The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Mexalit instead of Mexilit.
Raises my hackles every single time.
@Bannor
Thumbs up to Lagavulin 16, mighty fine indeed.
None of that in my cupboards right now.
But a Bruichladdich will do nicely, or an Ardbeg. Two different and challenging beasts.
Sorry the link to screenshots was wrong. Use this instead.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/149cwRok1RX4cekMEiGrsgMQeIUXYvrmD/view?usp=sharing
I suspect that the jump in SP yesterday (08 June just after 1120 BST) was triggered by these two buys in the same minute, and that the trades were not reported until late this afternoon, over 24 hours later:
300,000 at 29.35 = £88,050
300,000 at 29.5 = £88,500
I never have understood how the MMs are allowed to withhold the reporting of trades for over 24 hours -- as you can see, these show up on today's Intraday chart at 1614 BST (and on the LSE trade list), but not in todays L2 trade list.
Today's reported total volume is 378,043 (which matches today's L2 trade list), while yesterday's was well north of 1m, consistent with delayed reporting of these two trades.
I do wonder who is sticking £176,550 in the pot in one go, i.e. 0.4% of shares in issue. Encouraging I would say.
(For nostalgia -- old-timers here will remember 100m, 1m in new money, as being the magic volume for significant SP movement...)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z1AbBEfl7lF2NHdt2rhhq9qYLtI_yon3/view?usp=sharing
@observer842
In my view the SIP and EBT are not in play here, and there will be dilution.
By my count the EBT currently contains 7,020,000 shares, based on the two RNS you cited. I cannot remember if any shares have been awarded from the EBT yet. I seem to remember that at least one consultant was paid in shares -- if so, this would reduce the total.
The RNS dated 30 April 2021 states a total of 7,200,000 options granted, and does not refer to the SIP or the EBT.
The RNS dated 02 Nov 2020 states: "Under the terms of the SIP the Remuneration Committee and the Board have determined that in the current award period each of the current board Directors could be awarded up to 240,000 Ordinary Shares each in the EBT." This falls well short of the 1.8m options granted to each director on 30 April. (But I do not know what dates the "current award period" covers.)
Banks are still talking about "sale value of $10m" rather than profits of $10m. And subpoena has been requested several times.
Pages 18.447/18.459 (The Banks Union presents the manifestation and documents about the sale of the iron ore up to the limit of US$ 10 million and requests: "(i) to grant the Banks request for the adoption and establishment of supervision criteria to be observed a priori for the determination of the sale value of US$ 10.000. 000.00, as well as to supervise and inspect a priori the conditions of the intended disposal; and (ii) determine the subpoena by telephone of Zamin's and Cadence's attorneys-in-fact so that, within forty-eight (48) hours, they clarify the discrepancies of information disclosed in these records and in the Investor Communiqué, as well as to inform (ii.a) the sale conditions, including price, quantity of Iron Ore, form of payment, identity of the purchaser(s), the relations it maintains (or maintains), if applicable, with the Recovering Company, its investors and respective representatives and related parties, and (ii.b) detailed description of all costs and expenses that would be deducted to make the sale viable").
Page 18,490/18,539 (The Recovering Company presents a statement and documents in response to the allegations of the Bank Union)
Page 18,556/18,561 (The Judicial Administrator presents manifestation in respect of the petition and documents presented by the Banks Union on pages 18,447/18,459. In sum, it alleges that the request referring to the definition of procedures has already been observed in item 10 of the decision on pages 16,954/16,965, as well as makes reference to the Visit Report on pages 18,540/18,555. Finally, it requires the subpoena of the Bank Union about the finalization of the Agreement with the Recovering Company or the execution of its guarantees).
Page 18,562/18,572 (The Judicial Administrator attaches an exchange of messages of Recuperanda with the Bank Syndicate, in which detailed information was sent regarding the sale of iron ore). The Bank Union should say within 10 days whether the information provided by the Recovering Company complies with what was requested on pages 18,447/18,459.Within the same term, the Banks Union shall manifest itself about the petitions on pages 18,490/18,539, 18,556/18,561 and 18,562/18,572.
Page 18,540/18,555 (The Judicial Administrator presents a visit report in which there is information about the activities of shipment of iron ore. It was reported the main information about the iron ore shipment, which are: shipment of 45,947.253 wet tons of iron ore, total cost including freight of approximately US$ 3.99 million, estimated receipt of US$ 7.3 million for the sale, estimated deposit in judicial account in April/2021 and rules for conversion of payment in dollars into real. Informs the activities carried out by a specialized company hired to accompany the shipment of iron ore). Information to creditors and other interested p
@iamrich
"Finally, it requests the subpoena of the Bank Union to conclude the transaction, in the terms of the Proposal of 02.07.2020, and the addendum of 02.04.2021). The Bank Syndicate must respond within 10 days."
This clarifies the question I think:
https://en.sse.net.cn/indices/introduction_fdi_new.jsp
"Form of index: FDI publishes in a combined form of voyage charter - VC (U.S. $/ton) and time charter on trip basis TCT (U.S. $/day), and it includes the rates of daily charter rate on 6 TCT routes and freight on 14 VC routes. The daily rate for 6 TCT routes will be released in "USD/day" and 14 VC routes will be published in "USD/ton"."
So a charter rate will be fixed either by USD per tonne or by USD per day, but not both.
A friend of mine who works in shipping pointed me to this index on the Shanghai Shipping Exchange.
https://en.sse.net.cn/indices/fdinew2.jsp
Recent fixed charter examples could give relevant shipping costs, e.g.
Tubarao(Brazil)—Qingdao( China) 170000/10% Iron ore $/ton 25.863 -0.246
This implies a rate per tonne for the entire journey, rather than (or perhaps in addition to?) a daily rate for the ship itself. My friend specialises in container shipping so couldn't clarify this any further.
Thanks to everyone who joined earlier. I enjoyed seeing familiar faces, and putting faces to monikers from this board that I had not met before. Maybe we'll do it again soon!
I would think they know which stockpiles hold which grade, from when they were originally brought to the port. I’d be surprised if they needed to sample and test for each shipment.
@tomcat-14
All good points and a plausible explanation, thank you. And yet more unanswered questions, as usual with this share!
Of course, I would have a proof-reading miss of my own. That should read:
"[...] the first shipment was 62% because the price ($167.05 per tonne) is consistent with [...]"
From RNS 29 Mar 2021:
"· The first shipment of 45,000 tonnes of iron ore from the Amapa Iron Ore Project has commenced
· The vessel is currently loading and is due to sail this week
· Iron Ore 62% Fe, CFR China at US$167.05 per tonne (26/02/2021)"
From RNS 10 May 2021:
"· The loading of the 48,670 wet tonnes of iron ore sinter fines (approx. 58% Fe) at Companhia Docas de Santana ("CDSA") was carried out in record time.
[...]
The remainder of the profit from the first shipment of Iron Ore (Sinter Fines 58% Fe) is being utilised as per the Approved Petition."
So which was it in the first shipment, 58% or 62%?
And what was the price per tonne for the second shipment?
My own read: the first shipment was 62% because the price ($167.50 per tonne) is consistent with http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jsp. The second shipment was 58% as stated on 10 May (but we do not have a price to cross-check this), and this lower grade mistakenly found its way into the recap of the first shipment.
Probably not a huge difference, some would argue (the difference is only a couple of million dollars after all). But some consistency and attention to detail would not go amiss, from whoever is responsible for drafting and proof-reading these regulatory notifications.
Topic: KDNC shareholders chat
Time: May 18, 2021 05:00 PM London
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81279081895?pwd=cXdPTVNXWGVzSElicE94MTg4ai9OZz09
Meeting ID: 812 7908 1895
Passcode: 922468
I have been in this share since early 2014. Over the last 7 years I have met some diverse and interesting fellow shareholders. Some at AGMs, others elsewhere. Over the last 14 months it has dismayed me to see the crap that people throw at each other on this bulletin board (which is one reason we set up the "bunker" a few years ago, just to provide a noise-free space).
Anyway, if anyone is interested in having a proper shareholder conversation about current developments, I suggest a Zoom meeting early evening one day week commencing 17 May. Cameras on, audio on. Nowhere to hide for those whose sole purpose here is disruption.
Anybody in? Tell me yes and I'll set it up.
Ground rules:
* Respect
* Fact-based opinions
* Dissenting voices allowed, even welcomed
I'm not interested in this being an echo chamber. Let's have some open debate with a different dynamic than on this BB?
@tomcat-14
My mistake. Not sure how that dropped off my radar.
So I agree with you, they could waive 5.1.1.2(v) and get things moving. The fact that they haven't, suggests they have good reason not to?
@tomcat-14
You raise an interesting possibility there. If I were making that call I would want to have the rail concession in place first though...
Useful context from KPMG who are managing some of the logistics here.
https://administracaojudicial.kpmg.com.br/downloads/relatorios/Rel.%20Vista%2016.03.2021%20-%2022.03.2021-1618505524545.pdf
[...]
1. Na data de 16 de março de 2021, esta Administradora Judicial reuniu-se, por meio de videoconferência, com a Sra. Raquel Dalseco (Chefe de Operações da Recuperanda). Este Relatório tem por objetivo analisar as condições da operação, verificar a existência de empregados ativos, bem como, a retomada das atividades da Recuperanda.
[...]
5. Foi explicado pela Sra. Raquel, que a retomada das atividades gira em torno da liberação de US$ 10 milhões em minério de ferro, o qual será embarcado para a China em 4 (quatro) navios, tendo iniciado a movimentação das atividades no Porto em 11/03/2021 e o cronograma de embarque do primeiro navio, está programado para a 1ª semana de abril de 2021.
[...]
1. On March 16, 2021, this Judicial Administrator met, through videoconference, with Ms. Raquel Dalseco (Chief Operating Officer of Recuperanda). The purpose of this Report is to analyze the conditions of the operation, verify the existence of active employees, as well as, the resumption of the activities of Recuperanda.
[...]
5. It was explained by Ms. Raquel, that the resumption of activities revolves around the release of US$ 10 million in iron ore, which will be shipped to China in 4 (four) ships, having started the movement of activities in the Port on 03/11/2021 and the shipment schedule of the first ship is scheduled for the 1st week of April 2021.
@MikeBWell -- the 75% approval was the initial proposal from the shareholder group. Meetings with the BoD led to them counter-proposing the LTIP, which the majority of shareholders considered a reasonable alternative. This is what was implemented at the 2017 AGM. The 75% approval never made it on to the list of Resolutions.