Member Info for StarBright

@RomeWasnt - yes, agreed.

@SaS, I am sure that the negotiation/valuations will contemplate the future potential at Hav. But it is too simplistic to look at this only in terms of how many oz will and won’t be “considered:. In particular it is a mistake to think that a flat rate will be applied across all of the oz “considered”. Look at the example that @Dip666 has referenced a few times - that provided different rates for measured, inferred, indicated, targeted etc. The 20/40/whatever m oz will contemplate all of this, but expect big discounts to be applied where there is less certainty.

@PaddyGall - agreed, I would like to think that it’s a big hint about the speed at which development is going to be progressed. SD is a financier by profession so will understand that there is an optimal mix of debt and equity for a large & long-term project like Hav. Remember the tax-shield re interest payments. Also that GGP may be able to piggy-back on NCM’s own financing package. This - “I’m going to use debt because I can and should, not because I have to…” is the best position to be in.

It is interesting that SD keeps talking about term sheets and bank financing. If the consideration for the 5% is going to be materially greater than USD103m (ie USD50m to cover the existing loan facility + USD53m share of upfront CapEx for the starter mine) then why/when will bank financing be required? When SD says “…fully fund Hav…” is he referring to anticipated CapEx requirements for development beyond the starter mine? Does this then mean that the anticipated cashflow from the starter mine won’t be generated quickly enough to self-fund the next phase? Perhaps NCM are contemplating fast-tracking the next phase(s) of development, and bank finance will be needed for GGP to stand its corner at the required point in time? I guess all will be revealed when the “Gated Feasibility Study” is finalised/published. In the meantime SD’s conversational focus on term sheets and bank financing indicates that the higher estimates for the 5% proposed by some posters here should be viewed with caution.

@Stebo - I think it is ridiculous (& entirely unnecessary) to assert what you have regarding @Zoros. He's quite clearly an interested shareholder.

@Zoros - please look past @Stebo's noise and read more carefully what he says in paras 2, 3 & 4 of his 16:25 post. He is absolutely right and has explained it well. It will help you better understand how the grand reveal (of the valuation) will impact the sp.

In that instance the fund itself is the client to whom the fiduciary duties and obligations are owed by the investment adviser. V unlikely that they’ll get crucified as v unlikely that they’ve done anything wrong…

The fund suggested to me as the owner of the position under discussion has the required investment authorities and prospectus/KIID disclosures to take short positions in individual securities. This isn’t normal for funds sold into the retail space as it requires a host of additional compliance, training and oversight processes for the investment advisers staff. It also opens up additional regulatory risk for them with respect to marketing and their understanding of clients. Don’t ask me how I learned the harsh realities of this a few years ago… As a result, only a limited number of funds carry these powers, which makes them easier to spot. The fund in question has disclosed (ie confirmed in annual report) short positions in miners previously, the last of which was Fresnillo last year. The position size is consistent with the scale and mandate of the fund. Circumstantial evidence only so may be wrong, but it’s a credible suggestion from what I can see. I thought you would find it interesting….

@Z - how does your methodology address the reality that the current sp includes the market’s estimate of the value of the 5%…?

More accurately - one of the RSP’s polled by Halifax’s platform would take 500k shares at 15.31p as an online trade. If you try this on other platforms (with different RSP links) you might get different answers. You’d also get a different answer for a telephone trade; the quotes we see on L2 are actually for telephone trades only, so may differ from those offered online. And a real limit order would likely elicit a different answer - actually the only true answer - again.

An online quote for a market order doesn’t tell you enough about market depth to reach the conclusion to which you aspire.

@Hydrogen - no such internal restriction will be placed if the beneficial owner(s)of the position is a client (as appears most likely with the disclosed short). The contracted investment adviser will not be restricted from discharging its fiduciary obligations to its client(s). Even in the case of a principal position, such a restriction would only be placed if compelling evidence were presented - the process involved is anything other than “automatic” as you propose.

@Hydrogen - thanks for that. Pure comedy gold. You owe me a new keyboard..!

@cjm - it’s like pantomime. When someone mentions “shorters”, an element of the audience responds with mentions of burning and bicycle clips. Don’t spoil their fun..!

In other news, do JPMAMUK run a 130/30 fund with previous history shorting miners..? A fund where £3m or so might be a typical position size..? Interesting speculation…

Lots of nonsense in this thread.

Blue Horseshoe told me that the JPM UK Equity Plus Fund is worth a look, although I can’t (yet) verify this info so don’t fall in love with it… ;>

In theory, the market cap will move by 6x the difference between;
(i) the 5% valuation, and
(ii) ex-ante market expectations of the 5% valuation

HTH.

Yes - a good interview. He's a savvy operator, I like how he says "...only gets better from here..." by attributing the statement to Sandeep Biswas. He probably couldn't/shouldn't say that in his own name (forward looking statements etc) but gets it in anyway by attributing it to someone else. Good work..!

@JiffyBag: “Well, if we were to use $450 as an example, that would infer that Berenburg IMO, (and I haven’t seen their actual workings ) are very roughly $450 per ounce/or per unit/in the ground , ie $4.560Bn / $450 = 10.133M Ounces in total for Havieron, as a whole AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

So 5% would be equivalent to 5% X 10.133M ounces = 506.65K Ounces, and is therefore worth
$US 228,000,000 ( AS PER THE BB FIGURE!) or £171,000,000”

Were you surprised when $450 got you to exactly the BB figure of $228m @JiffyBag….? What conclusion did you draw from this?

@cjmorley - your analysis is (also) spot on.

@StrummerJones - your analysis is spot on.

Too much attention is being paid to the UT here. It might just be a result of one MM having to offload a few at the end of the session (position limits..?) and being bent over by the others for a few pennies. They are probably laughing about it now in the Hamilton Hall…

Plenty of trades between 13.70 & 13.90 in the last 30 minutes. All things being equal it will open there on Monday morning, at which point this board will be full of posts saying that the +4.5% jump is the result of desperate shorters battling to close their positions etc.

Investors should ignore the noise…

Another classic LSE myth…!

Up there alongside “…set a limit sell to stop them lending your shares”, “…a takeover bid can’t be below the highest share price in the last 12 months”, “…market-makers can see your limit orders” etc etc etc…

@Hydrogen - the short position is disclosed by JP Morgan Asset Management (UK) Ltd , which indicates that it is held by one of JPMAM’s CIS funds not by an individual. For private clients (HNWI etc) they typically use JP Morgan Chase Bank for nominee/sub-custodian as their HNWI “product” is delivered via the bank.