Bezant Resources Share Discussion Threads

[russman] 16/11/2015 22:36

And the option expires at the end of Dec. That's pretty quick & costs 50k
Who are the Leeward shareholders as they may become significant shareholders.
& what do we know about this pot of PGM's. Nothing yet.

[liquid millionaire] 16/11/2015 08:24

Same old AIM always cheating/robbing....

[currypasty] 16/11/2015 08:21

track record of abject failure more like

[currypasty] 16/11/2015 08:20

Highlights:

-- Option entered into to potentially acquire 100 per cent. of Leeward Islands Exploration LLC ("Leeward"). Leeward is a special purpose vehicle which has rights to potentially acquire interests in up to 2,750ha of near-surface, alluvial platinum and gold mining and exploration licences in the Choco Department of Colombia, in an area historically mined using dredges (the "Project")

-- US$50,000 upfront option fee and US$350,000 loan facility to be provided to Leeward by Bezant towards directly supervised working capital on the Project. Option valid until 31 December 2015 and, if exercised, Bezant will be required to pay:
-- US$1,000,000 cash consideration;

-- US$1,000,000 to be satisfied via the issue, credited as fully paid, of new ordinary shares of GBP0.002 each in the capital of Bezant ("Ordinary Shares") at the volume weighted average share price of the Ordinary Shares for the 20 business days immediately preceding their date of allotment.

-- Bezant's Board has a track record of successfully developing platinum group metal (PGM) projects outside of standard reef models, including at Aquarius Platinum plc and Sylvania Platinum Limited

[andrea152] 22/10/2015 12:15

A bit of life in the old dog today ? Cash in B/S now equivalent to current share price. Mineral portfolios in for free. No free stock around. No punters in it.

[alan@bj] 03/9/2015 16:44

Thanks Paleje, that's interesting. I'm even more partial to Claret(e) now, if that's possible.

[paleje] 03/9/2015 14:59

I'd agree with that alan, and no doubt a compromise will eventually be found, here's a counter view from the mining lobby:-


Posted on September 02, 2015 06:50:00 PM

By Melissa Luz T. Lopez, Reporter

Miners push back, endorse alternative tax bill

1 2 Google +0 0

INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING the mining revenue sharing bill drafted by the Executive, industry officials said they are more likely to back a separate fiscal regime proposal which they find more attuned to their needs.
RELATED STORIES

Finance chief says ‘aggressive217; taxation of miners warranted
STATEMENT: "Mining industry finds it ‘perplexing217; why gov’t seeks a tax hike"
Miners call mooted 71% tax rate ‘absurd,’; fear loss of investment
Glencore completes Tampakan exit
Measures that seek to ban mining in towns, provinces are not ‘national policy,’ Drilon sa

An official of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) said yesterday that the group is looking at House Bill (HB) 3586 filed by two lawmakers as an alternative to the version put forward by the government’s Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC), describing the latter bill as lethal for mining investment.

Ronald R.S. Recidoro, COMP vice-president for Legal & Policy, said the business group is more keen on HB 3586 filed by 1-BAP Rep. Silvestre H. Bello and Taguig Rep. Lino S. Cayetano for having flexible provisions on tax rates, which vary by the market price of mineral ores.

“When we looked at world regimes, we saw that the best way to do it... such that when net revenue is higher, the tax rate rises... It’s something like the Bello-Cayetano bill, and you treat nickel, gold, and copper differently because their markets are different and they behave differently,” Mr. Recidoro said in an interview on the sidelines of the second hearing on the mining bills by the House committee on ways and means.

“We’re studying that, we think it has some of the qualities that we’re looking for because as it is, it’s progressive. It adjusts when profits are up.”

Under HB 3586, the government’s total take from mining will be derived from three types of taxes:

• government royalty, which sets variable rates of 2%-5% of net mining revenue from gold and copper depending on market prices, and 7% for nickel and other metal ores extracted from proclaimed mineral reservations and 4% for those extracted outside the reservations;

• the regular 30% corporate income tax under the Tax Code; and

• a special mines tax equal to 5% of a contractor’s yearly taxable income.

Mr. Recidoro said this regime as simple, adding that it would make collection easier compared to the MICC proposal.

The MICC version, filed as HB 5367 will collect either 10% of a miner’s gross revenue or 55% of “adjusted net mining revenues” (ANMR: gross revenue less production and other deductible costs but not to exceed 10% of direct mining, milling and processing costs), whichever is higher; and 60% of any windfall profit (in case the “ANMR margin” -- ANMR divided by gross revenue -- exceeds 50%, the government gets 55% of that threshold of 50% of gross revenue plus 60% of the excess).

This is in lieu of several taxes. Miners, however, must still pay value-added tax, capital gains tax, stock transaction tax, documentary stamp tax, withholding tax on passive income, donor’s tax, environmental fee, real property tax, Securities and Exchange Commission fee, water usage fee, as well as administrative and judicial costs and penalties.

A simulation conducted by the Finance department’s Fiscal Policy Division estimated an average effective tax rate (AETR) for the MICC regime of as much as 71%.

The business chamber has strongly opposed the government proposal, saying the steep rates are “absurd” and would have investors looking elsewhere.

Ramon L. Clarete, former dean of the University of the Philippines School of Economics, also presented before the committee a 2014 study which showed that increasing the effective tax rates on mining could cut total investments by as much as 67%.

“The mining tax regime of the country has a higher average effective tax rate than other countries in all three metals even without changing the tax regime,” Mr. Clarete said, citing comparisons made between the MICC bill and taxes imposed on gold, copper, and nickel miners in Canada, Australia, the United States, and Chile.

“The proposed MICC bill raises the AETR on mining (by between) 16% to 81%. Because investments are negatively correlated from AETR, the (investment decline will be) between 13% and 67%.”

The COMP is among the parties that commissioned Mr. Clarete’s research.

“We’ve actually shadowed Dr. Clarete’s study and our findings are very close to what he found... What the industry can support is something which is progressive, a tax rate that adjusts when profits are high and subsequently lowers when profits are down,” Mr. Recidoro told lawmakers.

Instead of installing one-tax scheme for all miners, Mr. Recidoro said a minimum guaranteed share for government equal to 2% of profits would be more agreeable.

“If we can come up with that mechanism, I think that’s something industry can support. But to propose a 55% share in ANMR is simply killing the goose that lays the golden eggs,” the chamber official added.

In a roundtable discussion with BusinessWorld last week, Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima said he is standing by the MICC bill as the government had every right to be “aggressive221; in collecting high taxes for extracting finite resources.

With government and industry still deadlocked on the matter, committee chairman and Marikina Rep. Romero Federico S. Quimbo (2nd district) asked COMP to draft a counterproposal to allow the panel to arrive at a “workable̶1; draft of the tax measure.

Succeeding deliberations on the bills will be held by the committee, Mr. Quimbo added.

The passage of a new mining bill would lift the nationwide moratorium on new permits put in place under Executive Order 79 signed by Pres. Benigno S. C. Aquino III on July 6, 2012.

[alan@bj] 01/9/2015 08:32

Justifying a punitive tax regime by saying minerals are a dwindling finite resource may theoretically be correct - but with China's economy slowing and mines being closed down elsewhere, the Philipines may have to wait decades until they can capitalise on a dwindling resource.

[paleje] 31/8/2015 21:31

I don't think you can weigh up where this will go, here's another article from yesterday. The share price is hostage to these shenanigans and the copper price and any potential buyer will take advantage, who wouldn't. I'm still hopeful a deal will done before the cash runs out but probably not for the multiple of current market cap we'd hoped for.



Finance chief says ‘aggressive’ taxation of miners warranted

Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima said in a roundtable discussion with BusinessWorld last Aug. 26. that the government should not soften its stance in pursuing a new fiscal regime for mining despite industry lobbying against the measure.

He added that, in seeking a “balance” in the industry’s development by increasing the government’s share while managing impact on host communities, the Philippines can afford to have a steeper tax rate than its rivals for mining investments.

“I think we are more on the aggressive side,” Mr. Purisima replied when asked how the proposed new tax regime compares with those of competitors.

“But the situations of our competitors are different from us... We cannot just make a blind comparison because even though it’s copper to copper or gold to gold, the situations of countries are different and, therefore, our standard can be higher,” the Finance chief added.

“What’s important to think of when it comes to mineral resources is when you tax mineral resources, a country must get returns two ways: one is the normal tax, just like when you tax economic activity. The other is the value of the mineral that they are actually taking out.”

Mr. Purisima said the government cannot be rushed into adopting a new fiscal regime that may attract more investors to the detriment of other considerations.

“Do we lose anything by not extracting these immediately? If you ask me, no, because we’re talking of finite resources,” the Finance chief said.

“If it’s a finite resource and the resource is dwindling, then theoretically, the prices and the value would be increasing, and therefore we should not be pressured to agree to give away [such resources].”

The DoF led the inter-agency Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC) that drafted the proposed law that would increase the government’s total take in mining revenues to an average effective tax rate of as much as 71% -- against as much as 62% currently and potentially the highest in Southeast Asia -- according to preliminary simulations of DoF’s Fiscal Policy Division.

The House of Representatives’ Ways and Means committee has started deliberations on the MICC’s proposal filed as House Bill 5367 on Aug. 18, and will pick up discussions on Wednesday.

HB 5367 provides the government as “owner of the minerals” will get each year 10% of a miner’s gross revenues or 55% of “adjusted net mining revenues” (ANMR: gross revenue less production and other deductible costs but not to exceed 10% of direct mining, milling and processing costs), whichever is higher; and 60% of any windfall profit (in case the “ANMR margin” -- ANMR divided by gross revenue -- exceeds 50%, the government gets 55% of that threshold of 50% of gross revenue plus 60% of the excess).

The proposed new regime will be in lieu of corporate income tax, royalty to indigenous cultural communities, duties on imported specialized capital mining equipment, mayor’s fee and/or business permits as well as other fees and charges imposed by host local governments.

But mining companies will still have to pay other levies, namely: value-added tax, capital gains tax, stock transaction tax, documentary stamp tax, withholding tax on passive income, donor’s tax, environmental fee, real property tax, Securities and Exchange Commission fee, water usage fee, as well as administrative and judicial costs and penalties.

[alan@bj] 19/8/2015 14:57

As far as the share price is concerned, what is better - the current tax regime uncertainty or confirmation of one of the several suggested regimes? It's all very well talking about a fair tax regime that will encourage investors but the options muted seem to do anything but.

[leelike] 19/8/2015 13:53

And considering other options:



Notably:

“ ...there is an urgent need to revisit the current revenue-sharing scheme,” Ways and Means committee chairman Rep. Romero Federico S. Quimbo of Marikina City (2nd district) said during the hearing.
“What the committee seeks to do is to present a uniform, predictable, and fair tax regime that will encourage more responsible investors.”

During the hearing, an official of the Department of Finance (DoF) said simulations showed MICC’s version would give the national government the biggest share among the three bills.
“As far as AETR is concerned, the existing MPSA is giving government the lowest at 47%, FTAA at 62%, MICC bill at 71%, (HB) 5843 will be giving government 63%, and (HB) 3586 is giving 50% which is close to MPSA.”
“The 71%... compared... with other ASEAN countries, this is higher... But the instruction to us is to get an AETR higher than FTAA (62%). So 71% is certainly higher.”
Leelike: so House Bill 5843 is also higher than FTAA, albeit by only 1%

“I think we have to come up with a fair estimation and that average estimated tax rate has to be more competitive than other countries,” Mr. Quimbo said.

In an e-mail to journalists yesterday, advocacy group Alyansa Tigil Mina backed HB 5843, particularly its provisions that require mining profits to be used for health, education and environmental development projects.

The group opposed the MICC bill, arguing that it does not provide mechanisms for royalties to mining-affected communities.

Asked if the House can come up with a new mining bill and have it approved by December, Mr. Quimbo said: “Yes, definitely.”

...Leelike: so it seems to me that the only bill that satisfy's all these objectives is HB5843. Next hearing Tuesday.

[paleje] 18/8/2015 14:35

Philippines now pushing to get Mining Tax finalised by Dec 2015:-

[buywell3] 28/7/2015 07:46

buywell2 - 20 May 2013 - 11:56:08 - 4528 of 4890
I wonder how much this is going to drop after the 8p gets paid ....

I suspect due to the state of the copper market and China

The share price will drop back to under 20p

But hey Ho what do I know

[thetoonarmy2] 07/7/2015 11:38

Sanlam is South African so is goldfields?

[paleje] 06/7/2015 14:49

I thought about the cash but too early to be worrying about that, they've still got plenty in the bank. So hopefully yes, to find a willing buyer where a deal can be done even with the uncertainty over the tax, you'd think it wouldn't be so hard to structure.

I would imagine those who've been talking so far have been using the tax as an excuse to barter down. Admittedly a still poor market for commodities isn't helping.

[currypasty] 06/7/2015 11:04

I hope its putting out research notes, promoting the company and looking for a buyer... rather than raising cash... no other reasons to swap?

[paleje] 06/7/2015 10:53

As there's no activity, that we can see, it makes you wonder why.

[kiwimonk] 06/7/2015 09:25

Further value?!!!!Christ I'd love to know how loosing millions of pounds on an unsaleable asset is creating value . Brilliant !!

[currypasty] 06/7/2015 07:58

Change of Broker

Bezant (AIM: BZT), the AIM listed gold and copper exploration and development company operating in the Philippines and Argentina, announces the appointment of Sanlam Securities UK Ltd as its sole Broker with immediate effect. Strand Hanson will continue to act as Bezant's Nominated Adviser.

Bernard Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of Bezant, commented:

"We look forward to working with Sanlam and their specialist resources team as we look to deliver further value for Bezant's shareholders"

[paleje] 22/6/2015 14:29

Looks like it's going to be an even longer haul, another 12 months or more according to this article:-

[thetoonarmy2] 27/5/2015 08:59

Hold on, we havent got any operations? So why do we need operational staff and our so called Directors should take only 20% of salarly to cover basic cost balance in share options then we may see them create some "value". Pigs at the trough and how many Directors do we actually need????

[kiwimonk] 27/5/2015 08:50

fantastic that they're still 'creating value'
one of the funniest RNS's ever put out.