Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
Oops thats not good, I had buy orders in at 7.00p & 5.50p but in light of that I think I'll take them off the table till the dust settles. I thought 7's would provide a worthwhile trading opportunity but with quotes that low we may have to look at the 2016 low which i think was below 4p,I don't know whether it will get that low..... even i'd be a happy buyer at that price, realistically I guess a 20% discount to NAV should find value buyers! Thanks for the info Ma5k
I'd wait Zan, you should get a chance of a speculative entry at 7.50p or you could wait for a safe entry at 7p in the next few months. Good luck whatever you decide
I'd wait Zan, you should get a chance of a speculative entry at 7.50p or you could wait for a safe entry at 7p in the next few months. Good luck whatever you decide
As I said last year on the 25th of October...... I predicted a drop to 9.25 but I said at the time I didn't think it would be worth trading as it would only be a respite before the drop back to 7p which is where I will consider trading it again. Buying at this price is simply trying to catch a falling knife but none of you wanted to listen last time so I doubt you'll want to listen now. Have fun chaps, miss you all x
Yes it does Nomlungu. The previous owners valued L.S. at under 120K with the resource estimate of 4.5 m/t in place though when they sold it to THC they only managed to get CAD 7,500 for L.S....that's less than 5 thousand pounds. So in my calculations I think I have been very generous in my valuations as the board have stated their best case scenario is only to achieve a new resource estimate of 10.1 m/t. Don't forget they sold Toral with a 8.1 m/t resource for 565k of which only 325k was in cash so I think 750k valuation for L.S. is very generous.
Exactly your estimates are pure conjecture so I respectfully suggest you would be better off putting your stake on red or black at the casino as it would appear you have not actually considered what MAFL might really be worth. On the other hand if you do these calculations you will see why I value MAFL at under 7p currently and no more than 8p if they achieve their stated target of 10.1 m/t on L.S.
Quadrum if these 4 key questions that I have asked are not the correct basis for valuing MAFL then please tell me what is? I think you have a better understanding of MAFL based on our previous conversations so please feel free to answer the same questions:- How much did THC pay for L.S.? How much was L.S. valued at with 4.5 m/t in place? What valuation do you place on L.S. if they achieve 10.1 m/t? What NAV do you estimate MAFL will achieve when/if they sell L.S. and how do you justify any premium you apply to the NAV? To me this is the only way of valuing MAFL anything else would seem to simply be guessing so I am genuinely curious what basis you are using to justify your valuation is it is different or are you simply guessing as well?
Not at all. I'll even give you an opportunity to share your detailed research. How much did THC pay for L.S. when they bought it? How much was L.S. valued at by the previous owners with a 4.5 m/t resource upgrade in place? If L.S. achieves the B.O.D.'s stated best case scenario of 10.1 m/t new resource estimate how much do you value L.S. at and how do you justify that valuation? What effect will your valuation estimate have on MAFL's NAV and how do you justify any premium? Any serious investor who has researched MAFL should be able to answer all these questions so please enlighten us with your in depth knowledge of MAFL.
Sorry, I forgot rationale debate on MAFL isn't allowed and you have a strict ramping only policy here. Have a great Xmas and we will see what the new year brings.
Hardy I think the target will be met. The problem is the valuations that some people associate with that target. For example Quadrum thinks the sale price will run into many millions but for example when they sold Toral with a resource estimate of 8.7 m/t they only achieved 565k of which only 325 k was in cash so to achieve a multi million price tag on L.S. they will need to achieve multiples of that.
Because we know how much L.S. was valued at by the previous owners with a 4.5 m/t resource in place. We also know how much L.S. was sold for when THC bought L.S. from the previous owners and if all they achieve is doubling the existing resource then the current price cannot be justified, don't forget the current NAV for MAFL is only 7p with L.S. valued at cost so they need to sell L.S. for several millions just to justify the current price let alone any increase.
You had better hope its a lot more than that. If the resource is doubled this will drop like a stone as an awful lot more than that is already priced in.
The value in the ground is not the issue. Lets say for example the resource in the ground is worth $900 million if fully extracted but it is going to cost more than $800 million to get it out of the ground over the lifetime of the mine then nobody is going to bother to do it as the return on capital employed does not make is commercially viable. The board have told you again and again that at present there is still no guarantee that extraction at present is commercially viable and posters here continually try to dress that statement up as a 'health warning'. But lets say it is viable given the poultry sum THC payed for L.S. with 4.5 m/t resource in place any sale over �250K is an excellent return on their investment, let alone my estimate of a max of �750k.....The issue here is peoples expectations. A multi million pound sale is completely unrealistic.
Even you can do the Maths 6zeros..... with a 4.5 m/t resource estimate the previous owner valued the asset at �120k. That was the valuation they attributed on their balance sheet for L.S.. So if you divide �120k by 4.5 and multiply by 10.1 the answer is? Then given that you apparently know so much about MAFL.... why don't you tell the BB how much MAFL actually paid for L.S. when they bought it from Portex with a 4.5 m/t resource estimate already in place? Exactly...... they paid peanuts for it because of the question mark concerning the commercial viability to extract. So even if you allow for the increase in Zinc price and the 125% increase in NI 43-101, �750K seems a very generous valuation. So given what we already know how are you justifying your valuation?
Yes I'm still predicting 7p when or if the sale of L.S. is announced as I don't think they will get any more than �750k for L.S. and that's if they can find someone to buy it as there is still no guarantee that the resource can be commercially extracted. It will certainly be nowhere near the 13.5p current price as that values L.S. at over �5 million which is crazy
Thought i'd pop in to see whats happening. We already know what L.S. was valued at with a resource estimate 4.5m/t already in place. We also know how much MAFL paid for L.S. with that resource estimate already in place. Given the best case scenario is to increase that estimate to 10.1 m/t it is quite easy to extrapolate an approximate valuation for L.S. and as some of you know very well its not even a fraction of the numbers you are quoting. Anyone considering putting their hard earned wedge in here should really do some detailed research and read what the B.O.D. have actually said, not the spin certain posters are trying to put on their words.I understand your desire to pump the share but trying to paint a picture of a multi million pound valuation is just silly.
There's nothing wrong with the chart. T.A. has proven to be a very successful tool for trading MAFL. T.A. still points to a drop to 9.25p followed by a brief retracement. The problem is I now don't think it will be worth trading as there is too great a risk that it will only retrace briefly before falling further. In my opinion currently I can't justify a valuation of MAFL much over 7p so that will be my next trading target. I simply don't expect we will get there for a few months so there's no point my commenting between now and then. https://uk.tradingview.com/chart/hzd9y6yX/
Well last week was interesting and gave me the opportunity to do some useful research. I always said I would make my trading position here clear. My strategy has always been to buy shares where I perceive there to be value with an achievable target that provides a reasonable risk to reward ratio. My current assessment of MAFL means that my new trading target for the share is now so far adrift of the current price that there is little point continuing in the short term to bother keeping the share on my radar. I�ll pop back in from time to time to see how things are progressing but realistically I can�t see things getting to my acceptable criteria for at least a few months so I�ll probably catch up with you again at xmas. To those of you who have spent the last several months doing your best to belittle, insult and shout down someone for daring to actually give an honest opinion I really do hope you follow your stated convictions :) I'll try and avoid the temptation to come back and remind you of our conversations.... but I don't promise! To those who I've enjoyed sensible debate with, I wish you success but would urge caution and to potential new readers of this B.B. I would simply urge you to do your own research thoroughly and consider carefully the motivations of some of the contributors on this page. All the best x
Dave to save arguing here's Portex accounts that detail on page 7 the sales of both Lagoa and Toral from Portex to TH Crestgate. If you research you will also find that both sites were sold with NI 43-101 compliant resource estimates already in place. http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/investorx/PAX/1609010404086525.pdf
I'm afraid your wrong again Dave the figures according to MAFLs were:- Lagoa Indicated 2,942,000 Logoa Inferred 1,554,000 Total 4,496,000 Toral Indicated 4,040,000 Toral Inferred 4,670,000 Total 8,710,000 Its also worth noting that based on those figures when TH Crestgate acquired Toral and Lagoa Salgada from Portex they paid five times more for Toral than they paid for Lagoa Salgada.