African Min. Share Discussion Threads

[gazza102] 03/2/2015 18:52

Are you sure it wasn't the other way around Chinese offering 30p which Alan said no deal Mr banker

[newswseller] 03/2/2015 18:05

Around 30p is what AW offered to the Chinese and they haven't bothered to get back to him, so doesn't sound too promising

[casual47] 03/2/2015 17:45

Would still need to be voted through by Shareholders, if it happens. And who knows, might prompt a 3rd party bid.

30p would be good enough for latecomers like me but does sound like a bit of a shafting if it were true.

Though it's of course better than zero!

[kirk 6] 03/2/2015 17:41

Talk of 30p on lse

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 03/2/2015 11:40

casual - I had assumed that the counter offer by our BoD was ironic, intended to highlight their contempt for SISG's original offer. But taking it at face value, it seems fair to think that they are confident that money can be raised.
I believe that nobody involved wants administration - all parties have different interests, but it would serve none of them well were the edifice to collapse entirely. For that reason I think an accommodation will be reached, but when, and what remains for us bottom-feeders, are the moot points.

[casual47] 03/2/2015 10:09

If it is true that SISG offered us X for our 75% share and our bod counter offered saying we'll offer you X for your 25% then it seems to me this has some implications - anyone care to speculate with me/correct?

1. X was at least the debt so upwards of around $650m
2. The bod must have a backer lined up as AMI has barely any cash left and no way they can get it via debt so how could they make an offer otherwise?
3. If the bod offered to buy out SISG it means they could get access to funds for SISG buyout + funds to keep going + service outstanding debt?
4. If there is such a backer why isn't there a deal yet for partial stake sale? Could SISG really be that much of an obstacle? Or is the backer not interested in a minority stake?
5. SISG *really* want to keep their stake in mine.

[casual47] 03/2/2015 09:43

FN -- so it is. D'oh. Have about 5 copies of the AIM rules and still managed to miss it.

[fishyneck] 03/2/2015 09:35

earnless - Yes, I'm sure if they went to AIM citing 'working on a deal' then they would be allowed an extension. But I also don't envisage it taking that long....

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 03/2/2015 09:30

Fishlesticks - plenty of leeway with that I think, judging by the exceptions that people cite.
In any case, I don't expect they will push it another three-and-a-half months - I expect resolution one way or another within weeks rather than months, the language of the last couple of RNSs suggests progress.

[fishyneck] 03/2/2015 09:13

"The Exchange will cancel the admission of AIM securities where these have been
suspended from trading for six months."

Google aim rules...Rule number 41.

fn

[casual47] 03/2/2015 09:08

FN - is that written down somewhere? Searched Lse for it to no avail. It certainly isn't in the AIM rules.

[warwick69] 03/2/2015 09:07

Fishy neck don't think that's true u stl have some WGP not priced but still listed on my account after nearly re years???

[fishyneck] 03/2/2015 08:52

There is a 6 month deadline that AIM shares can be suspended and then their listing is cancelled. We are almost 3 months in to that so there is a deadline to work to.

fn.

[shimmysham12] 03/2/2015 08:43

The longer this goes on for the stranger it becomes. Everyting points to admin but it would already be there if that was the plan.

All boils down to if we get anything back in admin.

Hopefully we will find out in feb (this year i hope!)

[casual47] 03/2/2015 00:12

If it was a simple as you make it appear it would have been in admin already.

This is beyond economics 101. This is about influence and soft power leverage more than anything else (some, though of course not me, might even say corruption?).

There is the political dimension, with Frank Timis and Gibril Bangura deeply entrenched in the body politic of Sierra Leone and beyond. Gibril has been touted as future president of SL. President Koroma possibly wouldn't have succeeded in his political ambitions if it hadn't been for Frank Timis. See also the "concurrence" message from GoSL: BEGIN QUOTE "Government as a strategic partner wishes it to be known that any investor who desires to invest or take over African Minerals Limited as a result of the present situation must fully collaborate or consult with the Government of Sierra Leone through the ministry of Mines and Mineral Resources," the statement said. It warned that without this such investors won't enjoy "the concurrence" of government. END QUOTE

There is AMI's significant contribution to SL's GDP, the huge number of low skilled employees being employed by AMI and that need to be kept happy.

There is the complex company structure, which is currently putting all the default risk against the project companies (where Shandong has the 25% ownership). Only the 400m USD bond is at AMI parent level, it doesn't mature until 2017 and the forthcoming coupon payment should easily be achievable.

There is of course the significant shareholdings of Frank Timis and China Railway Materials Commercial Corporation.

There is Frank's dependence on AMI's rail infrastructure for Marampa.

Looking at the big picture. . . .the investment required to keep this going and further reduce costs is peanuts compared to the ROI that is possible. And that's not even considering the full life of mine for it.

[medved5] 02/2/2015 21:56

AMI does not have the cash to run the mine, pay it's taxes and contractors who are sitting patiently also with some 500 units of Caterpillar kit parked up along with drivers. Insolvent operators. Would not be able to fight against any offer on the table however paltry.

[seanywauny] 02/2/2015 21:24

Frank Timis average works out at around £2.50 a share I believe. He'll want that and some.The only way he'll get there is to merge Marampa with us.The question is, is it more or less beneficial to increase the value of 42mln shares with that merger or is it better to cut a separate deal with an interested party for Marampa.

[casual47] 02/2/2015 21:06

Medved,

1. "not looking good": Arguably getting a buyout for less than £1 per share is "not looking good" for the majority of shareholders but would clearly be AMAZINGLY good for some and even a good few long term holders who would say "YES" in a second if it meant they don't lose everything

2. While "the Chinese" may have an over supply of cheap iron ore there is still the matter of 25% of an asset that they have invested more than $1.5 billion into. They clearly don't want to see this going into admin as their continued support shows.

It's "not looking good" for those with averages of many pounds, but I doubt this will disappear without a trace. I am quietly confident I will see my investment returned and then some. (Though I did only enter when the sh1t was hitting the fan)

[medved5] 02/2/2015 20:51

The Chinese raised the funding for AMI based on preferential purchase price of the iron ore,discounted price for cash upfront basically.

When the iron ore price dropped the situation occurred that general market prices globally were on a par or even less than the discounted ore price AMI (Tonkolili)
could feasibly produce.

When this situation happens then the Chinese are not held to ransom by lack of supply and they look at the cash they have to lay out to support Tonkolili (AMI)
as unnecessary as Iron ore is plentiful and at attractive international rates without handing out slush funds.

AMI , without the slush fund cannot operate, the Chinese do not have to close their manufacturing operations as supplies are currently cheap and abundant and Australia will step in.

SO GUYS NOT LOOKING GOOD

[casual47] 02/2/2015 20:44

This is an old article, but it is so blatantly biased that it wouldn't surprise me if the journalist was "inspired" to write it by FT himself.

"Mr. Timis is reportedly exploring all possible avenues including using his business assets as collateral to secure some five hundred million dollars bailout for the project."

[jimmyshares] 02/2/2015 20:33

Because they had to give sisgFirst offer . But they won't playBall so now they can approachOther company's

[casual47] 02/2/2015 20:28

Deus, prior to today's RNS the previous RNS releases were focusing on short term funding, specifically SSIG releasing all of the restricted cash. That didn't work but at least there is some sort of outcome in that SSIG seems happy/forced to pay the most immediate expenses re. monthly taxes and salaries. I guess now they will focus on a more long term / final solution.