Member Info for StarBright

@5x5Croire, I doubt v much that is the reason. GGP would have been paying Aus corporate taxes on Hav profits anyway once it had utilised b/fwd losses. The company has said that the changes it contemplates will remove a barrier to Aus insto investors and help simplify some legal processes. I’m inclined to take this at face value. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a mechanism for consolidation embedded in the scheme also though, it’s probably a good opportunity for this.

@Benrumpson1 - it is vanishingly unlikely that there will be any “deal” of the nature you propose with valuations/payments/royalties etc. That’s just not how schemes like this are structured. Expect a rather dry/technical process instead. The company will have to satisfy the court as well as existing shareholders, so there are levels of protection in place for ordinary shareholders.

A scheme of arrangement typically (always, I think but would need to check) requires a dedicated meeting, at which a majority vote must be secured - see below. This happens alongside a legal process - including a court application / appearance - designed principally to protect the rights of creditors. Scheme particulars must be published in advance.

A majority vote means both a majority by headcount of the shareholders voting at the meeting, and that the shareholders voting in favour of the scheme hold at least 75% in the value of the shares represented at the meeting.

So existing ordinary shareholders get a direct opportunity to say yes or no to the scheme that the company is proposing. Note that the 75% threshold isn’t 75% of all shares/shareholders - it is only 75% of those represented at the meeting. The company will turn up to the meeting with secured proxy votes from as many insto holders as they can get to engage. If PI’s don’t like what is being proposed they can participate in person or by proxy and vote against the scheme.

I agree that tone and content here is much improved. Professionalisation of management via Richard Herbert will help protect lucky Lucan’s good fortune with Saltfleetby. I am also more hopeful that returns will now accrue to shareholders rather than being frittered on daft projects with Lucan’s spoony chums. Meade/Clanwilliam and Lucan really are the worst type of OE’s, the epitome of “lucky guys in suits”...

Good luck with your new strategy, Mr008.

@Howey1927 said “Well done all that stuck in there.”

The losers (particularly the UKOG crew) who have been busy working to manipulate inexperienced investors here in the last couple of weeks deserve nothing but contempt. A pathetic way to try to generate returns.

But anyone who listened to and acted upon their nonsense needs to smarten up also. Investors need to be good at separating noise from signal.

The free cashflow generation that will be seen here will drive the share price. Holders need only hold.

@TimberTrader - the denominator (the SP) was lower at the end of March, roughly 7p vs 8p today. So a 0.1p move was 0.1/7 = 1.4%. The same 0.1p move now is 0.1/8 = 1.2%

There really is nothing more to it than that.....

@Zoroz, @ManFrom Uruguay - I sold my GGP holding about a year ago, and am not looking to buy back in. I am still interested to follow the story of the Havieron project though; I think it has every opportunity to go on and become a major mine in time. The extent to which GGP will be able to participate has always been a question for me, particularly after the outcome with the 5%. Projects like Havieron require huge capital commitment over extended (multi-decadal in this instance) timescales. This is why they are the domain of the major miners that have the scale and resources to ride out uncertainties and cyclical changes. 30% of such a commitment is still a big ask.

GGP won’t have any say in what happens with NCM. It appears likely that the NEM offer has institutional support (at this point at least) and will prevail. But other outcomes are possible, including a decision by NEM or whoever prevails to divest Telfer and its 70% of the Havieron project. I think these two (Hav + Telfer) are now bound together. I don’t see the prospect of GGP acquiring the 70% + Telfer as remotely credible, just too much capital/risk relative to the resources of GGP. So that would mean another buyer, Wyloo or associates possibly. Best case outcome is that NEM continues the existing JV, next best would be a friendly buyer also committed to the JV, but GGP shareholders should accept that less acceptable outcomes are possible.

GGP is still exposed to funding risk, which might be triggered by any changes to the JV structure / ownership. I don’t think we know a lot about the conditions precedent in the loan agreement(s), but it is unlikely that the lenders will have left themselves open to major changes in the JV participants for example. We also don’t know how/whether the “Upfront Capex” of USD381m disclosed in Oct 2021 might be affected by variations to the mining plan - was it based on the 2.1Mtpa “starter mine” idea? Or by inflation since 2021 in energy, raw materials and labour costs. The Sprott note released yesterday indicates that GGP has a “buffer” of AUD52m (USD34m) which isn’t a lot. If the financing package has to be re-done then it is possible that the lenders will look to improve their position; more equity capital may be required, and rate margins may be increased etc.

As I posted earlier, recent price action probably reflects these uncertainties. If the outcome of the NCM process is favourable for GGP then a positive re-rate is possible.

"Wont go over my rants again"

Please....

UFO is one of the oh-so-shady Shemesian companies, and it is likely that Rod has upset/crossed the wrong person. There will be a behind-the-scenes story (that we'll never get to hear) of corporate intrigue, personal ambition, dishonesty, politics, betrayal etc. Dan Smith, who has pulled the strings for many years on everything other than exploration/operational matters is still there. The departing non-execs were probably on the wrong side of whatever struggle has taken place. New operational management will be appointed by Shemesian and his associates. The show will go on....

The other RNS is broadly positive. Further confirmation of the opportunity etc.

Extraordinary that this still needs to be explained…

As @Gallder has pointed out so so many times, these are financial contracts not supply contracts. There isn’t a production level that has to be met. Those counting down the days to the date the “hedge is met” as though there is some sort of inflection point need to pay more attention as well….

@gmcc, I agree that they have the funding to complete P1 for AVA6k.

@gmcc - Trinity can only base their output on information provided by Avacta. As Avacta haven’t told the market when (for example) they expect to complete P2, they can’t have told Trinity either.

Trinity’s scope is limited to interpreting the publicly available information, which they generally do in quite a coherent and competent manner. As they are paid for by Avacta, they will likely have some careful help in avoiding fantasy scenarios. Their output is worth examining as a result. But their language will always be couched with great care. In the line that you quote for example, they say “…to reach important value inflection points” rather than “…to see the company through to the end of the approval process”.

Trinity aren’t - by definition - a broker; they aren’t licensed to conduct any execution business.

Their output is paid marcomms only, dressed up to look like broker research notes. Companies like Avacta pay them to produce materials aimed at helping more engaged/sophisticated PI’s to understand their businesses. They have some competent content creators and the quality of their output is generally good.

The reality is that no-one outside of Avacta’s inner-circle knows whether the company is adequately funded at this point. This is because Avacta has disclosed very little regarding the pathway to commercialising its scientific advances in terms of time, £££, regulatory hurdles etc.

Settled would be good.

If AVCT’s self-appointed IR influencers stopped posting incessantly about forthcoming inflection point(s), £44, “…scrambling to get back in”, “team FUD” etc, and their easily-led audience stopped being triggered so readily into churning their “golden tickets” in search of an overnight multi-bag… Then the SP might see a settled period.

I can’t see it, sadly.

Very interesting. It's impossible to be certain about individual trades, but price action - specifically the rise from a close at 7.3p on 20/4 - suggests it was a buy.

@Bamps is essentially correct when he says that "...big companies just look at present margins", but the real-world wrinkle is that their focus is on present AND FUTURE operating margins.

Acquisitions offer an incredible opportunity for companies to lose onerous costs (including provisions) from their Operating Expenditure. Discontinuations can also be exploited in this way, but the relevant accounting/reporting standards are tighter there so less room for manoeuvre.

Future management teams hold the reins, and their incentives are usually around operating profitability. For this reason, they sometimes make decisions during acquisitions that defy common sense. Specifically they make decisions that are nonsensical in cashflow terms.

I don't know how the NCM/NEM interaction will play out. It may or not lead to a favourable outcome for GGP and its shareholders. I can see rational arguments for both. But the potential for dislocation is meaningful and - I think - reflected in GGPs price action in recent months.

GGP clearly has many loyal private investors, and I hope that their patience is rewarded.

What a load of nonsense on this board at present.

- Takeover discussion is groundless, and should be ignored by investors.
- Water/fluid problems discussion also manufactured (this time mischievously) from less than nothing, and can be ignored
- Endless posts from those looking to trade the anticipated flow announcement can be ignored by investors also

Agreed. This has the potential to fly at some point on news.