Member Info for TrevorBrooking

Meanwhile, V prices remain low and the company continues to lose money hand over fist...no sign of this changing in the near future either. Check the fundamentals and invest with your head, not your heart.

To be fair, they don't have a great track record in protecting their IP....

Nat, its not about being bullish or not, its about taking a look at the facts in the cold light of day. If V prices were way higher then they would be generating cash and profits and I'd be more hopeful of a positive outcome , but that's not the case is it?

All the cash inflows have done over the last year is keep the lights on for a bit longer. Without a significant increase in V prices (and there are no economic indicators that this will happen any time soon) this is one big money pit and at some point the funders are going to draw the line. For me the risk far outweighs any potential reward, but good luck!

They could be based in New York for all it matters, as long as they are selling everything they produce at a loss it doesn't make a blind bit of difference where they are.

Total directors remuneration as reported in fin stats to 31/12/23 was £1236K, this included a large amount based on share price performance. Prior year total was £396K. All seems reasonable to me, these aren't the usual life-style merchants are are used to seeing on these boards. Earnings appear to be largely based on share price performance, as well it should. We win, they win, we lose out, they lose out.

26.4 to 32.2 billion tonnes grading at 4.5 to 5.5% TiO2. - that's a lot of titanium!

Tiger, your AI just appears to pick shares at a 12m low and hopes for the best, hardly much intelligence in that! But I'm sure you'll have a queue of people lining up around the block to pay your $1m fees! Or maybe not, do let us know when you get your first one won't you.

Sharebel, I've often been at loggerheads with the analyser's points of view, but in case I believe he has a valid point, if TAG have cash available, why haven't they been passing over the agreed funding to Syme when they are clearly struggling with cash flow?

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.