Lonmin Share Discussion Threads

[chrisbr777] 25/11/2015 14:55

mntomlinson - everything is relative. Its 1p because of 27,000,000,000 shares which are being issued....

[m_n_tomlinson] 25/11/2015 14:48

Almost 1p for this heavy weight Miner! Is this absurd or just absurd? Have I stepped through the looking glass? This is like some game of monopoly. The distinction between reality and fantasy has blurred. Just a fraction of GLEN's debt, yet they're almost @ £1!

[lazyhisnibs] 25/11/2015 14:41

Graham,

I apologise for my slowness with this stuff but just to clarify, an underwriter committed to taking 25% of the funds being raised cannot buy some of that proportion in advance? The point being that they couldn't time-spread the risk of taking control and of course paying for that block of, in this case, 25%. This being because the underwriting is not done until after the 10th and therefore if they had bought, say, 10% of their commitment already and increased that to say 15% before the 10th they would still have their corporate choppers on the block for a further 25% if there was still a huge deficit in take up.

If the above is as I think you are saying it is, then the fall off in the share price and rights have been without much, if any, buying in the market by them since XX. Further, they probably won't do much so salvage LMI or LMIN if one or both depreciate further while those books are open as it were.

As for what they do or should do if the price of LMI falls sub 1p I hear you but what a mess with the politics and all. Time would tell.

[graham2405] 25/11/2015 14:17

"Coming back to the 25% are you saying that (as underwriters) the PIC must wait until it is known whether there is a short fall in take up before underwriting."

They could buy some rights now, but as I said why would they, and they'd still be committed to the 25%.

"That makes more sense than my thoughts on the matter. So, if they bought now they could end up with more than 25%."

Yes.....

"I agree that they almost certainly wouldn't do that unless there is a game changing in ownership afoot based almost solely on colour which would be kind of ironic."

Well, It could be nationalised, I guess. Don't get the hopes up though, I'd doubt that they do it for much if any premium.

Regardless, the RI looks like it has been badly received. When they total it all up they will get their cash, but what will happen to the share price.

If the underwriters get a huge stake, they will have to sell it. This will no doubt depress prices for a while.

Even if they do not sell it immediately, it will put a lid on the price until they do.

[ravenna23] 25/11/2015 13:08

Elvis, at least you have not lost your sense of humour!

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 13:03

Thanks Ravenna, matches a use of Shakespeare a few weeks ago when poor Brahms got it in the neck!

Thought you had something like that in mind, wondered if you meant some weird drinking club that met in failing light in Rustenberg and was dwindling in number ... Same effect I guess!

[graham2405] 25/11/2015 12:57

Into the valley of death rode the 600.....

Charge of the light brigade.

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:55

Siwel, thanks again (genuinely). Confirm I am invested, a reason for 24-7 posts ... not the obvious one you would expect.

[ravenna23] 25/11/2015 12:54

Sorry, should be 600. Light brigade.

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:52

Glorious 500 ....?

Don't worry I'm as cynical as you about investment bankers doing God's work, just trying to work out how/where they are having to do the work to get their final fat cheque (and a recommendation for future business). Horrid world investment banking, would hate it myself.

[ravenna23] 25/11/2015 12:47

Elvis, I do not think the RI would have got off the ground had it not been at a 97% discount with PIC underwriting 25%. Since when were PIC an investment bank? It seems to me that you are one of the glorious 600 riding on and on into the valley...

[siwel3] 25/11/2015 12:42

Elvis...I can understand a risky multi year punt that may or may not come off but if it does it will be very profitable.
What I don't understand is you saying you have made such an 'investment' but then posting on here here 24-7 like a day trader.
Either you are not invested or are invested too heavily to leave alone. You confuse me. Not that it matters much either way, the boards are littered with single stock punters hoping for an eventual profit. I hope it does work out for you.

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:40

Graham re Post 6802
Try again, read 6805

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:38

.... Follow Your Rights Ravenna .....

They are out to make money, but they also pitched among a cast of thousands no doubt for the work and have to report (and probably attend) Lonmin Board Meetings who supply the "what big shareholder want" interface.

[ravenna23] 25/11/2015 12:30

Elvis, Greenhill and the investment banks are out to make money. They have no interest in Lonmin other than it being able to pay their considerable fees. If you lose all your money do you honestly think Greenhill will care? What is so fantastic about a deal that sees current shareholders wiped out and a government fund as the largest shareholder by far?

[graham2405] 25/11/2015 12:29

"how did Lonmin convince their big IIs to vote Yes?"

They basically said give us your vote or we go bust.

That's how they did it...........

........and only 52% of shareholders bothered to vote.

Speaks volumes.

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:29

Siwel, genuine thanks for your Post 6798. I've acknowledged that I've learnt something from this process, hopefully added too (despite an Mt. Everest mountain of posts).

[elvisrocks] 25/11/2015 12:25

Siwel, thanks for the Post, I'm not going to get into a argument with you bar make this point.

My point, and that of Greenhill and the Investment Banks who will have been advising Lonmin, is that there is essentially nothing in the share price for its Balance Sheet and its price will reflect a "temporary bookkeeping situation" (my words) during this period but you and others essentially say Lonmin will remain a cash shell even after the RI and that "the future of the Pt price outweighs any asset value". Not true in my view and if it was how did Lonmin convince their big IIs to vote Yes?

As has also been said before on this BB, this is a pure traders share at the moment, with no indications of value. Experienced traders are making good money at the moment whilst PI/IIs have to look away. Careful makes that point.

PS: Lonmin also the strongest in its industry now.

[graham2405] 25/11/2015 12:23

hxxp://proteamedia.com/?p=3586

"State gambling with public servant’s pension funds at Lonmin!"

"Adv. Alberts says the FF Plus will be taking up the issue with the Minister of Finance and the pension funds adjudicator to prevent the public servants’ from losing their money. He said it is extremely risky to invest funds in a company which is on the brink of bankruptcy."

"What is happening at present is not a calculated business decision at all. Nearly R2 billion of public servant’s pension funds are being used in an irresponsible and dangerous manner to gamble with for mere political reasons."

[siwel3] 25/11/2015 12:14

Elvis you seem more set on trying to win obscure bb arguments than actually making money. If you are hell bent on holding the shares no matter what, then run a tandem short at least until you get confirmed change of direction of travel.
I still don't think you actually hold any shares and are just bored and want company but if you are new to investing then the first and most important rule is not to lose money, making money comes a distant second. You would already be in a hole the important thing is not to let it get worse, saving anything is better than nothing.
You are constructing ever more elaborate scenarios to justify your views. In 99% of cases what's in front of you is the reality. Obscure scenarios do occasionally happen but they are usually bad for investors. To bet on some some weird set of events to rescue a failing trade is irrational and just gambling. They come of some times but so infrequently its not worth talking about.

[graham2405] 25/11/2015 12:12

"Graham, I thought that if they already know they'll have to acquire more than they want but have committed to then they might not wish to leave all of that to the last minute. Or, at least follow on their 7%."

They may not even acquire the 7% rights, hear me out..... ;-)

Simply put if they are not contractually obliged, and it is unlikely that they are. If the price drops below 1p, why on earth would they exercise their rights over the 7%.

Lets not forget they are a pension fund, and whilst they are contractually committed to underwrite the 25% (and therefore buy the 1p shares), it would be wrong for them to buy the 7% @ 1p if they could get them cheaper of off the market.

How would you feel if you were a pensioner, or for that matter the pensions auditor if they did that?

IMHO, to buy them if the price fell below 1p would be WRONG.

[ravenna23] 25/11/2015 12:10

Elvis, sorry but this screams government interference. This just increases the sovereign risk profile for investment in SA, populism versus pragmatism. I now expect further massive impairments once PIC have 29.9%, and then LMI is effectively nationalised.