Emed Mining Share Discussion Threads

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 17:32

Fools,

Over the last few weeks, I have answered your question in several ways, perhaps somewhat obliquely on occasions, and I do not propose to bore people with restating the reasons. You stated that you thought partial debt funding might play a part. If you thought that, presumably you had reasons for doing so. This will have to suffice.

[mronions] 30/12/2014 17:29

weakness today as markets nervous of Greeks self destructing

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 17:16

Rich1e

OK, if you want to be flippant rather than answer the question . . . I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure the ownership structure is very different there and none of them have three private major shareholders eager to get their hands on the resources . . .

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 17:12

Fools,

Again, please read my post. I did not say they would go for debt funding. I said " if EMED seeks debt funding to whatever degree."

You may, or may not, remember that in a previous post today, I agreed with you in thinking that a mixture of debt and equity was a possibility. Personally, I think it to be a near certainty, but I could well be proven wrong.

Like everyone, I am guessing.

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 17:11

In fact better still, spend tomorrow morning trying to convince them all of the benefits of taking their companies private.

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 16:57

Tell You what CuFe I'm no expert. Try e-mailing Kaz, Rio, Anto, Fres etc. and asking them. Then come back and tell us what they say.

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 16:50

What would be the rationale for a move to the main market . . . what are the benefits . . .

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 16:50

Fools,

The RNS stated that the loan is to be repaid once financing kicks in. As you are obviously aware, the value of being a creditor, rather than a shareholder, is only really significant if the company goes bankrupt, and this is very unlikely.

However, from a banker's point of view, particularly because the loan is unsecured, it could be considered to demonstrate that the participants may well be deemed acceptable guarantors if EMED seeks debt funding to whatever degree.
Just a thought.

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 16:48

A move to the main market, in time, would be my guess.

[mronions] 30/12/2014 16:36

I see good old Classic project finance

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 16:36

wanderer1210_0

De-listing is actually quite a simple process . . .

[rich1e] 30/12/2014 16:32

I see the ask has moved back up a touch. Probably my 175 quid top up that did that.

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 16:32

Trafigura can take over the company whether it is listed or not . . . there are still shareholders as there are now . . . it's just the company is not listed on a market . . . I'm not saying this will happen but IMHO it's just a logical development given the three major shareholders are all private companies and it seems to me they want more control over the business and the resource . . .

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 16:25

Thanks Fools Gold, I'm thinking that a delisting will not suit Traf's needs IMO a T/O would be more down their street. But time will tell, we are all making guesses that cannot be proved in any way. GL

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 16:21

Well I'm going to do some studying of this de-listing business tonight, it looks pretty complicated stuff. A example is a fund manager cannot have a investment in a delisted company, plus there are things about the offeror, they need a certain % to pass the resolution but their shares do not count towards the tally, will try and study things later

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 16:18

wanderer1210_0

The share price would be based on supply and demand as it is now . . . it's just there is no formal market to trade them on and thus no liquidity . . . dividends would be decided by the directors of the non-listed company as they are for the thousands of non-listed businesses in the UK . . .

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 16:13

If I was being cynical I would suggest they arranged a "bridging" loan so they are now major creditors of the company too as well as being major shareholders . . .

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 15:58

Fools,

Please read what I actually said, rather than what you think I said viz:

'Currently, the three own c 46% of the company, and the latest injection showed no immediate desire to increase that. What will it be if there is significant dilution? Who knows? The 34th RNS appeared to leave scope for debt funding, so this too may come into play.'

................

Where do you consider I implied that the choice to structure of the latest funding as a bridging loan had any bearing on the future. I was, quite simply, saying that, had they so wished, they could have chosen to make it equity based but did not. Ask yourself the question WHY? The latter part of the post certainly allows for the possibility of equity funding.

In reality, I am inclined to also think that the funding will be a mixture of debt and equity - possibly to retain liquidity in the stock, but this comment will no doubt fall on stoney ground with you.

Your post seems to asume that the IIs will only sell to dispose of the whole of their holding, and that could certainly have the effect you mention - though not necessarily. However, you seem to ignore the possibility of disposing of a relatively small amount of their holding. This may well not decimate the share price, and can be readily achieved.

Of course XGC, Orion and TRAF have their own interests at heart. For anyone to think otherwise would be foolhardy IMHO.

[wanderer1210_0] 30/12/2014 15:57

A stupid question, but if the company delist how is the share price controlled? And how if any are dividends ( yield) decided?

[cufes2] 30/12/2014 15:11

Just because they chose to structure it as a "bridging" loan has no bearing on the next round of funding . . . IMHO in the next round of funding there will be an element of equity to give the three major shareholders more shares and dilute PIs further . . . and probably a chunk of debt too . . . if you think retaining a listing will allow any of the major shareholders an easier way to dispose of their holdings in future then I think that is nonsense because to do so would decimate the share price and would be counter productive . . . they don't need external finance from capital markets . . . "corporate strife" can happen listing or not . . . IMHO it looks like the three major shareholders are aligned and have de facto control of the BOD, the resource and the company . . . they may choose to de-list or they may not . . . but either way they will be running it for their own interests and not yours IMHO . . .

[mronions] 30/12/2014 14:55

best solution allow Traf to go > 20% and take out Astor

[mronions] 30/12/2014 14:53

Astor no longer on board ... they have 0 interest in EMEd . Has not been best board members ... only been interested in recovering their losses. now out of board can sell . Astor broke.

[scrappycat] 30/12/2014 14:47

Fools,

They did not have to structure it as a bridging Loan. They chose to. Previous financing was equity based.

It is clear that you have no idea what my negatives are, or choose not to know. I have no intention of restating them, and boring the rest of the posters to death. I guess many out there will have some idea of what I believe the negatives are (Langostinos 41244 reflects them in part).

No matter, for you seem to wish to keep playing the same record.