Emed Mining Share Discussion Threads

[lost horizon] 31/12/2014 13:15

Hi cufe

"Where I think I differ from most here is I know Trafigura, XGC and Orion are now a concert party . . . but it now goes beyond that IMHO . . . all three appear to be working together . ."

But that is exactly what you DON'T know. Reaching a negotiated settlement is not a concert party. What the three appear to have done is stop fighting each other and cooperate for the good of the company. That's not the same as working together.

[cufes2] 31/12/2014 13:11

Actually a couple of high profile posters told us finance wasn't a problem . . . Trafigura probably realised they would have to give up too much for a takeover so have probably reverted to their contingency plan IMHO . . .

[scrappycat] 31/12/2014 13:05

Fools,

Once debt funding was declared a no-goer, all of us surely recognised that EMED were over a barrel. As for the board changes, coincidence was certainly a possibility with the production phase looming. Not a good idea to leave it to the last minute - TRAF or no TRAF. Also, I think it reasonable to conclude that if TRAF thought that they could have pulled of a T/O they would have gone for it. The fact that they didn't means that they thought they couldn't in my eyes.

All imho.

[chelsea101] 31/12/2014 13:01

Ipedro posted this on iii - Hope you all get what you hope for in this company - you deserve it after 8 years.

But I've done an about turn since November, and with the emergence of Trafigura and all the historic rumour mongering with Charlie Sheen and co it's finally taken its toll on my nerve. I was all-in this - I know, never a good thing in AIM! - but this strategy has sharpened my focus on what I see as the company's real intentions.

Fact: All junior AIM companies - despite how ppl always go on about thinking it shouldn't happen to them and how they're begin shafted - have ZERO interest in their private investor; the minority, plebs, the mushrooms. Their only intent is to raise funds, and if that means that screwing the PIs is the only way for it to happen, then zero consequences for them are considered. The IIs can mitigate losses by being directly involved in the raise through equity, and hence mitigate their dilution, albeit having to cough up the initial dough. But they know what the company's intentions are, so they aren't really gambling with their hard-earned as much as we are.

It started for me with HAA leaving last year. Admittedy it became evident that he wasn't up to the job of communicating with the Junta on a level they required [...].

And now Trafigura, with the bad press and reputation they have to play dirty - now being on the BoD, something everyone thought would never happen is now being played under our noses and at the expense of our investment.

It's turned from a long term investment, to a sitting duck awaiting a significant equity dilution. I thankfully got plssed off waiting (god only knows how you guys have managed for the last 8 years) so decided to try a couple of trades with EMED, and it increased my holding and cancelled out a lot of the dilution I had suffered over the last 20 or so months. The last drop into the 4s I avoided by being sat in cash.
IPedro posted this on iii -
Last nail in the coffin for me is the RNS on 24th:
"The Company has determined that the Loan and the Note Extension are exempt from the requirement under MI 61-101 to obtain a formal valuation and minority shareholder approval on the basis of financial hardship..."

I'm not an expert, so have no choice to go purely by my gut feeling on this, but that is why I'm staying out.

I really hope for your sakes I'm wrong, but I've had enough, and will not feel hard done by if I miss out on a fantastic rerating of the stock, though that thought alone is enough to tell me I've made the right decision for me at this time.

Sincerely good luck. You're a great bunch.

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 12:40

Those guys aren’t bothered about the share price they just want the copper: and if they don’t care about the share price going south when they hold millions of shares, they wont bat an eye at paying us guys a fair price, when split between them. A bigger slice of the cake, copper, and divi’s whatever it is that they want. Come on AL get it done.

[scrappycat] 31/12/2014 12:35

Fools,

'EMED is financially beholden to them due to the "bridging" loan and are a major creditor . . .'

EMED is financially beholden to all 3, not just TRAF - see below.

'an unsecured bridging finance facility for up to US$30 million (the "Loan") with Trafigura Beheer BV ("Trafigura"), Orion Mine Finance (Master) Fund I LP ("Orion") and Hong Kong Xiangguang International Holdings Limited ("Hong Kong Xiangguang"), an affiliate of Yanggu Xiangguang Copper Co. Limited ("XGC") (Trafigura, Orion and Hong Kong Xiangguang being the "Lenders").'

Also, the loan is a short term facility. It will be repaid on financing kicking in. What will be the position after that, who knows. They may not end up as a creditor at all if the finance plan relies on full dilution.

As for the board position, their shareholding, plus their likely participation in financing, would merit a seat on the board. No need for pressure from TRAF to be assumed to be the reason for the change. As notified, this is a change that does not appear to reflect the original wishes expressed in the requisition. Maybe the changes in the old EMED that are occurring were planned anyway. Who knows. You seem keen to attribute all this to TRAF, but AFAIAA, ther is no actual proof to support this stance. Maybe you know something the rest of us do not?

As for playing a blinder, it is nothing more than good business sense (not to be knocked I admit). They bought the shares from an II that was not interested in the copper, who could see financing looming, and who, presumably, had no wish to increase its stake or suffer dilution. Traf have money to spare, have local representation and are interested in the copper. They were well aware that EMED would be looking for financing to production and saw an opportunity to take davantage of that. They may well end up with a larger percentage of the company, but if the financing is done on a pro-rata basis then their position relative to XGC and Orion will be unchanged. Yes, they will get their hands of some of the resource. If they contribute to financing then, I say, why not. They are entitled .

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 12:27

Actually it’s starting to make sense. The benefits, which Cufe outlines, with the three being cosied up together privately. Why should any buy the whole company? Just buy out the PI’s stake between them and an enlarged slice of the cake each. We just need AL to get us a good deal, it’s in his hands and he’s a shareholder himself.

[cufes2] 31/12/2014 12:10

tedoby2

Perhaps I should have been clearer . . . they appear to be acting in concert as per the loan agreement but this is not in relation to a takeover . . .

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 12:04

Good point tedoby, they could all dip into their respective petty cash, pay us 20p a share and then do whatever they want with it. For a modest outlay they can be what they've always wanted, which I think lango described as 'three rats in a sack'. Paid for by savings on listing fees. Sorted. Well done guys.

[tedoby2] 31/12/2014 11:49

Cu:-

"Where I think I differ from most here is I know Trafigura, XGC and Orion are now a concert party . . . but it now goes beyond that IMHO . . . all three appear to be working together . . ."

How can you "know" that?

Aren't they required to make an offer if you're correct?

GLA

[scrappycat] 31/12/2014 11:46

Fools'

I respect your motives, and recognise your concerns.

I certainly hope all 3 IIs are working together. If they are not, it could be very messy. I do not expect them to cocncern themselves wth the small investor.

However, I also recognise that they will be alert to protecting their own investments as individual companies. What is sauce for the goose, is not always sauce for the gander. In looking after themselves, I hope they will, inadvertantly maybe, protect us.

I agree with LH. There is no evidence to date that suggests anything really damaging to our long term interests has surfaced. The only thing of note is that TRAF tried to flex their muscles, but failed to impress the others.

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 11:42

yantatin, we might get an emed New Years Eve special, with that 18p Traf bid wrapped up in it. As we've discovered lately the market doesn’t have a clue what's coming next.

[sithuk] 31/12/2014 11:41

What are the advantages to maintaining a listing when the funding has been secured? Why incur the expense and the work required to comply with the lsiting regulations?

Why would a company where the majority shareholders can decide to de-list ever maintain a listing if the company will never need to raise capital from the market again? Genuine question. What is the advantage?

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 11:24

MDS, firstly the share price could fall away from here, no doubt. But also you state Mr Market isn't convinced, and the share price will be played with, maybe. But you look at the chart above from June 13 to April 14 and it's full of peaks and troughs. On each pull back someone would be voicing similar concerns to you and no doubt it was a period littered with negative press reports, yet the price doubled. The uncertainty over finance will provide a drag on the sp, but I would say that we've had some good news of late and a stuttering move upwards wouldn’t surprise me.

[scrappycat] 31/12/2014 11:10

LH,

Good post. Have another tick to add to your collection.

[scrappycat] 31/12/2014 11:07

Fools,

Tick for that one. I have always recognised that delisting is a possibility, but, IMHO, highly unlikely. A move to the main board is, again IMO, far more likely. Each to their own.

As for a T/O by TRAF, I doubt that the offer would reflect the true value of the company. In any event, if XGC and Orion choose to oppose any TRAF effort, then TRAF will fail for XGC and Orion currently hold more than 25% between them. Consequently, in those circumstances, TRAF would have no chance of getting the 75% required. For the same reason, I do not think TRAF can excercise any marked degree of control.

[mds2028] 31/12/2014 11:05

some great posts over the last few days, Cufe I am following you logic and have similar concerns, however as has been shown as a possible new board make up (which I also subscribe to as a theory) I think we have an evens chance of not getting shafted. However the share price shows Mr market isn't yet convinced.

Unfortunately although the story is slightly more positive than a month ago, we still need MP and to understand the finance package, at that point all will become clear and the value will be better reflected. Less than a month to go me thinks but at least another 2 weeks of the price being played with.

[rich1e] 31/12/2014 10:56

I agree LH, good post.

[lost horizon] 31/12/2014 10:49

" ...better to see this to production and beyond?"

I thinks so. There has been a focus on debating a speculative worst-case scenario ie. this is the first step in a cynical plan by all the institutions to rob us blind. There's actually no hard evidence for this.

Just as it's possible to speculate a worst possible outcome, it's also possible to interpret things with a more optimistic outlook: the company has a CEO of proven competence, institutional in-fighting has resulted in fair representation of all interests on the board, and everybody is working toward getting PRT up and running quickly.

IMHO the evidence - such as it is - points to a simple rather than suspicious interpretation.

[cufes2] 31/12/2014 10:45

You may be right but I would still ask what the benefit would be in these circumstances with this share ownership structure . . . it's a rhetorical question so no need to get into an argument . . .