The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Agreed, so people are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 in relation to Banco.
TwoGood - The audit report would have to be filed alongside the financial statements and therefore in the public domain, so why the need to RNS it? Your theory doesn't stack up.
MisterGreen, I get where you are coming from. I just hope people aren't putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 re the Banco announcement. Can't say it hasn't happened before with Syme! Having got in before all the hype what seems like a lifetime ago now, I still hold some shares and would love to see this come good but I've seen too many false dawns to get excited over an audit report (especially one that has a material going concern qualification)!
As an ex-auditor I can't see what the excitement is all about. If Banco wanted clarification re the audit report, I'm sure they would have received a copy anyway, no need for it to be put out in a RNS. Most conveniently, everyone appears to be ignoring the fact that the auditor expresses doubt over going concern:
"Material uncertainty relating to going concern
We draw your attention to note 2 which indicates the existence of uncertainties in relation to assumptions about future trading and the quantum and timing of financing transactions that support the going concern basis of preparation. As stated in note 2, these events or conditions, along with other matters as set forth in note 2 indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group's and company's ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter."
All the audit report has done is confirm the accounts (within materiality levels) were prepared in accordance with statutory requirements,, nothing more, nothing less. It does not guarantee that the company is solvent/can continue operations for the next 12 months, quite the opposite, they have clearly stated there is material uncertainty as to the company's ability to survive.
That'll be the one good one that everyone has waited four years for? Not holding my breath. There's been too many "almost there" moments that fade away into nothing. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf, no one believes a word AZ says now.
From OEC re China - "In February 2024, Ferro-vanadium were exported mostly to South Korea ($2.9M), Japan ($2.09M), Netherlands ($1.25M), Malaysia ($426k), and Australia ($123k), and were imported mostly from Austria ($792k), Japan ($33.8k), and South Africa ($14.8k"
Can't see China having much impact on pricing in USA & Europe, Bushveld's main markets.
Stopping production would only lead to a faster outflow of cash as there are fixed costs to be covered. In terms of V pricing, the volumes produced by Bushveld are very small from the global point of view, I don't imagine it would make any difference if they stopped producing, and if it did, they wouldn't benefit anyway, having sold off the stockpile.
StockCheque, I'm afraid to say you are showing a lack of understanding if you believe auditors value companies! Clues in the name, they audit the financial statements.
Sharebel, I was talking about deals with the end user. Until these are formally signed and confirmed and revenue generating there is nothing (as yet) to show for this agreement is there? Hopefully it is just a matter of time, but at present there is no income stream.
There's been too many false dawns here, market isn't going to price in anything on the basis of an agreement for potential deals signed, they will want to see actual deliverables.
Lamps, the status quo is that vanadium pricing is significantly below the all in cost of production. Unless someone can prove that there are reasons to expect an increase in pricing, then the market will assume current pricing will continue. That's the crux of the matter.
He won't do that until they don't have the cash to pay his salary anymore.
Add in finance and admin costs then you are losing money!
Wildtiger, I think you need to question the output of your AI model! It needs a bit more I
wildtiger
Posted in: BMN
Posts: 2,208
Price: 1.025
No Opinion
Added more17 Apr 2024 11:19
Bought another 2m shares since yesterday, thank you sellers!
The bigger issue is, even if cash was found now, which for what it's worth, I think it will be, they are kicking the can down the road. Costs are higher than the price they are selling for and there is no sign of a recovery in V pricing. It needs a sudden and rapid increase in V pricing, and I don't see that happening. Stakeholders/funders at some point are going to want a bigger slice of the pie, ie a controlling equity stake rather than a loan note, and at that point it's game over for the shareholders here.
Dbh1956dbh, quite the opposite, I feel sorry for those that were taken in by the narrative on this board. I and several others continually warned of the red flags in financial statements, RNSs etc but these concerns were laughed off by the "experts" who had another agenda...
Sub 1p incoming?
"· Although both Empire and Century have made it clear that the titanium mineralisation discovered at Pitfield, hosted within the bedded sedimentary bedrock, was not classified as Mineral Sands and thus formed part of the existing JV property, the consolidation of all minerals under the JV prevents other potential third parties in the future from exploring for other minerals and allows for the continued and unencumbered development of Pitfield.
· Under the amended agreement, Empire has secured a redefinition of rights at the Pitfield Project, to 70% of all minerals present regardless of their physical or chemical nature, for a consideration of A$250,000 (approximately £129,000). This investment is aimed at continuing to create value for all shareholders.
Dim figures, made up? Figures lifted straight from the director's report. I think you'll find the "other folk" were laughing at you Faramog, but each to their own.
Faramog, far from a broken record I think I taught you something last week!
faramog
Posts: 7,496
Price: 1.175
No Opinion
RE: Bottom Drawer11 Apr 2024 11:18
Well @TB .. lets see your calculation for $40 AI costs then ... because I don't recall that ever being the case
TrevorBrooking
Posts: 1,062
Price: 1.175
No Opinion
RE: Bottom Drawer11 Apr 2024 11:46
Just for further clarity Faramog, if you read the Finance Directors report in the Dec 22 stat accounts (last available) you will see that all in sustainable costs were $43.7. Yes, the business is slightly different now, but not that much so I believe $40 is a very reasonable assumption.