Member Info for Visitor

Notwithstanding the major political uncertainties, unknowns and $300million bill, at 460 million market cap this now looks ridiculously cheap and worth a risk in my opinion: PROs: a) $107m cash in the bank as of Q1 2018 (20% of market cap in cash) b) 475,000 Oz per year at AISC of $976: Operating Margin of $162million (providing very low P/E) c) VAT receivables due of $174million d) Gold in concentrates of 185,800 Oz. Revenue of $242million. It's bit harder to work out of this revenue, what the margin is. You can't use AISC or cash costs because it's of course been mined etc., but you still have shipping and refining costs. CONS: a) VAT Rebates: of the $174million due, roughly $50million is post July 2017 costs when gold dore + concentrates are considered raw materials by Tanzania Government and no VAT rebate due. Whilst ACA and other miners contest this, the undisputed portion due to ACA is therefore circa $124million. b) $300million "good faith" settlement of which ACA have made a $128million provision, parent Barrick to pay the remainder? So on plus side ACA undisputed VAT rebates and their portion of $300million effectively cancel each other out. c) Smelter: In the Barrick RNS, there is nebulous statement about "contributing" to in-country smelter. Is this just a nod to Barrick's engineering expertise that could be provided on a pro-bono basis to Tanzania in support, or is this a monetary contribution in addition to $300million?! d) Gold+Copper Concentrate delay: if agreement is finally reached, will concentrate be allowed to be exported, or will it be on hold waiting for an indefinite period for a smelter to be constructed?! e) 16% free-carry to Government. Considering this is retrospective and Acacia operate under MDA, will this truly be "free", or is this all part of the $300million. So effectively with VAT rebates + 16%, this will effectively pay for the $300million for both ACA and Barrick?

Topped up today on this pull-back. In terms of the basket, we're now back at $1,100 despite the Platinum price, because Rhodium is at $2,260 and Palladium $1,020. With the ZAR at 13.2, it must be at a record price in ZAR terms? At some point even with Platinum out of favour, this will shine through and the fastest way to do that will be announcement of another opportune acquisition, growth story or ideally, a dividend. If there is such an announcement, it will either be on 31st July in the financial "Q4" report ending SLP's financial year, or the Financial Results which last year was released 21 August. SLP must now have circa $20million in cash and will still have a positive trade balance in their favour of circa $10million. Nearly half of their Market Cap is effectively in cash + positive trade balance owed to them. Announcing a dividend will be a double whammy of providing the dividend itself, but in turn would boost the share price if the yield is good and provide SLP much needed "free" PR/ marketing. It will protect against any potential opportunistic takeover bids with a sp re-rating... They must surely be a takeover target for the likes of Tharisa.

Ultimately blackmail by the Magufuli Government and a horrible deal negotiated by Barrick, to the detriment of Acacia shareholders. Yes Barrick is the main shareholder of Acacia, but their exposure to the situation is 60% rather than 100%. Would take far longer, but better to go down the International Arbitration route. From Acacia's results: "In October 2017, Barrick and the GoT announced that they had agreed a framework proposing a new partnership between Acacia and the GoT. As announced by Barrick, the key terms of the proposal included that: the economic benefits generated by the Company�s operations in Tanzania would be shared between Acacia and the GoT on a 50/50 basis going forward, to be delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in the operating mines; the establishment of a new Tanzanian operating company to manage the mining operations, with GoT participation in decision-making on certain issues; a number of social licence to operate projects and commitments; there would be further work with the GoT to advance concepts for increasing in-country beneficiation of gold; and Acacia would make a US$300 million payment, staged over time, in respect of outstanding tax claims between Acacia and the GoT." From what I understand Acacia have made a $128million provision in respect of the $300million and Barrick will cover the remainder. Ultimately the main issue is the Barrick statement copied by Acacia made little sense to shareholders. When they state sharing proceeds on 50-50 basis yet in same sentence specify 16% free carry interest it's hard to marry it all up. However my interpretation of the 50-50 basis is: a) Duties & Exports Levies: 7% on revenue b) Corporate Tax: 30% c) Free-carry interest: 16% So you have 7% on revenue, 30% on ACA's income and 16% share to government. Whether that ultimately all adds up to 50-50 not too sure, but it makes Tanzania the least competitive place to do business. When you unilaterally raise taxes and penalise business, you have a quick win in the short-term and the government are badging 2018 as a bumper year for tax revenues. However just when Zambia and SA did this before, the rot soon sets in. Investment and growth dries up, production declines and 5-10yrs down the line you wonder why production and revenues are down. It must be the foreign companies, so to boost revenues you nationalise the whole thing... Good old fashioned socialist populism at work.

I assume full production means the 4.4 million lbs per annum as per the DFS, requiring all 3 sites operational?

Not sure where you plucked 124 countries from but the EU has nowhere near that amount of agreements with countries outside the EU

Hi Ragnar & Leas - true a lot is marked for Echo spend, but not all. Total Echo Capex budget is only $14m and in the Feb 2018 presentation, they confirmed they were still in budget. For Echo they've already spent circa $5m, so that only leaves $9m left to fund. And with SLP's "All-in Cost" hovering around $725 per quarter (All-in, including for all Capex like Echo), they continue to amass cash with a basket price of circa $1,090. What I've liked a lot about the last set of SLP quarterly reports and far better for investors, is they now specify AISC and All-in costs. This highlights just how big their margin is compared to peers, even when taking into account all Capex. Being a LTH I of course agree with your advice to others to at least hold until after next set of results, as they should be good. I just hope it includes a dividend announcement as it is the perfect time.

The USD ZAR exchange rate can be a bit of a double-edged sword for SLP when it has so much money sitting in its bank account in ZAR. I don't believe they convert any to USD. So the USD 17m cash hoard at the end of Q1 18 based on USD 1: ZAR 12 is now USD 15.7m at current ZAR 13. Of course they do receive 7% interest on their cash in the bank, which makes up for some of this ZAR depreciation. ZAR depreciation of course also reduces their cash costs in USD terms too, so that no doubt makes up for it, for current and future cashflows. Although too much ZAR depreciation causes inflation, wage increase requests etc. etc. So Q2 numbers will be interesting and if Ragnar is on the mark (I'm also hoping for a 20K oz figure), cash in the bank may exceed $20m. So with that level of cash, I too am frustrated with Liberum's dividend outlook, which I assume as SLP's broker must have come directly from SLP management? There is no reason a 5% yield can not be paid this year and 9-10% thereafter. A 5% dividend is only $3.25m.

FSJ - you must never have worked in a conservative Muslim country which practises Ramadan! Working in a mine is hard enough, but in the height of summer with no food or water for the whole day, do you honestly think the HUM dayshift workforce will be working at its usual pace?! From a Health & Safety perspective in industries such as mining you have to ensure more breaks for your workers and be flexible. I'm afraid the statement "Muslim world continues at the same pace with Ramadan" is not correct at all. Even going to a "cosmopolitan" place like Dubai, construction works slows and office workers clock off at 3pm to start the Dubai snail pace traffic 3hrs earlier than usual! Don't get me wrong I do not think it will impact production by much, but it's one of many reasons it does not make sense to issue monthly updates - it's more consistent to provide numbers on quarterly basis. As to December, for Mali I agree with you, but for other miners who also work on a 24hr 7 days per week basis, there is often a small lull in Dec-Jan. For 2018, you are correct apologies I completely missed Q1 2018 numbers!!! So concentrating just on HUM's target for calendar year 2018, which they've stated as 105 - 115Oz: a) Q1 18 production: 18,785 b) Apr18 production: 10,423 c) Total left to achieve 115K: 85,792 over 8 months = 10,724oz per month My main point is do not get distracted by monthly numbers and I hope HUM issue standard, concise quarterly updates. I've bought quite a bit more today as like most here, see big in share price this year.

To achieve the annual target of 107,000 Oz they need on average 12,072oz per month. However you of course have to bear in mind it's 1st month of commercial production, there was a security instance which may have very marginally, indirectly impacted production and it's also Ramadan (16th May to 14th June), which means work is always slower and work days less. So I would also say around 10,500 to 11,000 too, however I really hope HUM don't start issuing monthly RNS' on production, it creates a terrible precedent and you need to average periods out. They need to stick to quarterly reporting and not appease impatient investors in the short-term. Depending on jurisdiction, Ramadan and December/ Jan due to holidays generally mean lower production in these periods.

I got in yesterday. Being we're already in June 2018, I would expect most already assumed the earliest we could possibly see production steady state is 2020, so should not really have been a surprise. And with that comes the risks of additional funding and permit authorisations. However these risks are clearly detailed in the Prospectus. Yes there could be a further slide in short-term, particular with the Uranium ETF rebalancing and reducing BKY, however with the Prospectus out and listing on main exchanges imminent, it's hard to tell whether it will go up or down from here. The Prospectus clearly details the risk of additional funding. With BKY providing the last 6 months of operational costs at $10m in the Prospectus, effectively a year delay would be circa $20m or GBP 15m. So if they don't take out a loan but let's assume a placing, normalising the current share price, 44p effectively equates to GBP 130 million market cap, being fully funded to production in 2020 with no debt. Yes there is a risk of receiving the final permits/ authorisations hence the share price, however if it does go according to plan and even with production in 2020, BKY could have free cashflow of $110million per annum and decades long mine life (meaning much higher P/E ratio than other miners and up there with the big boys). The potential reward upside far outweighs the risk for me as we're talking multiples of current market cap, but fully understand why others have got out. How I calculated back of the fag packet $110million per annum cashflow: a) Production: 4.4million lbs of U3O8 per year b) Sale price: 42 per lb (as per offtake agreements. Yes aware others need to be negotiated) c) All-in cost: 17.2 per lb (so margin of 25 per lb x 4.4 million)

Forgetting revenues as the main metric to look at is "operating margin" here (i.e. Profit before Tax), from the latest RNS operating margins for the year are forecast to drop by over 30%: 1) Before RNS: 580,000Oz x $530oz margin (1,300 spot minus AISC of $770) = $307m per annum 2) After RNS: 510,000Oz x $410oz margin (1,300 spot minus AISC of $890) = 209m per annum. The above "back of the fag packet" margin is of course subject to profit share with government, taxes and few other Capex costs which may not be included in AISC. So with a 30% drop in margin the share price drop is not surprising and arguably is not "overdone". It's then harder to put a price on the loss in confidence/ reputation.

Because the wider market needs confirmation the unproven free cashflow, AISC, production etc. is in line with projections, which it will receive mid July in first proper quarterly report. I just hope like other miners it includes Net Debt metric in its quarterly reporting, which is the true measure of how much cash it is making, as AISC is not truly standardised across all miners and can be manipulated round the edges. No matter what people try and bang on about P/NAVs, P/E and the like, none of this truly applies in these early unproven stages until HUM prove the numbers and so it will be at a major discount against these metrics. A good time to invest if you are confident the company can deliver on forecasts and gold spot hopefully corrects back to upside. Not sure why this is so hard for some to understand and the constant repetitive whinging, which is not constructive criticism, as its not adding anything to the debate. If some are impatient and thought it would re-rate straight after commercial production, then more fool you unfortunately. Over time if HUM deliver on its projections it will re-rate. I can't think of a single small-medium tier miner that has re-rated straight after commercial production until it has proven its numbers are in line with Board projections over the first few quarters. The risk is if it does not deliver and for example, AISC comes in higher than expected and FCF less than expected, the share price will continue to stagnate. In fact the industry trend after commercial production is that most miners over promise and under deliver. For once I don't think (hope) this will be the case with HUM, considering they are part of a select few you can count on one hand of miners delivering the project on time and on budget. Let's hope they continue bucking the trend by delivering or over delivering on their forecasts.

A share price is not based on "future fundamentals" when those fundamentals have not yet been clearly demonstrated and proven through the first few quarters of full production. The market needs concrete confirmation of the production numbers, AISC and free cashflow, which ultimately will come down to the changes in Net Debt. Investors who research HUM in detail can hazard a guess and be reasonably positive in their outlook, but until those numbers are released, it is not "known by the market", irrespective of your Caps lock. It has absolutely nothing to do with the market having no view with the cash or strategy. The strategy for the existing mine is clear. Again it's not priced in until it's been clearly demonstrated and proven that LoM will extend to 13yrs+ and can handle 120K Oz production per annum not just for the 1st year, but continuously. Other than that HUM have been clear they will also be looking for growth through opportunistic acquisitions. This is of course not priced in until something concrete happens. Or do you want them to tell the "market" who they may be interested in to prejudice their negotiating position before it even starts? When someone is wrong 90% of the time, it's far too much work reading through the guff to find that 10% that may be relevant or correct... chances are it will all be wrong.

Ragnar - as usual very good overview. However on dividend SLP really need to deliver long before 2020 otherwise many LT holders will move before then. The only reason not to issue dividend late this year or early next would be a concrete plan to utilise the cash for expansion. On top of the whopping $17.4m cash in the bank, one thing I overlooked in the half yearly report and re-read recently is the absolute whopping trade balance in SLP's favour. They had trade receivables of $23.4m and payables of only $5.5m, giving a balance to SLP of $17.9m. That was on top of the cash at the time of $12.6m. Even with the recent decline in PGMs, with cash balance, trade balance, weaker ZAR, the valuation is just crazy. An updated dividend policy and 1st dividend thereafter would see this re-rate.

I should add I also rotated some funds into PAF and HUM but have left that there for time being. But SLP and SHG are my main holdings. There are just so few small precious metals mining shares I see which are as undervalued compared to these.

Like others I sold just over 40% of my holding here at 18p. Lowest around 17.5p and highest I got a sale of 18.15p. I took a risk and rotated it into topping up my funds at SHG. This was a short term trade seeing the pullback in PGMs, stronger ZAR and the stellar rise of SLP. After a rise of some 15% at SHG and a fall here of 10% at SLP since I sold, I started to rotate these back into SLP over the last few trading days. I was planning to do this anyway on any pullback in SLP, however the recovery of PGMs in terms of the SLP basket price and the imminent quarterly report has spurned me on. The focus is always on Platinum as it's the largest part of the basket, however with Rhodium and Palladium performing very well indeed, the basket price appears to be at $1,100 again. ZAR has also weakened to 12.2. In terms of basket price: 1) Platinum $925 (63.3% of basket) 2) Palladium $1,030 (24.2% basket) 3) Rhodium $2,135 (12.3% basket) 4) Gold $1,330 (0.2% basket) Due to the resilience of Rhodium, even with Platinum languishing the basket price is exactly $1,100. Such a set-up in the long-term is the best case scenario for low-cost producers like SLP, as such a low platinum price should ensure a swifter correction on the supply-side of the major Platinum miners, who are making a loss when break-even alone is more than $1,000 per Oz. It could even produce a black/ grey swan in the industry, such as the collapse of the Sibanye/ Lonmin acquisition. What happens if Lonmin burns through all its cash, breaches its covenants and terms of the acquisition?

It's mentioned in the analysts' call by CFO Luke Leslie. They are confident they will receive the VAT back at some point. It will be much needed for the development of Singida and so it is of course in Shanta's interest, but long-term in the Government's interest too, increasing jobs, productivity, revenues, taxes etc.

Hi Ragnar - yes you're correct just looked at the presentation again. One thing I forgot was Capex from Jan-Aug 2018 to complete Elikhulu. But with efficiencies at Barberton I'm still surprised by the forecast in Net Debt from Jan-18 to June 2018. I'm then still surprised it goes up moderately until Dec 2018 and only reduces moderately out to June 2019. I would have expected the turning point to be Sept 2018 period and thereafter a quicker reduction. Surely then, unless the AISC and all-in costs specified in their consolidated gold summary report and various RNS' are wrong, the Net Debt profile must take into account other projects post August? PAF need to clarify the debt profile - I don't know if they've done this already on an analyst call or interview...

Depending on whether PAF can execute their planned strategy (based on progress at Barberton and commencement of Elikhulu in August, I don't see why they cannot) and timelines, I do not think it's inevitable a capital raising is required, however with Evander still open and discussions ongoing and prior to Elikhulu commencing in August, it is a risk no doubt. I responded to Mulder on the other thread and I roughly calculated with Barberton running at 100K Oz per annum and Elikhulu at 70K Oz per annum, with their respective all-in costs you're looking at circa $75m free cashflow. You may need to deduct a bit more for interest charges on loans and other items, but depending on the Sheba timeline, it should be able to be funded from cashflow. There's a lot of "ifs" and "buts", of which many appear in hand as per the last RNS, however the big "but" is still Evander and if that will continue to be a drain on cash + resources, of if PAF will be able to close it. As of end of Dec 2017, PAF had Net Debt of ZAR 653m ($55m based on Forex of 11.8), of which cash was $10m and gross debt $65m. Based on my back of the fag packet calcs, they should be able to reduce this and develop Sheba, as long as they stagger it and hold off on any major Capex until Elikhulu is up and running.

Hi Mulder - it is a bit complex from how the RNS is worded, but I don't think it's 300K: Barberton: 100,000oz/ annum (my take is this includes BTRP too). Elikhulu: 70,000oz/ annum (this includes ETRP) If they can close loss-making Evander they will have a stream-lined, highly cash-generative operation, on which to re-organise and develop further (Sheba etc.). The estimated AISC for Elikhulu is $650, but let's for argument sake say a truly all-in cost is $750. That's $40m free cashflow. Then for Barberton: for 2H 2017 it produced 40K Oz at all-in cost of $1,221. Barberton increasing efficiencies and grades to 50K Oz (but costs remaining static) means all-in costs per Oz reduce to $977. That's $35m free cashflow. So if PAF can follow through on their strategy and close Evander, you're looking at $75m free cashflow.