Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Kibo Mining LSE:KIBO London Ordinary Share IE00B97C0C31 ORD EUR0.015
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.75p 1,419,088 10:34:58
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
0.70p 0.80p 0.80p 0.75p 0.80p
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining -4.52 -1.00 4.8

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Latest News (4)

More Kibo Mining News
Kibo Mining Takeover Rumours

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Share Charts

1 Year Kibo Mining Chart

1 Year Kibo Mining Chart

1 Month Kibo Mining Chart

1 Month Kibo Mining Chart

Intraday Kibo Mining Chart

Intraday Kibo Mining Chart

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Discussions and Chat

Kibo Mining Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
25/3/201908:13KIBOsh Mining - Another Placing looks IMMINENT !!!7,130
13/3/201908:22KIBO Mining - 2011 & Beyond1,685
12/3/201912:31KIBO - due to run out of cash placing at 1p?1,634
12/3/201910:48Financial Side of Kibo Closing838

Add a New Thread

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2019-03-25 11:10:450.75269,3132,019.85O
2019-03-25 10:35:100.7550,000375.00O
2019-03-25 10:32:100.73125,000906.25O
2019-03-25 10:02:560.77191,5971,475.30O
2019-03-25 09:30:120.7725,395195.54O
View all Kibo Mining trades in real-time

Kibo Mining (KIBO) Top Chat Posts

Kibo Mining Daily Update: Kibo Mining is listed in the Mining sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker KIBO. The last closing price for Kibo Mining was 0.75p.
Kibo Mining has a 4 week average price of 0.68p and a 12 week average price of 0.68p.
The 1 year high share price is 7.75p while the 1 year low share price is currently 0.68p.
There are currently 634,316,783 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 2,402,542 shares. The market capitalisation of Kibo Mining is £4,757,375.87.
jonnybgood4: This guy lurker seems very knowledgable "Today 09:24LC hasn't learned that his wheezes need solid costings and benefits to Kibo shareholders, before they'll take any notice. Even if Kibo ended with the same share of the project as I was expecting at MCPP (20%) it will only deliver about 30% of MCPP's earnings to shareholders, (Very rough estimate - The coal mine was to be MCPP's most profitable bit) but now on about three times shares in issue when MCPP was at the same DFS stage. So even without issuing more shares, worth only 10% of MCPP to the share price. .But to get that 20% in return for development spending even more shares will have to be issued . To keep his own salary and Kibo office lights on until Benga delivers in (say) 4-5 years time I can see shares doubling from now. Until LC sets out every single cost and profit item these airy fairy plans won't cut a single grain of mustard, nor save him from disaster.
lurker5: Most Dangerous Share in the whole market Maybe the clappies are learning. Only a small spike last week on 'news' they used to take as always good. Maybe they've learned to be wary whenever LC says "he's 'pleased' ---- " But if they think because bankruptcy seems to have been staved off, that Kibo has been saved and they'll get their money back, I've some bad news. a) Its not just that those who've done their sums know that LC has driven Kibo into a bind that it will never get out of, even if it doesn't go bust - too many shares already for any of his 'projects' ever to deliver enough to make their growing millions worth more than a few pence each.. It means that while LC might 'grow' 'his' company (and his salary) his investors' shares won't Why else hasn't he (and the chairman) bought any for years ? b) Its also that something just as bad as bankruptcy is on the cards. No-one seems to have realised the extent to which Kibo is now in hock to the arch Shylock, and the danger they're now in that he will take over Kibo and restructure it so as to get his money back . (Quite apart from the wishful thinking about Mbeya 's 'value'.) There's still £0.9m of Shylock's original loan outstanding (as of last June's balance sheet) which, on conversion at (say) 1p (whenever he likes) will take his holding up to 31.4% - meaning he'll have to bid. Together with Sechaba'a 16.5%, he'll have 47.9% - needing only another £350,000 (of the £500,000 LC is about to further draw down to keep his lights on, and his salary) to be converted to bring their combined holding to over 50%. Bearing in mind they each must be hopping mad with LC, what does anyone suppose they will do ? Kibo's cash burn last time was at least £1.8m pa just to keep the lights on, while development work took another £0.8m pa (halved since 2017) . So that £350,000 would keep LC his salary for a mere 2-3 months from now. And - surprise, surprise - to draw down more than another £500,000 in all (4 months life support) requires a 'case-by-case' agreement ! No scope there for LC to press on regardless with his necessary development spending on Med, Moz, and Bots. On top of it all, Sand has complete control over timing. He can chose when to convert, and so to gain control of Kibo and LC, with whom he will be hopping mad at the turn of events. If he does take Kibo private don't expect him to be satisfied with only a pound of LC's and Kibo's flesh. To get back his losses, he'll restructure Kibo to benefit himself, and leave the other shareholders to drown. Kibo must be about the most dangerous share on the whole stockmarket . As for residual value in Mbeya (and potential sale) - the 'clarification doesn't clarify, and where it does shows amazingly wonky thinking, leading to the usual gross over-valuation - showing every sign of the Doh!fort dodgy and bogus method. That was proved to be a grotesque exaggeration for both Katoro and Hummingbird, as well as for Kibo earlier. It takes 'market based multiples', where in those other cases Doh!fort selected the best looking, and ignored factors like distance from export markets or coal quality and other inconvenient 'peer group' evidence, to arrive at 2-4 times the values that the market has actually accorded them. And to take an 'average' of two conceptually different 'elements' (coal in ground and NPV) shows another brain dead muddle. Either the coal has a value 'as is' reflecting its potential to be marketed elsewhere (how that will match the 100,000 tonnes per month the power was to take is a mystery) OR it will have a value once built and paid for, reflecting use for the power station. As exhaustively explained already, an unbuilt project can't be sold for its NPV, otherwise the buyer will be paying twice over for the capex. A project NPV only exists once it is built and funded. So to take a ' blend' of these two chalk and cheese measures is a complete nonsense, which if LC believes it demonstrates a woeful ignorance, about the maths underlying project financing and therefore the nature of his own business. (Unfortunately apparent from some project stats he's published in the past that just don't add up.) It means to think the mine could be sold off for anywhere near $66m is total fantasy. It is nearly four times the price Kibo paid for it in 2012 when the outlook for coal wasn't much different from today and when the power project was already there, even allowing for some work done since (mostly on the power project and not benefiting the mine except as a power station supplier). That's why Kibo's professional auditors only show its balance sheet value as around £16m. If I were Sands, I'm not sure I'd sell anyway, because it would eliminate my scope to extend my usurious loan facility. Suppose it was sold for its balance sheet value though, it might pay Kibo's running costs only (not the large development costs which Kibo will have to spend if its to get any share of their profits) almost up to when MIPP or Moz (Med will be far too small) might be just about to deliver some cash flow. To repeat. Kibo must be about the most dangerous share in the whole stockmarket. Why else hasn't LC or the chairman Schaffalitsky bought any ? And why else is Sands, the person with power to break it up, the only one willing to take them ? I forecast everything that LC has now been forced to admit about the cash he needs now and the difficulty of raising it. And as for his explaining that he "could not possibly foresee" the Tanz debacle. Didn't he have some hint or insight from the PPA negotiations, dragging on as they did for nearly nine months ? The worst types of people you encounter on the stock market are the energetic and ambitious idiots. At every step, over the full 7 years since LC brought his toxic portfolio of hopeless projects into Kibo, he has shown himself out of his depth, and ignorant of what it takes to increase its share price. He's a master at avoiding any risk from his own shares though.
catchingmice: He did say he would be adding on the 15th as it's payday.However some of these rampers who actually wanted the share price lower or for the share price to stay low until more funds become available have now got their wishes.But I suspect they didn't want it this Low.Now please explain what sort of Muppets are we actually dealing with here ?I'm pretty clever myself and I'm certainly no Einstein but I do have more than a single braincell.As I've said before can you imagine taking the advice from atleast 7 or 8 posters over the pond and putting your house on KIBO ?FFS I've been spelling it out for for a good year now on here and still nobody takes one bit of notice of the MICE.If the taxi has been called for LC tomorrow and he's been booted out then expect the share price to double.Once a Bandit always a Bandit
lurker5: Another Bogus Broker 'target' Some cautionary reading over Xmas for the clappies - not that they'll be able to understand it. And they seem unable to work out why -when the interims (and the FE note) showed clearly that Kibo is fast running out of cash - FE has suddenly produced a 'research note' whose 'target' share price is grotesquely exaggerated. (Not that they'd notice that either) And in the face of the obvious cash raise coming, some of them are, unbelievably, still buying ! But for the intelligent who want to know why their shares are tanking here's the reason Not noted up to now as any sort of research house, FE's Nov 28 note piles three major mistakes one upon another. They are almost the same as made by Doh!fort - only worse. (only a coincidence of course that the analyst was at Doh!fort when it collapsed ?) Big Mistake 1) Kibo's project NPV's 2.4 times too high. FE makes its own 'estimates' from projecting its 'estimated' profits (plucked out of the air - no workings or evidence to show where it got them from) forward by 25 years, to arrive at a $1,900m NPV at a 10% discount rate for all three projects - 2.4 times higher than has already been published by Kibo's project consultants and much higher than assumed even by Doh!fort In Jan 2017 the IBFS for MCPP gave the irrs for the overall project, and also for the equity assuming a 25%/75% equity/loans split. While up-to-date capex was not given, using an informed estimate based on previous announcements ($650m including Kibo's mine and feasibliity costs) that is all that is necessary to reconstruct to reasonable accuracy the 25 year financial 'model' used by the consultants which will have produced the irr's announced, and will be the basis for tariff negotiations and Financial Close, This shows the MCPP project 10% NPV to be around $280m. We don't have up-to-date figures (courtesy, as usual, LC) but the results aren't likely to be very different because these CtP projects' economics all turn out much the same. Kibo in Dec 2014 also published results for MCPP's power only pre-feasibility study by Aurecon, showing a range of NPV between $230m - $280m on capex of $640-$780m. Irr's for project and equity were in line with the Jan 2017 IBFS. So we can take around $280m as the definitive NPV, because it is what has been calculated by the professional consultants. NPV's for Mabesekwa and Benga will be smaller - Kibo with only 85% of the former, and the latter having no captive coal mine. For the three projects therefore, the 10% NPV acc to professional consultants with access to all the project details, income, and costs, is unlikely to exceed $750m. For Mast Energy, FE assumes just one project (although five are needed to plug Kibo's cash drain) which the Aug RNS quoted as having NPV's of £16-£19m each for a 20MW plant, and irrs of 13-16% - from which can be deduced capex for each plant (not mentioned by LC) of at least £10m (confirmed by details from UK Power Reserve figures on Companies House).The figures also imply Kibo's 60% profit share from each plant after tax would be less than £0.8m. Thus the total NPV's acc to Kibo's own consultants will be less than $800m. FE arrives at $1,900m ! Big Mistake 2) Kibo's project shares, nearly three times too high. FE assumes that Kibo will have 80% of the projects' 'added value' ("which equates to a conservative 1.5* Developer Premium !") FE doesn't give any reasoning for its extraordinary assertion, which seems to have been chosen to give -surprise surprise - the same 'headline' result as did Doh!fort even though Kibo's whole make-up has changed. Apart from that, 'added value' is just an alternative term for an NPV, while 'development premiums' only exist for property construction which (usually) can be sold on completion at a profit. But power plants are built down to a price and a tariff, so that nowhere on the internet and among power conglomerates like AES Group can be found any power project which has been sold off at a profit on completion and could therefore have delivered its builders a 'development premium'. Apart from that, to assume Kibo has 80% of the NPV when at the most it will have spent (on a coal mine and feasibility) no more than 25% of the equity capex, while the major funders (like GE and Sepco ?) will put up 75% - would make the finances impossible for the latter. Nowhere can be found an example where the share of a project cash flows is not the same as the share of capital contributions - whether from past spending or not. See Oracle Power's Dec 20 announcement that it will have 12.2% of its Thar CtP project equity, with its historical spend contributing part of the 12.2%. This is the usual arrangement for such projects, and FE's assumption for Kibo is pure baloney. See Oracle's full announcement and you will understand Kibo's problem that LC has never made clear to his shareholders. So FE's exaggeration so far is 3 x 2.4 = 7.2 times the reality. Big Mistake 3) Kibo shares in issue when projects start to contribute almost certainly only half the reality Optimistically, the earliest any of Kibo's projects might start to generate revenue and, after running smoothly start to pay Kibo a dividend, is at least five years time, or 2023/24 at the earliest. FE assumes Kibo will issue no more shares at all over that five years, beyond 100m to Sepco (at 1.9p) - bringing the total now (and in 2024) to 730m. But Benga and Mabeseweka haven't got beyond their preliminary feasiblities. Full, detailed, bankable feasibility studies required by lenders and equity funders cost at least the $11m spent at MCPP each (maybe a bit less for experience gained, but not that much less), while if Kibo wants a bigger share than it will earn by funding feasibility, it is going to have to issue more shares to pay for it. (See Oracle above) On top of that is the £2-3m annually Kibo needs to keep the lights on (and pay the directors) quite apart from what it will be called on to keep its share of Katoro once it raises the funds to start any mine. The five 20MW Mast plants needed to plug Kibo's cash drain will cost £50m plus. Some might be borrowed (which will take away some of the £0.8m per plant they would contribute to Kibo) but one way or another Mast is going to cost Kibo at least £10-£15m before it provides any help. So we have probably well over £20m to be raised by Kibo before its projects can start contributing in five years time, compared with its market cap now of only £13m. No wonder Sepco is hesitating. Which means shares in issue will likely be twice the 730m assumed by FE in its 'target price'. Possibly more. Scale of exaggeration so far ! 2.4 x 3 x 2 = 14.4 times ! and that's without the basic fact that Big Mistake 4) NPV based 'targets' are never, ever approached in practice in the market. The reasons are a) what discount rate to use ? A NPV10% is 25% less than at 8%. A broker analyst paid to puff a share can take his pick ! A 12% discount rate (half the NPV at 8%) usually predicts share prices much more accurately. b) A NPV isn't a logical price to pay. A NPV is merely the total of all discounted future returns, so anyone paying it is paying up-front for 25 year of returns. If all goes to plan (which it never does) he would merely get his money back plus a 10% annual return. What fool would buy that ? My own research over 70 AIM miners in 2008-12, as does Edison recently, could not find any miner, even with funding arranged, at more than 1/3rd of its 'target' NPV based price. So why is FE peddling this 'incentive' to buy Kibo shares ? (Clue: even FE's forecast end 2018 Kibo balance sheet shows net cash of £0.3m - but only assuming it has received £1.9m from Sepco !) You work it out. I'll post a more correct, professional, calculation later.
catchingmice: Posts: 6,184Opinion:No OpinionPrice:1.95RE: Other entities.Today 11:15Mike,I believe you are pretty close to the truth on how negotiatios may have gone.One thing possibly meet have to consider is laying somemof that blame at LC's door for not doing what PI's had been asking him for ages, which was to pay attention to the share price.How many mails went into LC asking him to protect the share price and the general tone and answer of what came back was that he was building a business going forward.Problem was he built it out ways instead of up. Yes the MCAP went up but the share price low and vunerable. He had ample chance to by shares himself but did not or bring proper II's on board. This Sepco deal should have been completed a year ago. The timing unfortunately was all wrong.A very unhappy investor.But other LSE posters spelt all this out 12 months ago and all you did was degrade them and that's why you set up the private twitter group isn't it ?So be honest and explain the reason in becoming a non believer as opposed to being the biggest ramper KIBO has seen.You clearly have motives and I suspect you have never been a big holder of kibo although you made out to be.Maybe you are a spread better and looking for a cheap entry ?Hmmmmmmm
cemsmusic: KIBO share price on 8th August 2018... High: 4.85p Low: 4.65p
aimchimp: Do you mean this one "Dave"? PMSLLurker5Posts: 418Opinion: No OpinionPrice: 3.575IGCC v existingToday 08:51Implications - IGCC v existing design - even more serious dilution certain.Buyers rushing in on the SML should beware. A CG-IGCC plant is more expensive and will take longer to design and plan. Coal is of course needed, and therefore a SML. BUT if starting again from scratch, Kibo won't get back its $3.6m from Sepco And while an IGCC's overall better efficiency should mean a lower tariff for Tanz, the investors will have to shoulder a higher capex and longer pay-back. That means Kibo's contribution will buy only a lower proportion. What with further delays, Kibo shareholders must stump up again, but this time with three times shares in issue as when MCPP was the great white hope four years ago. No dividends from any of its power projects before at least 5-6 years from now (At least five MAST plants will be needed to plug the cash drain, costing Kibo £30m and more dilution) means cash draining out and more and more dilution, and much lower eventual contribution per share, so a much lower potential share price. Kibo will never again stretch even to 5p in my opinion, and with more awareness on the BB's of the snags, even lemming spikes will be lower (though just as deadly !)As for coal sales, EDL's $25/tonne is before transport costs which takes delivered / market prices closer to $100 depending. Coal face price is what counts.
mohammedalibusiness: I'm pleased to see an increase in volume and with it an increase in share price today... as we transition away from the period of negotiation the share price is more difficult for short term traders to influence on small volume.With yet another institutional investor taking a stake at 25 per cent premium of share price - and another, SepcoIII, poised to take another circa 15 per cent stake in the next 6 weeks - with special mining licences on the table being actively reviewed as well as PPA entering the final throws of negotiation... and another 2 coal mins in similar situations across the region... you do get a small sense of why we are seeing a rise in share price and volume... what would you like to be doing this Christmas? It's only 4 months away ; )
lurker5: Another Nail in the Coffin Here is my latest 'contrary' (ie correct) Kibo view as asked for by several on the 'other' board. Apologies if a bit long winded - it has to be, to fully explain the logic, for anyone not familiar with share valuation, especially for companies with 'projects ' not yet financed. And, sorry. But someone has to put Kibo (its investors anyway) out of its misery . LC has shown over his whole stockmarket history that he has no idea (or doesn't care) how to create value for shareholders. So here's another nail in the coffin. Essentially, nothing has changed since my first post . Quite why anyone should think signing (or even publishing details of - very unlikely) the PPA will spur the shares is a total mystery. Ignoring for the moment the Mabesekwa acquisition (its unknown future development cost and share dilution is why the savvy have been selling) here's why Yaki's 25p value for MCPP 300MW was always nonsense. He based it on the idea that the mine alone is 'worth' $100m, which with other spending to date will 'buy' 40% of MCPP ! To understand why that is wrong, you have to know 1) how project financing, and NPV and irr calculations work. - complicated for some maybe. But necessary as the only way to calculate the forecast profit streams that make up the NPV's and irr - as in Kibo's Jan 2017 feasibility results . The PPA won't help, because estimating a profit needs far more detail about costs than any outsider (inc Doh!fort's naive late unlamented analyst - is he now helping SVS/Novum ramp the shares ?) can possibly know. The best and only guide is those feasibility figures, because they contain the answer already. That's the reason for doing them. And you have to understand 2) that even if the mine were to be 'worth' a 7 times multiple of future profits (as would only be the case if listed separately on a stockmarket and therefore unavailable to be 'paid' to anyone) there is no way it would be accepted by eg GE as a 'contribution' to building MCPP. That needs hard cash. Kibo (and other equity partners) will only get a share of the project by way of past, real, spending and cash (or borrowed money) now. That's how project financing works. Knowing the capex , and/or NPV and irr gives directly the average income over the MCPP project lifetime that produces them, and according to those Jan '17 figures, the mine alone 'looks' very profitable. (irr 69% on $17m capex - to produce which implies an average income before tax of $13.5m pa) Assuming 100% of the capex is borrowed, repayments would be $1.8m pa, leaving, after tax, a net cash flow around $9.3m pa for the first 12 years while borrowing is repaid - ie 1.5p per Kibo share. (on present shares - there'll be even more needing to be issued soon) But that's all. The mine wouldn't be part of an 'integrated' project, and can't buy Kibo any share of the power side. Kibo's past spending on feasibility etc might 'buy' a small (2-3%) share of power, but that's all. Any significant 'Free carry' or 'development premium' is completely unfeasible for these sorts of projects for reasons below. But a scenario where Kibo just owns the mine is totally contradicted by the 'integrated' figures in the same RNS Its either one or the other, and the figures show why all such mine-mouth power projects - having started out hinting they have a very profitable mine - have all switched to integrated projects - basically because the power side wouldn't be profitable enough if the mine takes such a large slice. In turn, that's because governments limit tariffs so that the overall profit return to equity investors (assuming a large element of bank loans) is just enough to attract them without causing too high electricity prices. For all such projects, that return has been around 21% irr at equity level if 75% of capex is borrowed (and about 14% at overall project level before the gearing effect of borrowing). And that accords with Kibo's figures in its RNS.of integrated project post-tax irr 15.3%, and post-tax irr for equity (assuming 75% borrowing) 'above 21%'. To make better estimates we need up to date capex, which isn't given, except as "21% lower than $640m-$760m in the 2014 PFS."(Most of that reduction looks due to choosing the much lower capex mine option, so isn't really a significant change) So a bit vague, but assuming project capex is now $550m, and $30m is added in past spending on the mine and IBFS, a 21.5% post-tax equity irr (ie geared up with 75% borrowing) requires annual net cash flow to the MCPP equity shareholders (who put up $145m) of around $32m pa for the first twelve years while borrowing is repaid.(which accords with the RNS 21.5% irr to equity) Working back from that to the 100% project level - ie before repaying borrowings - pre-tax income would be around $115m pa - which ties in with the 'all-in' margin 39% quoted by Kibo (but before corporate costs.) - and with a 15.3% post tax irr on the project's total $580m capex. So on those integrated figures (ie the most that the government approved irr would allow) if Kibo were to take $9.3m pa for a separately owned mine, there would only be $22.7m pa left for those putting up the capex for power. Yet the power capex is $550m vs $17-35m for the mine depending whether its original cost is included. So that scenario would be completely unbalanced and unworkable, and is probably a reason why Sepco withdrew its original offer of equity (which LC hasn't admitted). And also why MCPP like all others has been switched to an 'integrated' project - where the coal transfer price is immaterial and all that counts is overall costs for the whole project. Kibo's figures for a 69% irr 'mine alone' obviously depend on some assumed coal price. But what price ? Why would the power side pay a coal price that makes for such an unbalanced profit share ? The mine doesn't work without the power, which could build in a more convenient place and get its coal elsewhere if it has to pay a price too high to make its required return. So Kibo can't extract that sort of profit for just the mine. And neither can the power side get more profit to compensate through a higher PPA, because that will be limited by the government's allowed irr So an 'integrated' project treating the mine and station as one and effectively sharing the profit (and the risks and costs) more evenly according to equity contributions is the only realistic possibility. That is what Kibo's 'integrated' figures are all about. But it makes one wonder why it released a mine set of figures which make no sense if to be integrated with the power side. - Maybe LC's usual smoke and mirrors to bamboozle the inexperienced like Yaki - or maybe he's thinking of trying to keep the mine separate and squeezing his power partners on price. But for all sorts of reasons spelled out here, that still looks unfeasible. So instead of Yaki's ill-informed mine 'contribution' buying 40% we have to work out a more realistic scenario which accords with the Jan'17 RNS On that, assuming Kibo's mine acquisition cost and feasibility study is treated as part of it, the 25% equity contribution to project capex becomes about $145m, of which 20% is Kibo's past contribution. Any more will either be a 'gift' or 'free carry' from the other equity partners, or will have to be paid for by Kibo in hard cash. Working out NPV's and irr shows that for the other equity contributors (maybe GE, and a consortium of other investors) to give Kibo a 'free carry' (ie let it take, say 30% of profit but only pay 20% of cost) will rob them of part of the irr that the government will allow them to make overall, and which is set just high enough to attract them (and to cover their own loan interest). In other words, the government isn't going to allow a situation where Kibo takes a 'free carry' - which dents the return to other investors below what they will allow overall, (or which would involve a higher power tariff )- why should they ? So whatever share Kibo wants over 20% it will have to pay for. After the shares for Mabesekwa, and the latest cash raise, Kibo has about 400m. left unissued (unless shareholders authorise more - which they'll almost certainly be asked to do at the forthcoming AGM - to pay for LC's other 'expansion' plans and build up necessary working capital and maybe a development bond) Assuming Kibo uses 210m to raise say £15m cash - at 7p - it could 'buy' another 10% of MCPP equity to give it 30%. That would give it $9.6m pa (for the first 12 years) of the MCPP post loan repayments and tax income to equity shareholders. On the then 800m shares in issue, that is 0.85p per Kibo share. Bearing in mind that is before corporate etc costs, Kibo might be able to pay a 0.6p dividend. Perhaps Mr Yaki can tell us how that dividend will be valued in the stockmarket ? (for a no-growth, limited life, dividend paying annuity it would be valued on a 10% yield basis and certainly not on a 10x PER.) An alternative is that MCPP is directly funded by external investors or infrastructure funds. Although there won't be dilution for Kibo shareholders, the effect will be similar. Kibo will have only 20%, spread across the current 569m shares instead of 1,000m, which means 0.8p per Kibo share and, maybe, a 0.6p dividend. Even if my figures aren't quite accurate, they show how far off the mark are the Yaki-Clappie share price projections. (Yaki could have checked how wrong he is by thinking through how would a Kibo market cap of £141m at 25p be justified ? It has only £28m of assets now including Mabesewaka , no income to speak of for years to come, and no chance of more than a 20% share of MCPP unless it raises cash through yet more share issues. And he could have especially realised that the NPV even of the whole MCPP (of which Kibo could only have a 20-30% share) is only around £300m. And as I've proved elsewhere, the market never values such shares at more than 1/2 their NPV. But then, the clappies don't seem to 'do' thinking.) So whichever way you look, Kibo shares were unlikely ever to stay above 10p - even before it diluted everything recently by 49%. But even that would only have been once MCPP is up and running and paying a dividend - in probably five years time. So why would anyone pay more than the present 4 - (as it will be soon) -5-6p ? - Answer - only those who haven't done their sums. So why was Yaki (and fellow clappies) ramping such an unrealistic and unprofessional share target ? Apart from idiocy , could it be something to do with his and their boasted large shareholding ? Doesn't he realise that the FCA will expect him to have disclosed his holding every time he ramps 'an uninformed '25p share price' on a public board ? But we also have to explain how have these clappies so mislead themselves ? The answer is that they don't understand what a project is and its NPV and how they relate to its owner's assets and share price. They've had plenty of time to find out. At present all that Kibo owns is the plans and studies for MCPP, which won't have any value until it's built. Kibo hasn't any funds to build, so others are going to have to stump up, in return for which they will take their chunk of its profits. And there is no way the other equity shareholders will allow anything more than a notional 'free carry'. Or that Kibo can 'sell down' anything but a small part of MCPP. To summarise The overall costs and profits of the MCPP have already been more or less settled - as in the Jan 2017 IBFS. They show the 'integrated' project is much more likely than Kibo keeping a separate mine, and that after tax and repayments of a 75% loan for the capex (best outcome for shareholders) cash earnings per Kibo share won't be more than 1p pa. With Kibo valued as a non-growth dividend paying share, that means no more than a 8-10p share price after expanding shares to buy a 30% share of the project. And neither do the clappies understand that Kibo can't build a large 'Power Group without an immense expansion in issued shares, by just gathering together low return businesses such as power stations. You can only do that without damaging your share price, through acquisitions that are highly profitable and cash generating. Power Stations aren't. Their 15% returns wouldn't be enough for any miner. Their only attraction is for pension funds looking for a stable, if not very high, annuity like return which is guaranteed for 25 years by a government agency like Tanesco If there were any chance the shares will go much above current levels, do the clappies really think the institutions wouldn't be aboard ? (Mabesekwa's Botswana investors are hardly in the world league, and they had no option but to accept Kibo's offer) They may be interested in MCPP directly. But they'd be fools to invest in Kibo itself. And why did Kibo only have to pay c £12m for Mabesekwa ? Its said to be almost equivalent to and at the same stage as Mbeya ! Answers on a postcard.
guitars4stars: Manipulation is also painting a picture of what - won't happen... any proof to back up your version of why over time the Kibo Share Price will never reach £ pounds? #Agenda.
Kibo Mining share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Kibo Minin..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20190326 02:52:23