We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medusa Mining | MML | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 97.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 97.50 | 97.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 12/6/2023 14:56 by polaris I can understand your feelings. If x64 was operating normally with current pog and mineral reserves then you would expect a share price well above A$1. There is some serious explanations required and, from my side, the potential for criminal proceedings against MML/X64 as a shareholder if it ends up that assets were misappropriated. Someone hasn't done their job by us, the shareholders! |
Posted at 12/5/2023 08:44 by killing_time New email received this morning.Dear Ten Sixty Four Directors, Dr. George Ph.D. in particular. I write this letter on behalf of hundreds minority shareholders who have contacted me with their concerns. I note you have not added any of our resolutions to the Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting/Proxy Form Further, there is no opportunity for shareholders who are not based in Perth to attend this meeting. Your meeting appears to relate to your positions as directors and have nothing to do with shareholder enquiries. You have not provided any information around possible civil and criminal proceedings involving PMC and or its previous and or current directors in the Philippines. You have no made any public announcement as to the royalties payment that is alleged to be with held from traditional land owners on which the Co O mine is built. I note that the Commonwealth of Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and as such if allegations prove to be truthful, then the boards of this company are acting unconstitutionally. I have acted in the past as an honorary diplomatic advisor to some of the Pacific’s poorest nations, I am appalled if these allegations are true. These funds support healthcare and education of these villagers. I personally do not want to receive a dividend if mining royalties remain unpaid as it would be unconscionable. This Philippines subsidiary company is known as the Philsaga Mining Corporation (PMC), being established on May 2001 after it was issued Certificate of Registration No. D200100478 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Republic of the Philippines. Via the doctrine(s) of acquiescence and estoppel, your silence as the chairperson of Ten Sixty Four Limited is an admission that the media reports by the Philippines government are truthful in their content, and form a contract with shareholders in equitable law. I rely upon your announcements as a promise of your fiduciary duty as a director of Ten Sixty Four limited to ensure I made “informed decisions as to my investments”. For over 3 months the board has been largely silent and or vague in its announcements. Now you announce a meeting we have ben demanding and we cannot attend the meeting because you have provided no Zoom link or telephone dial in prompt. Equity assists those who are vigilant, not those who slumber; Vigilantibus non dormientius aequitas subvenit A fiduciary obligation is owed in equity between the directors of the company and myself as a shareholder. The relationship is of a proscriptive nature Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71. I am the principal at equitable law, and fiduciary law seeks to protect my interests, and it is my choice, not the agent “directorsR You cannot dispense with your duties as a director without us, the shareholders making this decision, not you. As per the principles of promissory estoppel, it is assumed that there is a “contract̶ An equitable remedy is simple and a reasonable person would have thought of this; “You should provide a Zoom link so interstate and overseas shareholders can attend the meeting”. I note that depriving shareholders especially shareholders, especially minority shareholders the right to attend a meeting constitutes minority shareholder oppression. Being a company director and trained in law, you would know of these principles. As per Re Spargos Mining NL (1990) 3 ACSR 1 WASC, the board of Ten Sixty Four Limited like Spargos Mining NL are acting with the best interests of major shareholders and the boards interests, not mine, nor yours. What is specifically hurting the company is the boards inability to make or implement basic decisions (i.e. ASX announcements as promised) and continue trading under this board see; CIC Insurance Ltd v Hannan & Co Pty Ltd (2001) 38 ACSR 245. Next, the failure of communication can result in the company being wound up; see Re Yenidje Tobacco Co [1916] 2 Ch 426. Failure of directors’ performance will also lead to the entity being wound up, see comments by Dodds-Streeeton JA in Accurate Financial Consultants Pty Ltd v Koko Black Pty Ltd (2008) 66 ACSR 325. Remedies available to minority shareholders is found in S232, and the court can grant orders under S233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (C/th); Thus said, they are acting contrary to my (as a member’s) interest; S232(d); “what conduct can be deemed 'oppressive'. Minority oppression or oppressive conduct is seen to be conduct that is: contrary to the interests of the shareholders as a whole; or. oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against a shareholder or shareholders.” A reasonable person would view your actions are oppressive as per S232(e), more notably described in Wayde v NSW Rugby League Ltd (1985). Being ‘burdensome, harsh and wrongful’; Scottosh Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer [1959] AC 324. The last point specifically goes to the heart of excessive renumeration for directors where previous profits had been paid as dividends, not renumeration (Roberts v Walter Developments Pty Ltd [1992] 10 ACLC 804). I note that your salary/ renumeration(s) have increased in the past 9 months. Please ensure that no persons are being paid twice for multiple positions within the same parent entity. This is unconscionable conduct. Best Regards Dr. Simon Cichello Ph.D. |
Posted at 26/10/2022 10:43 by kimboy2 It wouldn't need much of a buyback to put the opposition in control.Perhaps have a special dividend. |
Posted at 26/10/2022 08:49 by polaris What gets to me is that it is so easy to bring value to the shareholders. A buyback here is definitely EPS positive, due to sheer size of the cash pile wrt market cap. Add in a stated dividend policy and defined aims for Tiger Way against progress and you have recipe for sustained success. |
Posted at 05/9/2022 08:33 by killing_time FY2022 Dividend of 5.0c per share declared(ASX: X64) Board declares an unfranked dividend of A$0.05 per share Didn't know, Thanks Polaris |
Posted at 06/7/2022 18:42 by polaris The board announcement from the 5th terminating the services agreement with Welker means he is out, no 6-month notice. I find that an interesting flag that maybe there is more to this than a simple breach of the board of directors code.The fast move from Welker becoming a non-exec to managing director to then change the name of MML to X64 is all the more intriguing given what has now happened. I doubt that this story has ended. I have all kinds of ideas going through my mind...start a buyback to sell out the non-escrowed shares as fast as possible to pocket cash from worthless assets. Change the company name to provide some support to other similar named companies that are not part of MML but related to Welker. Oust existing management to siphon off cash to a related party. Trash company name to allow a low-ball takeout offer to succeed. Yes, i have a very devious mind! ;-) Then X64 (MML) come out today with the announcement that Co-O meets production target, actually right at the top end of the revised forecast. That means well over 23 k production for Q4 FY 2022. Even with inflationary pressure, the AISCs are likely to come in at bottom end of forecast and maybe even below. That is great news, as it means EPS is likely to be in the range of $0.17-0.20, US not AUD. Unless there has been a very large spend on the Tiger Way in Q4 then cash pile will be larger than that reported at end of Q3. US dollar is stronger against the Aussie dollar than last Q. share price and EV suggest a basket-case producer with serious issues. Just the producing asset more than justifies the current SP, ignoring the cash on the books. Roll on the Q4 AISC report at the end of the month, the audited figures and forward statement in August/September and, hopefully, a decent dividend declaration and some further progress within the buyback mandate. |
Posted at 01/7/2022 12:05 by boadicea I just received a communication from the registrar (Computershare Aus) to elect to receive all communications electronically which refers to needing "SRN/HIN and postcode detailed in this letter ...". They are nowhere to be found!Do I assume that they remain the same as for MML before the change of name?... and will the dividend bank mandate carry over? (Hoping for more dividends.) I think I have previously opted for electronic commumication under MML so will ignore the latest X64 notification (which arrived by email) and assume all is ok until it isn't. |
Posted at 23/3/2022 10:15 by polaris To highlight the too much cash / cash not really taken into account in the market cap and some other options.A tier I company, such as Barrick, has a P/E around 20. While difficult to compare directly, as Barrick is a multi-metal and multi-jurisdiction producer, they also have a net cash position of close to zero. That is current cash position minus current debt. So i will compare at the top level. For MML, the H1 FY23 results give NPAT of $0.074, or around AUD$0.10. That is on a H1 average pog of $1784. I'd say that worst case scenario is FY23 NPAT of double this value, or AUD$0.20. At current SP, that gives a forward P/E of a little under 5, a large discount on the 20 for Barrick, reflecting the level of risk of a small miner...and then some! This takes no account of the net cash position in MML, which is close to zero for Barrick...they do have $5 Bn in cash but also similar levels of debt, looking at most recent results. MML has no debt gearing as it has no debt. Instead, it has $74 M in cash at end of H1 FY22, or close to AUD$100 M. With the 227 M shares, post 1064 acquisition, equivalent to AUD$0.44 per share. Two options, strip out the cash to get actual P/E or that should be added onto the P/E expectation for a 'typical' small producing miner. Option 1 leads to the effective share price for comparing with NPAT of AUD$0.495 at close of business last night, yielding a P/E of 2.5 in conservative case for FY22 results. Surely i am not alone in classing this as madness! Option 2 is that P/E of 5 is about right and you add the cash back, yielding a 'reasonable' share price in the conservative case of AUD$1.44 - a 54% increase wrt current share price Options 1 and 2 are two ways of looking at the same disparity. My conclusion is that the cash on the books is ignored by the majority of basic analysis. MML have two options: return majority of cash to shareholders or fast-track other assets to production to make the cash work at a multiple to nominal value. I'd like to see combination of the two that leads to a sustainable dividend policy and progressing new assets to become a multi-asset producer. I'm not a great fan of one-off cash returns. I also see the basic analysis as the conservative case. Why? pog is well up on average received for H1 FY23 and the production expectation is higher for H2 with likely reduced AISCs related to the higher gold production. NPAT could be above AUD$0.25, lower than last year, but still very respectable for a small producer. That would lower the rating even further. While AUS is OK for miners i would prefer a dual listing for MML moving forward. They've tried AIM and that had its moments...i was here in the last mining boom and the share price reached multiple £s per share with same production, albeit with plans to expand production which never materialised. My preference is TSX and average P/Es for small producing miners is above 20 over there! Repeating my other long term flag from previous posts. The mill is running at 50% nameplate. Once Tiger Way is complete, MML can move more ore, always the bottle-neck over last 10 years of production. If they can fill the mill then production can rise by at least 70%. That possibility is completely discounted in current SP, IMO. If a knowledgeable board pushes this option then share price can receive a boost. MML has options that can easily lead to multi-bag from current share price I hope that new MD can progress these and realise the share price potential for shareholders...i.e. me! ;-) |
Posted at 29/10/2021 11:01 by polaris Hi tightfist (and others),The dividend wasn't pulled but there was an expectation in the market that there would be a FY dividend on top of the HY dividend announced. MML decided not to declare a dividend but now a rethink. Excellent!! A$0.07 in 2021, looking at the share price average, the yield close to 10 %. share price opened 2021 at A$0.773 and is heading to end the year around the same price. You can argue that gold has taken a tumble since January, 200DMA on 3rd Jan was near $1860 and stands at $1790 today, but MML have happily met production targets and AISCs. MML are maintaining the cash pile in the high $70s M, despite returning $8 M in dividends to investors and spending $8.3 M (to date in 2021) on Tiger Way. Going forward, the AISCs are expected to be about $50 higher for FY22 and pog $70 less than FY21. This will impact FCF, note that cash increase in FY21 from $47.1 M to $72.2 M. Combining the increases in AISCs with lower pog, dividends and expenditure on Tiger Way, the expectation is that cash pile will remain broadly steady in FY22. Some may see that as a negative, to go from $25 M FCF to zero. I do not because the cash is being used to secure the long-term future of the mine (Tiger Way access) and to give returns to (long suffering) investors. With the second dividend in 2021, that's near $10 M in cash returns, effectively spread over two FYs, as MML run July-June. Show me another miner today that runs near 10 % yield. Pure Gold was pointed out to me again recently as an opportunity. They are a narrow vein underground miner based in Canada. They reported 9.6 k oz of production for Q3, have $24 M in cash but also a debt facility drawn down to $85 M and have not reported clear AISCs. Market cap? EV? ... ... MC is C$450 M EV is near £280 M MML have more than double the production, zero debt, a huge cash pile and well defined AISCs. They also have a more than 10 year production profile of converting indicated and inferred resource into reserves and then mining them. MC? EV? ... ... MC is A$160 M EV is under £40M Even more bizarrely, Pure Gold were capitalised at near C$1 Bn earlier in the year. It's like MML live in a parallel universe. Last point in this post - MML plant operates at around 50 % of nameplate capacity. It always has due to the bottleneck of hoistage. Tiger Way has the chance to give much better access to the mine and to greatly increase hoistage. It'll be more economical to access certain ore from L2-L10 that is not deemed economical now. Plus there is the fact that the deposit is open at depth and there is now a satellite deposit taking shape with drilling. If MML get that ore to plant then cash flow can increase markedly. |
Posted at 26/8/2021 10:45 by polaris How undervalued is MML?Taking the 2020 and 2021 FY results then we have some simple numbers to start with: Cash and cash equivalents are up $25 M on the year Production is steady in the 90-95 k oz region AISCs increased by $99 but average pog received increased by $275 NPAT was a whopping $496 per production oz! What else? The cash pile was up $25 M but MML also spent $6.5 M on cap-ex for the Tiger Way project and paid $8 M in dividends, so cash generation from operations was almost $15 M more than the $25 M reported. What about the next 12 months? Tiger Way cap-ex pencilled in as $15 M Operations flat but AISCs projected to rise to $1250-1300 region from $1231, lets say a round $5 M, which is $50-60 per production oz pog received $1856 in FY21, lets say it falls to $1750 in FY22. That's another $10 M wiped off possible cash generation Put it all together and i'd say direct revenues will be impacted by about $150 per production oz at $1750 average pog and then Tiger Way will take another $150 in cap-ex costs. That still leaves a NPAT of around $200 per production oz, including the project. If MML pay a similar dividend in the next 12 months (A$0.05) then that is equivalent to $85-90 increase in AISCs. After all of this spend then MML come out with a NPAT of over $100 per production oz in cash generation to add to the cash pile, which would increase to something in the range $82-85 M. MML shares in issue are around 208 M. SP is A$0.80, giving a market cap of around A$167 M. Current cash pile is $72.2 M, or approximately A$100 M Cash pile increase after cap-ex and dividends was $25 M, or A$34.5 M EV is A$67 M! EPS is A$0.31 per share... at 208 M shares this is A$64.5 M... near as dammit the actual EV!! Assuming $1750 average pog in FY22 then the state in 12 months will be projected cash pile $82-85 M another A$0.05 dividend NPAT margin reduced to around $200 per production oz ($350 excluding Tiger Way) If you add all that in then MML will still be operating at P/E of 1 next year at A$0.80, while in the middle of a big cap-ex project to extend mine life (by access routes as veins are never going to run out, just get harder to mine economically) for 10 years+ Finally, for the play... A$167 M market cap at A$0.80 SP A$100 M in cash generated A$64.5 M earnings in FY21 Long standing disgruntled shareholders Poor management and PR White knight to punt A$1.25 per share and it is accepted Total outlay A$260 M but you immediately get A$100 M back No dividend to pay. Taking that into account means a NPAT around $300 per production oz in FYs 22-24 (A$410 or so) To get back the A$160 M outlay at this rate would need near 400 k oz gold produced, or less than 4.5 years production. This while happily funding Tiger Way. Tiger Way is finished in FY24 and access allows small increase in production output to 100 k oz, costs go down as cap-ex is reduced and the white knight gets all the future benefit. This reduces payback to 3-3.5 years. Disgruntled shareholders get a 50+% return on their current holdings but no part in the future of the mine complex. I'd say that is a bad deal but i can see many holders snapping your hand off at A$1.25 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
