Anglo Pacific Share Discussion Threads

[bolador] 03/11/2014 15:15

Well a good day. Wonder if Liontrust has come to a conclusion about the nav and what it might be under new management. Is there a bid lurking here ? Worst nav was recently about 160p according to some people,who hang about on this board. Not much stock on offer today.

[haywards26] 31/10/2014 17:47

I see Beaufort Securities issued their first broker note on APF this week - their conclusion - strong buy

[quepassa] 31/10/2014 11:02

Time to sell investments with Liontrust??

ALL IMO> DYOR.
QP

[neilyb675] 30/10/2014 15:32

Liontrust Investment Partners LLP

INCREASES ITS HOLDING by more than 2 million shares and holds 11.46%

[neilyb675] 30/10/2014 08:43

RCTurner2
30 Oct'14 - 08:39 - 6781 of 6781 0 0 (Filtered)

[rcturner2] 30/10/2014 08:39

Yeah, very strange.

[quepassa] 30/10/2014 08:09

Still no news on London Mining.

ALL IMO. DYOR
QP

[neilyb675] 22/10/2014 19:13

RCTurner2
22 Oct'14 - 18:25 - 6778 of 6778 0 0 (Filtered)

Funny that you have not posted here for a while then you come baiting here cos you are filtered by me on UEN. Chimp.

[rcturner2] 22/10/2014 18:25

Has the company updated the market yet?

[quepassa] 16/10/2014 17:57

London Mining has now formally gone into administration




Still nothing from APF that I can trace about their investment in London Mining.

More articles on Citywire about BRWM and the market criticism they have come under in relation to London Mining.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[piedro] 14/10/2014 16:56

It therefore remains that the lion's share of some 78% of their royalty lands will not be mined. That's not good.

That's what comes of being nosey - they mine elsewhere where none can watch what they are doing - LOL !!

Either you trust Mr. Julian or you don't.

[quepassa] 14/10/2014 16:31

They have gone from minimal income to 22% income on their largest income-producing asset. Still pretty bleak in my view that only 22% of their Kestrel royalty lands will be mined in H1 2015 compared to the past.

It therefore remains that the lion's share of some 78% of their royalty lands will not be mined. That's not good.

Today's RNS says that "further underpins the Board's commitment to maintain our dividend for the current year."

Well the current year ends in ten weeks!

But what about their commitment to maintain the dividend next year when the big fall-off in Kestrel income kicks in?

Why doesn't that get an airing?




Disappointing in my view that the RNS did not mention London Mining which may or may not be what the market had been expecting to hear about.



For Bolador.

Re your specific remarks about BRWM, there is a fascinating/unmissable article in CityWire yesterday about BlackRock's handling of their investment in London Mining. Also some interesting views from Numis. Also some views on BRWM's recovery prospects for their royalty. All worth careful reading.
Some of the 8 comments/replies from readers of the article are quite hard-hitting.




ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[neilyb675] 14/10/2014 16:30

14.4% up, proper re-rate underway

[neilyb675] 14/10/2014 16:30

129 being paid

[rcturner2] 14/10/2014 15:52

ok, whatever you say

[neilyb675] 14/10/2014 15:44

haha, nowhere near there you chump

[rcturner2] 14/10/2014 15:41

lol Neil, good luck getting back to 200p or whatever your breakeven is...

[neilyb675] 14/10/2014 15:39

funny no RCT today....

[neilyb675] 14/10/2014 15:38

SUPERB NEWS............love it.

Commenting on the Kestrel update, Julian Treger, Chief Executive Officer, said:



"We are pleased to see an increase in forecast production from our royalty lands at Kestrel. This is positive news for our cash flow profile and further underpins the Board's commitment to maintain our dividend for the current year."

[david77] 14/10/2014 11:30

From M o n e y A M
finnCap lifts Anglo Pacific Group to buy from hold, 158p target unchanged
11:02 14 10 14

[bolador] 14/10/2014 09:26

Well, great news on the div but no comment on LM. Bearing in mind BRWM and its prompt write off of their stake therein I reckon the directors here are going to make a fighting retreat and not throw in the towel right away. Perhaps they may be able to negotiate some recovery of the 30$m.

[gavapentin] 14/10/2014 09:10

It's all gone quiet over there.....;))

Finally a crumb of comfort!!

The tone is suggestive of confidence going forward and should attract divi hunters/funds

[stevie blunder] 13/10/2014 14:59

Hi QP, hope you noticed the smiley face ;-)and didn't take offence.

This is my take:

Investments are held at Fair Value..

The fair value over and above ( or below) cost is held in a revaluation reserve, (it has to go somewhere for the Balance sheet to balance)

If the market prices fall, the fall is reflected in the revaluation reserve,and hence NAV, but does not affect the profit and loss, unless the impairment is "significant or prolonged" at which point it IS put through the profit and loss and the amount is deducted from the "Retained Earnings " line in the balance sheet.

Importantly for me at least, the reported NAV reflects market prices of equities held and "fair values" as determined by the directors for royalties.

From Page 77 2.9(d)
Regardless of the judgment exercised by the Directors in defining ‘significant’ or ‘prolongedR17;, the net assets of the Group remain
unchanged as the equities are carried at fair value at each reporting date. The point at which an impairment charge is made does
not impact net assets as the unrealised loss in the investment revaluation reserve is transferred to retained earnings via the income
statement.

That is the best I can do.

Cheers

[quepassa] 13/10/2014 13:55

Stevie.

Thanks for pointer. Helpful.

But what I was really hoping to find was a figure in dollars or pounds, shillings and pence. Not a verbalisation.

IE at such and such a date Isua is valued at £x, Kestrel at £y, Canadian interests at £z.

So that we could see their concrete value at every 1/3/6/12 months or whatever. Just something clear, in easy to understand language.

Values are best described in figures. Values are poorly described in lengthy and heavily provisioned sentences.

I think that giving a TOP TEN HOLDINGS valuation with a simple $ or £ figure regularly would be a good idea.

So many professional investment managers do it. It is the norm.

I have frequently said that I find APF's accounts difficult to get really to grips with and that there are many restatements.

You were kind enough to point to page 71 about Isua.


Whilst I am by no means a lazy beggar and do a great deal of research into APF, I wonder whether you or some other kind soul would help me understand IN PLAIN ENGLISH what the final paragraph on your same page 71 means:-

QUOTE
As the equities are always carried on the balance sheet in accordance with market price, the change in the trigger point for assessing
impairment does not alter the balance sheet value. This is, therefore, not deemed a change in estimate. By default, IAS 8 implies that
this must be a change in accounting policy and therefore requires a retrospective assessment. Had the Group’s impairment thresholds
not changed, an impairment charge of £58.8m would have been recognised in 2013.
UNQUOTE



ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[ryandj2222] 13/10/2014 13:05

Hmm interesting things to consider. I think I will wait and see... still a few uncertainties, so I would like the price to be lower.