Member Info for the_shareminator

Total purchases by SAG of shares this month of about £320k has helped add 8-9p to the share price, or £3-4m to the market cap.

Why is this company valued at £3m still? Can someone explain why you would invest here? All this company have allegedly done in 14 months is "refine" their "shortlist of candidates". Is this creating shareholder value? Evidently not and yet the company is still valued higher than when it was admitted to trading whereby it received £1m to add to the £110k worth of convertible loan notes, overdraft facilities etc. Another £520k raised through placings. Less than £200k cash now being generous. So £1.3m has been spent on what? What value is left in the company? Future fund-raisings stated as a requirement. Most companies come to the market with assets to develop. The business plan to date has been to assess potential investments. Meanwhile the directors receive payments...

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNewsIntl/stock-market-crash-warren-buffett-indicator/2014/10/03/id/598461/?dkt_nbr=ufos34vz&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

Nice update today, seems muted reaction however with impact yet to be felt. Next set of results due in December

How are GKO to repay bonds due in 2019 with 8% annual coupon and other liabilities due? 2016 forecasts profits of $50m. What is the scope for growth of operations, revenue and margins? B

Libero - If only we had all been made aware of the potential just 18-24 months ago... Alas I believe there is still scope for growth, given £8m MCAP vs last quarter earnings of roughly £200k. Trading P/E of 10 assuming no quarter on quarter growth.

Another company that has also delivered its preliminary results and which I rather like, is THORPE FW, a business very much concentrated on lighting products. I covered this one in the weekly column back in July, which followed an initial look around this time last year. Although the spread is a bit off putting to say the least, the company enjoys a balance sheet stuffed with cash and is a reliable performer. Announcing numbers for the twelve months to the end of June, Thorpe delivered a pre-tax profit of £12.4m on improved revenue of £62.9m against the previous £55.3m. LED lighting within both Industrial and Commercial markets showed continued progress and which accounts for more than 50% of the company’s revenue. Although the Thorpe board is not exactly renowned for beating the drum, things appear to be continuing to move in the right direction, in what is a well run operation consisting of a number of different divisions. The company also announced an increase in the full year dividend to 3.25p, along with the proposal of a one off additional dividend of 1.5p, which looks pretty handy. While the shares, at the current £1.35p mid price trade on a PER of 15, The decent yield, solid balance sheet and ongoing prospects for further delivery continue to appeal to me. http://www.privatepunter.co.uk/News/looking-back-21-september-2014

Share buy backs better than distributing profits to shareholders but why are Sag not using profits to better fund organic growth or target potential acquisitions through M&A? Reducing shares available is good for shareholders in theory but suggests the business is not looking to step up growth targets beyond current forecasts... Another view from a SAG investor with simple overview of company http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/lessons-accidental-trade

Thanks for the replies Wuffle -Yeah looked similar, glad we're on the same page :) Tracey - Ah yeah I was thinking Klipspringer which is just below 75% Regarding the gold sales, I couldn't see any mention of exact sales so took the production figure at face value, can you highlight where the 15500 ounces (assume ounces not carats?) is mentioned? I presume the 70% was quarter given the nature of the update "Quarterly Operations and Exploration Update – September 2014 Quarter" but as you say we can only interpret rather than know for sure. Impressed with the operational improvements. Good hedge for rising gold/nickel prices at this price.

Good operational improvements being made here, surprised the market has not risen in response... Tracey - I did say in September "I will eat my hat if all in costs this quarter are $1000/oz at FR even with production of 15koz"... however I hadn't realised it would be quite so close at $1,061/oz! So a $4.5m quarterly gain last quarter from Freda Rebecca, BNC and Klipspringer This quarter... GOLD: Freda Rebecca (Zimbabwe) 16,555oz gold: sales avg $1,272/oz vs AISC of $1,068/oz = $3.38m ($0.36m last quarter) NICKEL: BINDURA NICKEL CORPORATION (Zimbabwe) 2,008 tonnes nickel sales: sales avg $18,592/t vs AISC of $14,566/t = $8.04m ($3.73m last quarter) Diamonds: Klipspringer (South Africa) 32,850 carats produced, how many sold? Avg sales of $21 per carat covers 70% of mine care and maintenance costs suggests loss making operation (other 30% of costs etc) Wuffle - are these similar to your original figures? Presumably 69.77% of the net profit from BNC is attributable to Mwana?

Apologies if that was bit off topic there dduck, you should do well here providing the gold price moves higher. Worth noting Polymetal have fallen to a 12 month low, but not as quickly as HGM and they have similar AISC of $938/oz this year (down from $1210/oz in 2013). Basically a 20% cost saving in the face of a 10% fall in the gold price. Markets often favour larger companies as they are better equipped to withstand short term weakness in the gold price. They do have a debt position (over $1bn) so the weakening gold price impacts risk factor there, and given their net debt reduction was a paltry amount I'd be concerned to hold there also. ATB

Wow you read far too much into posts... Anyone posting on here has an agenda, call it bias or what you will and it's hardly manipulation discussing FACTs. The facts being HGM are not cutting costs fast enough hence why your share price is at a 5 year low. Don't blame my analysis for your lack of risk management in here. Someone asked why this has fallen to 38p and I provided a simple comparison. POG's future, refinancing or higher cash costs doesn't explain why HGM has fallen to a 5 year low... And way to go and misquote me - I said "operationally speaking they seem a stronger bet than HGM (post-refinancing)" so rather than dismiss my comment out of context try reading it properly first. I mentioned POG as a comparison to illustrate the lack of measure being implemented by HGM in the face of falling gold prices. Hopefully others reading aren't as blinkered in their views as yourself... Also why mentioned first half profit/loss? Does that it any way disprove what I just said? HGM costs are not falling fast enough in the face of falling gold prices. Not sure you understand how ridiculous it makes you sound pointing out profit/loss. How about rate of net debt reduction figures, care to post them? Not that it matters as again, what I said about efficiency measures still holds true. Hence why HGM are at 38p. Last point, one paragraph written by an analyst no doubt with their own agenda is hardly telling of the bigger picture. The quote you just posted supports what I wrote about efficiency efforts. I suppose don't know POG's refractory and non-refractory reserves and resources otherwise you would know how ridiculous that last sentence is. POG have over 8 years worth of non-refractory reserves producing at 600koz per annum. More than 9 years worth of refractory reserves. And on top of that 26moz gold resource established. But you knew that right? Sad to see someone unable to read a post properly and resort to misquoting in an effort to downplay real issues. I've not once said POG as an investment today are a stronger bet, maybe you should learn to read things twice before posting.

Well thanks for staying objective and not resorting to personal attacks... If you read my post again you might find what I wrote is simply a comparison of costs to illustrate lack of efficiency efforts in the face of falling gold prices, not whether HGM are more or less profitable. For your information POG have been hedging gold sales for about 18 months now and cut group costs down considerably so this year are making $200/oz clear profit after all costs and this being used to reduce net debt. Cash costs are projected to fall next year also. My holding in POG is neither relevant nor does it define what I believe or post on these forums. I simply post as I see it and if my experience (be that bad as in POG) helps encourage discussion then why not consider the details first before posting. In essence costs not falling fast enough as gold falls, margins reduced, increased net debt with loans due in coming years hence recent weakness.

Was looking at a yesterdays trading and considering an entry, but I think these lows are justified given the set of HY results and outlook for gold. POG have fallen further but on refinancing issues however operationally speaking they seem a stronger bet than HGM (post-refinancing). HGM only cut cash costs by $28/oz ($717 to 689 per oz) in the year. POG slashed cash costs by $289/oz ($1,136 to $847 per oz) in the same period. Lots of factors affecting this of course, with POG coming from a higher level but higher grades and operational efficiencies are working at POG. The net debt position is perhaps the real cause for concern on a y-o-y comparison, although it has fallen slightly from 6 months earlier, down by $12m to $239m. The new credit facility doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. With gold trading lower there is the risk the company will follow POG down the same route of refinancing in 12-18 months. I don't know the details here, but it appears loans are repayable now and mature in 2016 and 2017. Dividend payment of 2.5p is roughly £8.2m which might explain why people are selling now ex-div date, even at what is considered a depressed price.

Your post on Monday - "It is $2000 a ton above where it was 6 months ago" contradicts what you posted on Tuesday, but at least you've corrected the statement. It is $2000 a ton higher than 12 months ago I agree. Nickel has lost all its gains in the past 6 months in a very short space of time, hence the falling MWA share price. Garethbrierley was spot on, it's not negative spin to comment on such trends...

Chart says otherwise, Nickel has been 'battered' this past month and back to where it was 6 months ago. Its gold production is burning cash at today's level but the real risk is if Nickel continues to weaken IMO http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/nickel_historical_large.html

Agree with your assessment Steeltrader77 although costs should be reducing across the board as oil prices weaken, dollar strengthening against local currencies etc. We are not yet in the M&A territory but fast approaching, PWC state the industry is in a period of consolidation. Since peaking in August 2011 pig iron has been held around the $400/tn level and with BAO's projected costs we are a prime takeover target should T/O activity pick up again. Initial capital outlay is the biggest pitfall. I doubt we would get finance in the current climate but perhaps a joint financing agreement with a new partner would be achievable. Brazilian export prices http://www.steelonthenet.com/files/pig-iron.html

Ones to watch NANO - 147 - MCAP £317.2m NESF - 105.5 - MCAP £90.3m WIND - 67.5 - MCAP £69.8m PPS - 7.25 - MCAP £46.5m PHE - 1.00 - MCAP £3.88m

Woah big sell £52.17k

My views - today results look fantastic. December resource statement will be improved. http://shareminator.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/market-update-time.html