Member Info for Valii

Greg Coffey

Will he appear here next?

Cavalry arrived in the shape and form of Greg Coffey. Will he or a buddy appear in an SML TR1 too?

Greg Coffey is an Australian hedge fund manager based in London. Nicknamed "The Wizard of Oz" during his time at GLG Partners and Moore Capital Management, in 2012 he declared retirement at the age of 41 and returned to Sydney.[1] In early 2018, Coffey's plans to launch a new fund were announced.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Coffey

Aaand_its_gone "UK industry clearly gets tin for for its needs as it is"

Have you seen what has happened since China restricted supplies of tungsten?

Agree that HMG/ NWF needs to consider more finance for CM.

If Cornish Metals finds finance, it will be capable of producing every year approximately the same level of tonnes of tin as is needed by the UK manufacturers per annum. There is no primary producer of tin in the Western World. So Cornish Metals is in a sought after and important strategic position.

One of the offers of finance (see RNS of 5th Feb 2026 re EXIM bank - connected to the US Government) will require output to be made available to the US.

Looking after the local community and also the wider UK national interest has been central to local and national support for Cornish Metals.

The company will be running the risk of losing a lot of local and national support if its production is sent abroad as a result of a deal with EXIM.

Added into this dilemma, is the UK Government's recent signing of a memorandum of understanding with the USA, whereby the two countries work together to build resilient supply chains for critical metals. i.e. Despite recent threats from President Trump to impose 25% tariffs on the UK because the UK did not support his efforts to take Greenland from Danish ownership, Her Majesty's Government will work with the US to facilitate supplies of critical metal and minerals to the USA. How will the company react? It is legally bound to act in the interests of its shareholders. The two biggest are:: Vision Blue Resources, and the National Wealth fund. Clearly the National Wealth fund should be aligned with UK national interests, but would VBR be? Perhaps all other shareholders should let the company know what they want to happen. If a majority of shareholders say their interest lies in the company making its production available to UK businesses then it would be difficult for it to do something different. However that would require CM to pay for processing of its concentrate and keep ownership of the product, rather than sell the concentrate for others to smelt.

The situation is further complicated because the UK has no suitable smelting capacity. So Cornish Metals output (concentrate) will have to go abroad unless a smelter is built. Given Government policy on energy costs, it is not an economic proposition to build a smelter in the UK without Government subsidy.

Answers please on a postcard to our MPs Perran Moon and Noah Law.

Good point

.......which further aligns directors interests with shareholders. Anyone who thinks the option price is too low should be a buyer at 3.25p.

Negative comment is possibly coming from someone in the pay of a stake builder who wants to see the price down as they mop up shares in both SML and TUN.

If you think the price at which the options can be exercised is too low at 3.5p the obvious conclusion would be that you think they are a buy at the current level.

I think the granting of these options is well deserved - a recognition of the transformation already achieved. Also it helps to further align directors and shareholder interests.

Bluegrass - why the correlation in the movements of SML and TUN?

I read it that the tungsten price is a key driver for both companies although they are at very different stages of development.

There is also the possibility that the same buyer is buying both companies with a view to putting them together.

Or start flying from Inverness 1N Ireland..........................

From the market makers, it would be very interesting to hear what is going on in the offtake negotiations linked to debt provision. Given the almost relentless rise in the price of APT, one wonders how the price for future production will be fixed in the offtake agreements and for how long / what volumes the price will be set. Given the shortage of tungsten around the world, and the forces driving that shortage - primarilythe huge rise in defence industry requirements which are not going to be very price sensitive - the hand that management now have in their negotiations is very strong. It also seems the longer they leave clinching the deal - the better it will be.

To get the best return for shareholders it seems that anything that can be done to bring forward production would be very beneficial. The big chance must come from being able to access the already mined and crushed material in the MWF with a 0.18% grade I believe. Over to the EA. Hopefully the MoD is encouraging the EA to fast track approval.

Another thing that could increase production in a couple of years time is if TUN could access much higher grade ore from SML just down the road. A decline would have to be permitted and built, but with assistance from HMG in fast tracking, perhaps that could be achieved. Exciting times.

BA_64 I agree with the thrust of your comment, but think you should include B shares and 10% mgt bonus scheme in your market cap figures to give a fully diluted mkt cap......................... After that, there is still remains considerable upside potential to the project NPV at the current APT prices levels.

Nigel50 " If you can't trust the US any more, why would the government allow supply to them or any take over ?"

Good question. But HMG has just published its MoU with the US on the subject, so it seems clear it will be allowed.

Is the US cavalry arriving? post MoU

Following the MoU between the US and the UK, will we see US investors arriving here? Perhaps they already are.

Ontarget "Why shouldn't the market cap be roughly equal to (or even greater than) the NPV?"

The NPV gives us the net present value of the cash flows - in and out, over the life of the project.

It does not assess the probabilities of the project happening. So if there is only a 50% probability of getting the finance for example, you would not expect the market cap to be greater than half the NPV.

Also some NPVs are only calculated from when the project is given the go ahead or final investment decision. So expenditures to keep a company going before that point in time are excluded from the NPV. - Hence another reason why mkt cap might be less than NPV.

Pj70 ...."preference to accounts already funded maybe?"

It would appear to be trying to take some notice of pre-emption rights if they did. Only fair to those long suffering initial investors.

.... appears to have added a considerable amount of value to the company. Completed at the market price (1.3p) of the close the day before, the £4m raise appears to have added to the value of the company as follows:-

Mkt cap before issue at 1.3p = £30.8m

Issue shares 315,192,308 @1.3p = £ 4.1 m

Reduction of funding risk etc = £18.8m

New Market cap = £53.7m =2,684,490,257 shares (per RNS) at 2p

It seems extraordinary to see a rise of £18.8m after a funding round. In part it is likely the increase in the price of tungsten and tin for the last few days played a part, but a significant part of that £18.8m rise must be due to a drop in perceived funding risk - not just because the money was raised but also because it was raised at the market price of the close the day before. On does wonder, what will happen to other mining shares in the SW (TUN and TIN) when their funding comes through - will they benefit from removal of funding risk in the same way...................................

Hi Prop, cheer up, plenty to be happy about.....SML up 9 times in 6 months, TUN has only doubled. Mkt caps very different but the two companies are at very different stages TUN with an established mine, MWF and processing plant in place and test runs done, the other no mine, no plant, no MWF and no testing.

Both have plenty of upside...................

Jaffjoon

Great article - thanks for posting . The nub of it is

" The amount of tungsten in an end product is so small that the consumer barely notices the cost; what matters is whether any reliable non-Chinese supply exists at all."

Tin is in a similar situation with a very price inelastic demand.

Normally I use SMM. But perhaps I have undercooked it........

See Dennis Rowland's (MD of Cornwall resources SML's subsidiary) post courtesy of DoBreWotNot on the SML board

https://x.com/i/status/2015694886649889126