Member Info for Valuation-it-is

Hi - I dont have access to ADFVN. PLease would you tell us what is being said there?

Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/23/world-first-plan-turn-worn-out-tyres-into-jet-fuel/

If you have asked your broker to arrange it, you will now find that you can vote on the AGM proposals. If you have not received a notification from your broker, then it may be best to contact them to ask them to do so now.

There are proposals numbers 5 and 6 to disapply pre-emption rights which may be worth voting against.

New5

Here you go

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/21/europe-is-going-to-lose-its-trade-war-with-china/

Interesting article in the Telegraph which draws attention to the trade war which is growing between China and the West.

A trade war will have many implications for critical mineral production but it is increasingly likely the WEst will have to change its supply lines and possibly quite rapidly. Tungsten West is available to help. Government intervention US/UK may be required.

The article starts as follows...

"It has begun. While Europe has been obsessing over elections in France and Britain, and officials in Brussels are haggling in back rooms over who gets the top jobs in the EU, something far more important has been happening. A full-scale trade war has started with China.

After the EU declared its intention to slap punitive tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in a desperate bid to save its auto industry, China has predictably hit back by laying the groundwork for tariffs on pork.

We are at the start of what looks likely to prove a bitter confrontation between the two blocs.................."

Interesting that the BOD decided not to take shares i lieu of salaries. suggestion being that it would not be fair on shareholders to do so at the then market price, i.e. because it would have diluted shareholder's value.

What would have been wrong with valuing the shares at a higher price then and taking less shares?

Also if the share price was so unreasonably low, did the BoD buy shares in the market to show the market the BoD thought the shares were undervalued?

Clearly convenient arguments have been put forward, but they don't hold water on closer inspection.

Lupidog

I suggest voting that way at the AGM.

i.e. Vote against re-appointment of certain directors, against ratification of salaries/option schemes etc and also vote against disapplication of pre-emption rights and having meetings after 14 days rather than the normal period.

Conclusion

It seems to me that is is Osisko/Barkerville that has been selling together with a few other Canadian shareholders who were backers of Richard Williams the CEO who departed end March.

If so, it is outrageous not to have declared their sales. But we know they have form for not doing so.

Perhaps someone should ask for a SEDAR investigation?

No Clue Just Random

Worth reviewing a few old posts :- Part 1

21 May 2024 09:07

I agree with you about Vision Blue. If it were them selling we would have seen a TR1 this morning - assuming their shares are held/registered in the UK. And in any case we are a few days off the publication of Q1 figures, which they will have seen through their board representative Mr Trahar. They are insiders at the moment and therefore cannot trade at all. After the results are published and they are no longer insiders, we may well see them buy.

The comment from what appear to be Canadian traders on https://ceo.ca/cusn suggest that the broker is amalgamating buy orders and filling them at intervals, which suggests a single seller based in Canada. It is thought about 100m shares are registered in Canada, so the above average selling last week represents around 40% of the shares held there. To cause a "dump" from a shareholder(s) such as we have seen I think there would have had to have been a negative story emerging in Canada. I am unaware of one. As yet we have not seen any contrived negative stories which tend to accompany shorting activity.

19 May 2024 10:02

We will indeed. It may be that Osisko are finished, but other Canadians are not. We will see. Bear also in mind this is now a development company and will need to raise cash along the way. So to get the "Ten pound note for a pound coin", as I think Pawgee puts it, if all goes well, you may be asked to put in another 50p along the development path. i.e. keep some money back for cash calls over the next 2 years.

18 May 2024 12:13

The link in my post of 17 May 2024 18:26 made it clear what has happened in the past. This looks like a repeat to me. i.e. Osisko's (ODV) subsidiary Barkerville raising cash. A broker's report on Osisko ODV makes clear to expect large cash outflows, so I think ODV is realising some of its investments. It has been invested a long time - 10 years- and may need cash. For their own reasons, they may not want to be identified, as that may exacerbate their position.

Alternatively if this is a shorter at work, to borrow 40m to 50m shares without giving away who you are would take some doing. The number of calls to holders to borrow that amount of stock would be likely to give away who is behind it. Normal form for a shorter would be to establish their short position, then make an argument why the shares are over valued to try to cause them to fall. In the case of CUSN, it clearly is valued at a fraction of its worth at the moment. Furthermore, as the tin price rises there is a geared effect on the value of the company.

No Clue Just Random

Worth reviewing a few old posts :- Part 2

17 May 2024 20:14

I could be wrong, but if it is ODV/Barkerville that is selling it is probably because they need cash. They have forecast negative $80m this year i.e. an outflow, and $400m over the next few years as I mentioned in an earlier post. They may need cash to cover their projects, and they may not have cash to contribute towards CUSN's development. They have been in CUSN for a long time 10? years, but have gradually reduced their shareholdings.

If I am right, then I suspect they will be near or perhaps at the end of their selling programme, judging by how many shares above the normal levels have traded this week and what their holding was beforehand.

Alternatively, if as some people think there is a short seller around, we will probably see some scare stories made up when they have completed their short position.

I am thinking the big backers VBR and Lansdowne have cash and are probably keen to increase their exposure. If so, the rumoured short seller may get burnt in a big way. Shorting CUSN with a rising tin price is very risky.

Meanwhile the company have nailed their colours to the mast, so it may be a question of whether you believe them or not. Their standing in the mining industry is such as to command a lot of credibility.

Vii

Https://www.mining.com/five-reasons-why-we-are-entering-the-next-copper-super-cycle/

Thanks to Propinquity on the SML board

Pawgee

I think it has to be viewed through the lens of being one way to provide finance for getting SC into production. Not much cash up front, but perhaps the shareholding, post float, can be used to secure some reasonably priced debt finance. I have no idea as to whether Northera have got a good deal or not. But clearly when finance is tight, CUSN cannot take on more than one big project at a time. As it was in the books at nil, clearly CUSN did not have great expectations for the asset. This way CUSN looks to others to find finance for the nickel project and keeps an exposure.

Bubble2021

The problem with nominee a/cs - (required for ISAs) is that the company doesn't know who the shareholder is. Unless the shareholder proves to the company or ts registrar that they have a holding in the nominee name, it is difficult to include that shareholder in a placing for example. That is my understanding anyway.

I think it is well worthwhile voting against disapplication of pre-emption rights - but that is another story. It is well worth asking how to register your (nominee held) interest in the company with the company, I think.

Hi Bubble2021 Good to see you back! Your timing has been superb.

Make sure you read pages 37 last para and page 38 of

https://cornishmetals.com/site/assets/files/5681/cusn_2024_mgmt_proxy_circular.pdf

It was passed in the vote. What will come of it and the preceding proposal is unknown, but is a negative for me.

Securonomics "What chance do you think of the incoming government getting involved in this ? Is that a possibility?"

The re-opening of SC fits the current government's aims on several fronts - Leveling up, and addressing the critical minerals needs. So it is disappointing that SC has not had more help. This would be a project that the UKIB should and possibly has, looked at. UKIB's first foray in to the equity funding scene (Cornish Lithium) appeared to be a profit maximisation exercise very much at the expense of existing shareholders. Shocking. Given many of those shareholders were local pensioners, that first UKIB investment failed the levelling up agenda badly. But the UKIB's second equity funding (Invinity) appeared to be working with existing shareholders rather than extracting value from them - a very welcome change. Whether UKIB wants to increase its exposure in Cornish mining is unknown to me, but they would be the obvious candidate for quasi-governmental involvement. They were due to attend the Mining Conference, but pulled out because of the election, which may bring a change in their operating brief. Labour were making a lot of their aim to invest in growth in promising businesses - particularly green ones. Whether SC falls in their minds into the green category and the drive for net zero is unknown but it is often the case that politicians need to be briefed intensively before they understand the basics. So I think that it is unlikely that would happen this year - in time for the next funding round.

HoylesFitness "Assuming financing could be arranged, and the processing plant timescales brought forward, would the speed of dewatering need to be increase(d) or is that not a hurdle to production at this stage?"

The company has said in the past that 18 months would be required to de-water the mine at a rate of 25,000 tonnes per day. Approx. 6 months of that time line had been achieved when the pumping was slowed. So there is about 12 months worth left to do and may be a little less.

If the production start date was brought forward from early 2027 to Summer 2026, there would be 24 months before production was scheduled to start. So if dewatering finished in 11-12 months time, that would give about 12-13 months time after de-watering to ready the mine for production i.e. for installing ramps, crushing equipment, ventilation etc.

So I think that de-watering could proceed at the previously envisaged rate 25,000 tonnes per day without causing a hold up. as the kit could be ordered/delivered in the next 12 months, and installed in the 12 after that. Better to ask IR at the company though.

Saving 6 months probably increases the NBV of the project from around $201m to around US $209m and possibly more as purchasing could be done earlier at lower costs - perhaps a $2m saving. There would be a saving too , in not having to complete a FS. Perhaps $0.5m. Offsetting those savings there would be an increased electricity cost - perhaps $2.5m. An earlier start would also save on establishment costs as well. - possibly another $6m. A total $14.0m possible benefit is not being ignored.

The bringing forward of financing will partly depend on whether finance providers can be confident about the 1990's mining records which cause some of the resources to be categorised as inferred rather than indicated. My view is they should have the confidence in those records and treat them as indicated for investment assessment purposes. The long production history of the mine and in particular its ability to keep going for years after the tin price collapse in the 1980s, should give finance providers great confidence to bring forward financing . The record makers were not trying to make an attractive investment case when they wrote the records, back in the 1990s, they were just trying to keep accurate data.

If news of confirmation of an earlier start co-incides with the completion of one? shareholder's forced? selling of their holding, then we may see extreme volatility of the share price on the upside. Let us hope so. Also, those few people holding short positions/CFDs have reason to be extremely nervous.

Ken Armstrong - Interim CEO - went through the presentation given to investors a few days ago after the AGM - which I guess we have all already seen.

AND added the big news that the company is in negotiations with finance providers to bring forward the financing of the process plant . This would enable an earlier start to production.

My view on that is that it would reduce the time that establishment costs are incurred without any revenue from tin production coming in - i.e. reduce unrecovered overhead costs, AND importantly would increase the NBV of the project I estimate by 4-8% on an after tax basis, assuming a production start could be brought forward by 6-12 months.

Whether or not financiers are prepared to do this, depends on how reliable they consider the inferred resources to be.

Given SC's long history and that closure was caused not by running out of resources but by a tin price collapse, suggests that it is a pretty good risk to take - question is what the price of taking that risk will be...........

Meanwhile the tin price continues to be supportive, closing yesterday approx 10% above the PEA assumptions, this adding 30% to the NBV.

Ken Armstrong appears to have got to grips with the CEO role quickly and diligently let us hope he can be persuasive in his talks....................

Croissant

Given the note holders have provided the cash in tranche B,C, D, when the risk was v high, i.e. before the permit was announced it is a bit unlikely they will pull the plug now.

I expect the funding round needs will change if the FS changes the flow sheet again.

The operational gearing on this project is probably v similar to that of South Crofty, where a 10% change in the price of tin makes a 30% change to the project NBV. So as the price of APT is up around 20% the NBV may also have risen significantly. (Offset to some extent by higher costs)...................

Looking good to me.

Christmas has come early. So NG going was not a precursor to further delays or a negative outcome!

I think the funding will fall into place now that the last pre-condition has been met. Also give the APTprice has risen sharply the project economics must be looking a lot better. A new CEO and we are off to the races.

Its good that MHC have not diluted.

The warning signs to watch out for are

1. A BoD that ownsfew shares.

2. The BoD proposing to dis-apply pre-emption rights - it may suit their brokers it may suit the BoD, but it sends a signal to existing shareholders that they may be excluded from a discount offering of shares. And leading on from that it becomes self-fulfilling as alll existing shareholders then holdoff from buying hoping for a lower price tomorrow.

Vote against disapplication of pre-emption rights!