBITDA estimates for the year for BV and, in turn, for BMN's 59.1%. This is a request for understanding, not trying to pick a fight or take sides!

knuttie - completely agreed, but we still ought to be informed about the conditions. I have no doubt that BE will do everything in it's power to remain within the terms, but shareholders ought to be informed so we can understand how generous or onerous the terms are and so better understand our investment risk.

It is great news and further demonstrates just what a key technology BE is getting into. At a bigger scale, BE appears to be slap bang in the middle of a technology/economic power-play between the US and China. This can only be good news for shareholders and increase our potential interest to a predator.

All on top of the £29m or so 1H18 profit from the vanadium mining and the even greater likely profits in 2H18 and on into 2019. All-in-all, I can more than live with the few bumps in the road we occasionally get as shareholders when the overall short, medium and long-term outlooks all look so promising here.

I am hoping that at some point today the company will find the time in between tweeting and giving press interviews to have the courtesy to inform shareholders properly about this grant via an RNS e.g. what period it covers, what exactly it covers and what is seen as 'business as usual' that is excluded, details of any repayment conditions, how it is split between BE and UET, etc.

It's great news, but at $500K it is a very significant financial consideration that needs an RNS. Furthermore shareholders shouldn't be treated as lower priority than giving interviews to the press when it comes to news.

Also, remember the warrants bring cash into BMN (approaching £700K from yesterday's RNS for 5m, perhaps more in the coming days). Whilst we're now awash with cash from Vametco, the company has ambitious plans for growing both BMN and BE - including possibly paying a dividend in the near future - so the warrant cash all adds to the firepower the company has to bring the plans to fruition.

numpty5 - why are you answering your own initial post as though you were someone else? Have you got multiple id's and forgot to respond to yourself using a different one? Ooops....basic error......not quite the naive investor you claim to be methinks.

20p paid

Ah, ok, didn't spot the difference.

BBN - fyi - today's RNS stated "Unit production costs for the 2017 calendar year were ZAR 220/KgV (US$16.6/kgV)." in the detailed section about Vametco.

Meanwhile the share price looks like it is trying to rocket upwards.....

Even better for those of us with circa 2p average purchases......1p would be a 50% dividend and if things keep going well then I could imagine getting an annual dividend greater than my original investment within perhaps 5 years.

.....and the Sergio Ramos fan-club would know all about cowards and chickens..........

I've previously speculated that it could be Yellow Dragon selling down some or all of their holding. They have been very supportive over the years, but at the same time we've also seen them sell substantial holdings (I recall them selling all their current holding at one point in the past prior to it being rebuilt with warrant conversions - and we only found out when they had sold all their holding not as soon as they dropped below notifiable thresholds). Therefore they are by no means 'sticky' holders even though they've been very good for us. Why would they do this? Possible reasons: - realise a large profit - the company can more than stand on its own two feet now without them.

In what way are the MMs not wanting to play? As Nick says, they've allowed substantial buying at under 19p this afternoon so I would see that as playing extremely nicely.

And another 3 * 100K buys......

9 * 100K share trades - all buys - in the last 30 mins plus 3 * 50K buys. Someone taking advantage of the temporary price weakness to bag themselves a bargain.