Namakwa Diamonds Share Discussion Threads

[abtwo] 13/9/2011 11:28

Dear John,

From the link you posted :

K- Other : 5.24 cpht x US$230/ct = US$12 / tonne

From NAD's recent interim result presentation :

Phase 1 cost of production : US$15 –17/t

[jr50] 12/9/2011 18:47

a later review for you, drop down to LESOTHO
Kao Project




are you taking figures from Maluti diamond corps or kao diamond mine exploration data, that dates back to 1970 and 2004 respectively??? if indeed you are then you have either not read them correctly or are unaware on the method of the report, due to their own soft and hard rock resource estimates far outweighing your '90% of kao being under break even cost.

even the review by sound mining solutions pty for the 3D modifications to the 3D geological orebody model, the mine design and associated tonnages of waste, did not differ by at the most 6% from the original 3D plans.

so lets hear your explanation for your comments, it will be interesting at the very least!

best regards

John

[jr50] 12/9/2011 18:12

ABtwo

the following information contained in the independent resource review by venmyn may help you.



best regards

John

[jr50] 12/9/2011 17:38

All well and good but the value per tonne of 90% of the Kao kimberlite is below Stage 1 breakeven cost and the the reality is that stage two is not practical / economical in the mountains of Lesotho.

...............................................................................

ABtwo

are you seriously saying that everyone involved in the last placing, Jarvirne Limited ("Jarvirne"), and most of the media that cover this company, have all missed the obvious, and have not realised that only 10% of the Kao kimberlite is actually worth a profit!! and 90% is not worth mining!!

I have to tell you, in the short time that i have become a NAD shareholder, i have pretty much read some highly entertaining (if you like fiction) and broadly unrestrained and overenthusiastic exuberant posts on this forum, that leads me to believe that some of the posters on here either have a ulterior motive or a highly subjective imagination!

if you are going to de-ramp this company in such a blatant way, may i ask you to at least source some credible facts/figures/material to show us that at least you are trying.

and they said this particular forum was the best one to gather views and information from the rest, 'i wonder what the others are like'

best regards

John

PS. keep up the informative counter posts Merlion, although you maybe 'p@ssing in the wind', here!

[the merlion] 12/9/2011 13:37

"the value per tonne of 90% of the Kao kimberlite is below Stage 1 breakeven cost and the the reality is that stage two is not practical / economical"

Really ABtwo, are you absolutely certain?

I sincerely urge you to provide the BB all the relevant information and detailed breakdown of how you came to this mighty conclusion.

You stated the same previously offering no explanation or reason before running off only to return with the very same vague comment based on nothing at all. I very much hope this time you can provide this BB with some basis and break down.

Right, I will leave you to it as I am busy, I must also add to my 'to do list' a call to Namakwa to inform them they are wasting their time and I will furnish them with your 'numbers' in order to validate your comments when you reveal them to this BB.

PS: Please do not try the previous trick where you avoided the issue by answering a question with a question and just give us the details by breakdown of why 90% of of the Kao kimberlite is uneconomic if not I can safely added you to my filter.

[abtwo] 12/9/2011 13:02

Merlion,

All well and good but the value per tonne of 90% of the Kao kimberlite is below Stage 1 breakeven cost and the the reality is that stage two is not practical / economical in the mountains of Lesotho.

[topnotch] 12/9/2011 09:36

Hmmm, thats also pretty helpful!

Despite over recent overheated debate you have put forward a well reasoned argument (a huge diffence from the numerous tedious cut-and-pastes of the same article).

Well done for that!

[the merlion] 11/9/2011 00:24

There are some real clumsy bashers about who simply agree with others because they are bashers of the company, very bitter, incapable of understanding the facts and basically totally out of their league.

===========================================================

Skint365 at Fri 16:03 over on LSE
Read the number crunching by RED IS ONE over on ADVFN.
Personally I agree with him though would be interested to hear others view.

============================================================

Here we have another basher on LSE agreeing with the total misrepresentation, scaremongering and utter lack of understanding by "RED IS ONE" regarding his latest bashing opinion of the recent news where he states the following:

"2 deals involving the same 3rd party, a $17m trading liability and $40m loan WERE COMBINED so that PART OF THE LIABILITY IS REPAID by applying a whacking 24% interest rate charge on the loan".

Skint365 agrees with this and has declared it as a RECOMMENDATION on LSE.

Well, although I said I would leave the bashers to it I must correct this misleading incorrect rubbish and also suggest that others pay attention to the real facts of the deal. The deal is nothing like RED IS ONE has described and I will spell the deal out below for "RED IS ONE", "skint365" and all others who are incapable of understanding basic facts in their quest to discredit the company:

Firstly it is much better if we acknowledge from the very start that there is no combination of the US$40m FACILITY and the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne). Simple as it is the 2 amounts are TOTALLY SEPARATE.

Let us start with the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne).

"Jarvirne has AGREED TO CAPITALISE THE INVESTMENT, IN CONSIDERATION FOR the issue and allotment of, in aggregate, 61,750,000 SHARES (in 2 tranches at 19.5p (as stated) and the GBP/US$ exchange rate they are using is approx 1.618)" as follows:

Tranche No.1 - 11,000,000 shares REDUCING the Company's TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY by c.US$3.47m (US$19.5m - US$3.47m = approx US$16m) or (11,000,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP2,145,000 x 1.618 = US$3.47m).

Tranche No. 2 - 50,750,000 shares following which the Company will have NO TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY (50,750,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP9,896,250 x 1.618 = US$16m).

Total paid from the 2 tranches is US$3.47m (Tranche 1) + US$16m (Tranche 2) = approx US$19.5m

Voila, as if by magic, the whole of the "TRADING INVESTMENT" of US$19.5m is totally paid off and NOT "PART OF THE LIABILITY" WHICH WAS NOT COMBINED as RED IS ONE suggested with the US$40m FACILITY.

We have to consider with the above there are time scales outlined regarding the 2 tranches of shares with Tranche 1 (11m) happening by Friday 16th September and Tranche 2 (50.75m) being subject to approval of the shareholders after the company have issued their reports and accounts in October 2011.

Should shareholders approve Tranche 2 of shares Jarvirne will hold a total of 81,891,438 shares in the company with a 28.45% stake.

Now, the US$40m FACILITY which is a totally different issue to the above.

This US$40m FACILITY is available in 2 stages, US$23m made available from now until mid November and the remaining US$17m conditional on the issue of Tranche 2 shares and confirmation from the Company of adequacy of working capital for the following six month period (assuming the availability of the remaining Facility).

Of the US$23m which is available immediately until mid November the company has chosen to drawdown US$5m by September 9th 2011 and in doing so this action triggered payment of year 1 interest of the FACILITY. Year 1 interest is by way of the issue and allotment of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown therefore we can expect notification that these 9,000,000 shares have been issued. If these 9 million shares were to be bought it would have cost approx GBP1.17m using a 13p buying price which was roughly the high end share price on the 7th when the US$5m drawdown was made.

No figure was given for Year 1 interest rates as there was no interest, the issue of 9m shares replaced the interest and Year 2 interest rate was given at 24% which could be described as rather excessive but we must consider it in relation to the 2 year term of the FACILITY.

Also it is also worth considering that the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 (which is where the above US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY originates from) was agreed with interest rates of 8.5% pa for the initial term of 12 months and 17% pa for 6 months thereafter if the term of the loan is extended by Namakwa (as detailed below and on page 144 clause 19.2 of the 2010 placing and open offer prospectus).

ORIGINAL LOAN of US$15m from May 2010 @ 8.5% pa = US$3.4m = US$18.4m

Following 6 months at 17% on US$15m of which 2 months were accrued @ US$566k per months = US$1.13m

Therefore US$18.4 + US$1.13 = approx US$19.5m which is the current TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY.

As a side note it is amazing that Namakwa never actually repaid a single Dollar of the ORIGINAL Loan.

Now, back to current day issues and assuming all the conditions are met (Tranche 2 shares and adequacy of working capital as mentioned above) regarding the full US$40m FACILTY the interest rates would be as follows:

Year 1 - Interest payable by way of the issue of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown which was US$5m as highlighted above at a cost (if bought) of approx GBP1.17m.

GBP1.17m as a percentage of US$40m (GBP1.17m x 1.618 (GBP/US$ rate as above)) = US$1,89m = 4.725% for year 1.

Obviously, the 9m shares could increase/decrease over time due to share price movement and may be worth any unknown amount in the future but as it stands the "interest rate" for Year 1 is effectively 4.725% and has already been "paid"/issued..

Year 2 is a totally different kettle of fish at first site and the interest rate is set at 24% therefore 24% of US$40m is US$9.6m payable monthly in arrears which equates to US$800k per month.

If we compare the interest rates of the proposed US$40 FACILITY to the previous Loan by the same lender you will find that there is very little difference as now we have an average interest rate of 14.36% over the term as opposed to the ORIGINAL Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 having an average of 12.75% over the term.

In crude terms the proposed US$40 FACILITY will cost Namakwa US$9.6m + minimal dilution of 9m shares whereas the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement cost US$4.5m for 62.5% less funds.

The US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY has diluted us to the tune of 61.75m shares which is 28% which I can live with as it gives me great satisfaction that Jarvirne have paid a very significant premium of 85% at 19.5p for settlement of their TRADING INVESTMENT. All considered, with approx 279m shares in issue which is far less than others in the industry such like FDI with 372m and PDL with 497m.

Funding is very hard to come by under current conditions so it is fully expected that a premium interest rate may apply but looking at this one the rates appear very much akin to the same terms of the previous loan despite others trying to make out otherwise.

Maybe Namakwa could have gone the other route and issued placing upon placing upon placing upon placing much like another diamond miner not that far away from Kao but as it is Namakwa have not had to do this due to a willing backer and still end up with significantly less shares in issue as highlighted.

Remember also folks that Namakwa will hopefully end up with only one focus being Kao which is a billion dollar asset alone and they have significant plant and equipment and concessions in both DRC and SA which could be used to pay off a very significant portion of the proposed US$40 FACILITY as well as inventory which was recently acknowledged by RBC. Remember that discussions to sell DRC assets are ADVANCED.

Personally I am pleased with the news but I suppose I am biased due to my profitable interest, both present and past, in the company but I think you will find that I have never lost faith as I highlighted very recently in post 158 where things have pretty much panned out as I described.

As before bye for now and very best of luck to the genuine honest posters who actually hold and again tough luck to the bashers who sold at a loss and his misleading team mates with multi aliases on both here and iii.

[the merlion] 10/9/2011 23:56

There are some real clumsy bashers about who simply agree with others because they are bashers of the company, very bitter, incapable of understanding the facts and basically totally out of their league.

===========================================================

Skint365 at Fri 16:03 over on LSE
Read the number crunching by RED IS ONE over on ADVFN.
Personally I agree with him though would be interested to hear others view.

============================================================

Here we have another basher on LSE agreeing with the total misrepresentation, scaremongering and utter lack of understanding by "RED IS ONE" regarding his latest bashing opinion of the recent news where he states the following:

"2 deals involving the same 3rd party, a $17m trading liability and $40m loan WERE COMBINED so that PART OF THE LIABILITY IS REPAID by applying a whacking 24% interest rate charge on the loan".

Skint365 agrees with this and has declared it as a RECOMMENDATION on LSE.

Well, although I said I would leave the bashers to it I must correct this misleading incorrect rubbish and also suggest that others pay attention to the real facts of the deal. The deal is nothing like RED IS ONE has described and I will spell the deal out below for "RED IS ONE", "skint365" and all others who are incapable of understanding basic facts in their quest to discredit the company:

Firstly it is much better if we acknowledge from the very start that there is no combination of the US$40m FACILITY and the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne). Simple as it is the 2 amounts are TOTALLY SEPARATE.

Let us start with the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne).

"Jarvirne has AGREED TO CAPITALISE THE INVESTMENT, IN CONSIDERATION FOR the issue and allotment of, in aggregate, 61,750,000 SHARES (in 2 tranches at 19.5p (as stated) and the GBP/US$ exchange rate they are using is approx 1.618)" as follows:

Tranche No.1 - 11,000,000 shares REDUCING the Company's TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY by c.US$3.47m (US$19.5m - US$3.47m = approx US$16m) or (11,000,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP2,145,000 x 1.618 = US$3.47m).

Tranche No. 2 - 50,750,000 shares following which the Company will have NO TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY (50,750,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP9,896,250 x 1.618 = US$16m).

Total paid from the 2 tranches is US$3.47m (Tranche 1) + US$16m (Tranche 2) = approx US$19.5m

Voila, as if by magic, the whole of the "TRADING INVESTMENT" of US$19.5m is totally paid off and NOT "PART OF THE LIABILITY" WHICH WAS NOT COMBINED as RED IS ONE suggested with the US$40m FACILITY.

We have to consider with the above there are time scales outlined regarding the 2 tranches of shares with Tranche 1 (11m) happening by Friday 16th September and Tranche 2 (50.75m) being subject to approval of the shareholders after the company have issued their reports and accounts in October 2011.

Should shareholders approve Tranche 2 of shares Jarvirne will hold a total of 81,891,438 shares in the company with a 28.45% stake.

Now, the US$40m FACILITY which is a totally different issue to the above.

This US$40m FACILITY is available in 2 stages, US$23m made available from now until mid November and the remaining US$17m conditional on the issue of Tranche 2 shares and confirmation from the Company of adequacy of working capital for the following six month period (assuming the availability of the remaining Facility).

Of the US$23m which is available immediately until mid November the company has chosen to drawdown US$5m by September 9th 2011 and in doing so this action triggered payment of year 1 interest of the FACILITY. Year 1 interest is by way of the issue and allotment of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown therefore we can expect notification that these 9,000,000 shares have been issued. If these 9 million shares were to be bought it would have cost approx GBP1.17m using a 13p buying price which was roughly the high end share price on the 7th when the US$5m drawdown was made.

No figure was given for Year 1 interest rates as there was no interest, the issue of 9m shares replaced the interest and Year 2 interest rate was given at 24% which could be described as rather excessive but we must consider it in relation to the 2 year term of the FACILITY.

Also it is also worth considering that the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 (which is where the above US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY originates from) was agreed with interest rates of 8.5% pa for the initial term of 12 months and 17% pa for 6 months thereafter if the term of the loan is extended by Namakwa (as detailed below and on page 144 clause 19.2 of the 2010 placing and open offer prospectus).

ORIGINAL LOAN of US$15m from May 2010 @ 8.5% pa = US$3.4m = US$18.4m

Following 6 months at 17% on US$15m of which 2 months were accrued @ US$566k per months = US$1.13m

Therefore US$18.4 + US$1.13 = approx US$19.5m which is the current TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY.

As a side note it is amazing that Namakwa never actually repaid a single Dollar of the ORIGINAL Loan.

Now, back to current day issues and assuming all the conditions are met (Tranche 2 shares and adequacy of working capital as mentioned above) regarding the full US$40m FACILTY the interest rates would be as follows:

Year 1 - Interest payable by way of the issue of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown which was US$5m as highlighted above at a cost (if bought) of approx GBP1.17m.

GBP1.17m as a percentage of US$40m (GBP1.17m x 1.618 (GBP/US$ rate as above)) = US$1,89m = 4.725% for year 1.

Obviously, the 9m shares could increase/decrease over time due to share price movement and may be worth any unknown amount in the future but as it stands the "interest rate" for Year 1 is effectively 4.725% and has already been "paid"/issued..

Year 2 is a totally different kettle of fish at first site and the interest rate is set at 24% therefore 24% of US$40m is US$9.6m payable monthly in arrears which equates to US$800k per month.

If we compare the interest rates of the proposed US$40 FACILITY to the previous Loan by the same lender you will find that there is very little difference as now we have an average interest rate of 14.36% over the term as opposed to the ORIGINAL Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 having an average of 12.75% over the term.

In crude terms the proposed US$40 FACILITY will cost Namakwa US$9.6m + minimal dilution of 9m shares whereas the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement cost US$4.5m for 62.5% less funds.

The US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY has diluted us to the tune of 61.75m shares which is 28% which I can live with as it gives me great satisfaction that Jarvirne have paid a very significant premium of 85% at 19.5p for settlement of their TRADING INVESTMENT. All considered, with approx 279m shares in issue which is far less than others in the industry such like FDI with 372m and PDL with 497m.

Funding is very hard to come by under current conditions so it is fully expected that a premium interest rate may apply but looking at this one the rates appear very much akin to the same terms of the previous loan despite others trying to make out otherwise.

Maybe Namakwa could have gone the other route and issued placing upon placing upon placing upon placing much like another diamond miner not that far away from Kao but as it is Namakwa have not had to do this due to a willing backer and still end up with significantly less shares in issue as highlighted.

Remember also folks that Namakwa will hopefully end up with only one focus being Kao which is a billion dollar asset alone and they have significant plant and equipment and concessions in both DRC and SA which could be used to pay off a very significant portion of the proposed US$40 FACILITY as well as inventory which was recently acknowledged by RBC. Remember that discussions to sell DRC assets are ADVANCED.

Personally I am pleased with the news but I suppose I am biased due to my profitable interest, both present and past, in the company but I think you will find that I have never lost faith as I highlighted very recently in post 158 where things have pretty much panned out as I described.

As before bye for now and very best of luck to the genuine honest posters who actually hold and again tough luck to the bashers who sold at a loss and his misleading team mates with multi aliases on both here and iii.

[the merlion] 10/9/2011 23:55

There are some real clumsy bashers about who simply agree with others because they are bashers of the company, very bitter, incapable of understanding the facts and basically totally out of their league.

===========================================================

Skint365 at Fri 16:03 over on LSE
Read the number crunching by RED IS ONE over on ADVFN.
Personally I agree with him though would be interested to hear others view.

============================================================

Here we have another basher on LSE agreeing with the total misrepresentation, scaremongering and utter lack of understanding by "RED IS ONE" regarding his latest bashing opinion of the recent news where he states the following:

"2 deals involving the same 3rd party, a $17m trading liability and $40m loan WERE COMBINED so that PART OF THE LIABILITY IS REPAID by applying a whacking 24% interest rate charge on the loan".

Skint365 agrees with this and has declared it as a RECOMMENDATION on LSE.

Well, although I said I would leave the bashers to it I must correct this misleading incorrect rubbish and also suggest that others pay attention to the real facts of the deal. The deal is nothing like RED IS ONE has described and I will spell the deal out below for "RED IS ONE", "skint365" and all others who are incapable of understanding basic facts in their quest to discredit the company:

Firstly it is much better if we acknowledge from the very start that there is no combination of the US$40m FACILITY and the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne). Simple as it is the 2 amounts are TOTALLY SEPARATE.

Let us start with the $17m TRADING INVESTMENT (settlement amount of US$19.5m including any unrealised and accrued profits and rights otherwise due to Jarvirne).

"Jarvirne has AGREED TO CAPITALISE THE INVESTMENT, IN CONSIDERATION FOR the issue and allotment of, in aggregate, 61,750,000 SHARES (in 2 tranches at 19.5p (as stated) and the GBP/US$ exchange rate they are using is approx 1.618)" as follows:

Tranche No.1 - 11,000,000 shares REDUCING the Company's TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY by c.US$3.47m (US$19.5m - US$3.47m = approx US$16m) or (11,000,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP2,145,000 x 1.618 = US$3.47m).

Tranche No. 2 - 50,750,000 shares following which the Company will have NO TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY (50,750,000 shares x 19.5p = GBP9,896,250 x 1.618 = US$16m).

Total paid from the 2 tranches is US$3.47m (Tranche 1) + US$16m (Tranche 2) = approx US$19.5m

Voila, as if by magic, the whole of the "TRADING INVESTMENT" of US$19.5m is totally paid off and NOT "PART OF THE LIABILITY" WHICH WAS NOT COMBINED as RED IS ONE suggested with the US$40m FACILITY.

We have to consider with the above there are time scales outlined regarding the 2 tranches of shares with Tranche 1 (11m) happening by Friday 16th September and Tranche 2 (50.75m) being subject to approval of the shareholders after the company have issued their reports and accounts in October 2011.

Should shareholders approve Tranche 2 of shares Jarvirne will hold a total of 81,891,438 shares in the company with a 28.45% stake.

Now, the US$40m FACILITY which is a totally different issue to the above.

This US$40m FACILITY is available in 2 stages, US$23m made available from now until mid November and the remaining US$17m conditional on the issue of Tranche 2 shares and confirmation from the Company of adequacy of working capital for the following six month period (assuming the availability of the remaining Facility).

Of the US$23m which is available immediately until mid November the company has chosen to drawdown US$5m by September 9th 2011 and in doing so this action triggered payment of year 1 interest of the FACILITY. Year 1 interest is by way of the issue and allotment of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown therefore we can expect notification that these 9,000,000 shares have been issued. If these 9 million shares were to be bought it would have cost approx GBP1.17m using a 13p buying price which was roughly the high end share price on the 7th when the US$5m drawdown was made.

No figure was given for Year 1 interest rates as there was no interest, the issue of 9m shares replaced the interest and Year 2 interest rate was given at 24% which could be described as rather excessive but we must consider it in relation to the 2 year term of the FACILITY.

Also it is also worth considering that the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 (which is where the above US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY originates from) was agreed with interest rates of 8.5% pa for the initial term of 12 months and 17% pa for 6 months thereafter if the term of the loan is extended by Namakwa (as detailed below and on page 144 clause 19.2 of the 2010 placing and open offer prospectus).

ORIGINAL LOAN of US$15m from May 2010 @ 8.5% pa = US$3.4m = US$18.4m

Following 6 months at 17% on US$15m of which 2 months were accrued @ US$566k per months = US$1.13m

Therefore US$18.4 + US$1.13 = approx US$19.5m which is the current TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY.

As a side note it is amazing that Namakwa never actually repaid a single Dollar of the ORIGINAL Loan.

Now, back to current day issues and assuming all the conditions are met (Tranche 2 shares and adequacy of working capital as mentioned above) regarding the full US$40m FACILTY the interest rates would be as follows:

Year 1 - Interest payable by way of the issue of 9,000,000 shares following first drawdown which was US$5m as highlighted above at a cost (if bought) of approx GBP1.17m.

GBP1.17m as a percentage of US$40m (GBP1.17m x 1.618 (GBP/US$ rate as above)) = US$1,89m = 4.725% for year 1.

Obviously, the 9m shares could increase/decrease over time due to share price movement and may be worth any unknown amount in the future but as it stands the "interest rate" for Year 1 is effectively 4.725% and has already been "paid"/issued.

Year 2 is a totally different kettle of fish at first site and the interest rate is set at 24% therefore 24% of US$40m is US$9.6m payable monthly in arrears which equates to US$800k per month.

If we compare the interest rates of the proposed US$40 FACILITY to the previous Loan by the same lender you will find that there is very little difference as now we have an average interest rate of 14.36% over the term as opposed to the ORIGINAL Jarvirne Loan Agreement dated May 21st 2010 having an average of 12.75% over the term.

In crude terms the proposed US$40 FACILITY will cost Namakwa US$9.6m + minimal dilution of 9m shares whereas the original Jarvirne Loan Agreement cost US$4.5m for 62.5% less funds.

The US$19.5m TRADING INVESTMENT LIABILITY has diluted us to the tune of 61.75m shares which is 28% which I can live with as it gives me great satisfaction that Jarvirne have paid a very significant premium of 85% at 19.5p for settlement of their TRADING INVESTMENT. All considered, with approx 279m shares in issue which is far less than others in the industry such like FDI with 372m and PDL with 497m.

Funding is very hard to come by under current conditions so it is fully expected that a premium interest rate may apply but looking at this one the rates appear very much akin to the same terms of the previous loan despite others trying to make out otherwise.

Maybe Namakwa could have gone the other route and issued placing upon placing upon placing upon placing much like another diamond miner not that far away from Kao but as it is Namakwa have not had to do this due to a willing backer and still end up with significantly less shares in issue as highlighted.

Remember also folks that Namakwa will hopefully end up with only one focus being Kao which is a billion dollar asset alone and they have significant plant and equipment and concessions in both DRC and SA which could be used to pay off a very significant portion of the proposed US$40 FACILITY as well as inventory which was recently acknowledged by RBC. Remember that discussions to sell DRC assets are ADVANCED.

Personally I am pleased with the news but I suppose I am biased due to my profitable interest, both present and past, in the company but I think you will find that I have never lost faith as I highlighted very recently in post 158 where things have pretty much panned out as I described.

As before bye for now and very best of luck to the genuine honest posters who actually hold and again tough luck to the bashers who sold at a loss and his misleading team mates with multi aliases on both here and iii.

[jr50] 10/9/2011 11:25

By: Mariaan Webb
8th September 2011
TEXT SIZE
JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) − London-listed Namakwa Diamonds, which recently unveiled a strategic review, could be a takeover target, an analyst at RBC Capital Market said this week.

The company announced last week that it would sell its business in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and that it would wind up its diamond trading joint ventures. It would also move its South African operations to a contractor model.

This leaves Namakwa with the 12.6-million carat Kao kimberlite project in Lesotho.

"The decision to close or sell all the operations that were part of the company at its IPO [initial public offering] in 2007 leaves only Kao, which is one of the very few potential kimberlite projects available in the world. This could attract suitors who believe in the orebody's ability to deliver value. This does make Namakwa an interesting risk play," RBC Europe analyst Des Kilalea said in a note.

As part of the strategic review, Namakwa also parted with CEO Nico Kruger, who was replaced by Richard Collocott. Chairperson Hans Smith also resigned.

"We believe new management and the board took the correct decisions in withdrawing from cash-burning operations in the North West, the DRC, and the beneficiation division. It is not clear why the board did not move earlier," said Kilalea.

Meanwhile, Namakwa announced on Thursday that it had secured funding from the investment vehicle of European industrialist Eduard Prutnik to move the Kao mine into commercial production.

Namakwa arranged a $40-million, two-year loan and agreed a settlement whereby Jarvirne would exchange its capital investment in the diamond company's trading and beneficiation division for 61.75-million shares, boosting its holding to 28.45%.

To reflect Jarvirne's strategic investment, the company appointed Allen Gessen and Gerard Holden as two nominee directors to its board.

The company also announced that Edward Haslam would succeed Smith as chairperson.

The revised board will be constituted by: Haslam, Tom Kruger, Alex Davidson, Martiens Mulder, Gessen, Holden and Collocott.

[conk] 09/9/2011 15:51

not in the top 30 losers today...yet

[topnotch] 09/9/2011 15:28

RED IS IN >>"it still smells here" - SNAP!!!


topnotch - 9 Sep'11 - 09:28 - 360 of 365
So something still smells fishy to me with this one - and I don't mean the contents of the custard pies served in their canteen!

[red is in] 09/9/2011 15:02

Plant Impact (PIM) did something similar to this recently. The JV partner forwarded £1m for a previously agreed work program and at the same time took part in a £1m placing. The company did some creative reporting by adding the 2 deals together to suggest the JV partner had paid double per share than they had. Reported as a £2m investment at 80% premium rather than a £1m equity investment at 10% discount and £1m contribution to the agreed work program. It was one of the biggest risers on the day going from 24p to 34p but a week later was back in the low 20s as the market realised they'd been had.

Yesterdays update saw similar creative reporting. 2 deals involving the same 3rd party, a $17m trading liability and $40m loan were combined so that part of the liability is repaid by applying a whacking 24% interest rate charge on the loan. This way the 3rd party receives nearly $10m 'interest' in one year, $7m more than a standard 6-7% rate would earn. Applying this bonus to the trading liability conversion effectively turns it into a part-conversion at 10p (with a deferred amount to be paid in cash from the loan) rather than a full conversion at 19.5p as reported.

When companies manipulate reporting of news to make it sound better than it really is it provides a useful insight into the quality of management. In the above examples the directors have acted like blaggers trying to pull the wool over the eyes of investors. The Board reshuffle does not look to have cleaned out the sty as it still smells here.

[andy] 09/9/2011 13:12

Preferably a tight one! :-)

[nathand] 09/9/2011 13:04

Get a grip topnotch

;-)

[topnotch] 09/9/2011 12:59

nathand >> Yeah! - Lets all have a mass debate (ohh err!!!)

[nathand] 09/9/2011 12:19

JR50,

I too would be pleased to review your revised figures based on RED IS IN's post.

However if your disagreement is more to do with the presentation and inference then all well and good as that is clearly open for debate.

[topnotch] 09/9/2011 09:28

JR50 >> It was the contrarion view point I was interested in!

A lot of people post what they believe to be facts and figures, followed by their viewpoint, and thats what makes for an active discussion IMHO.

I interpreted the news release last week from a non-holders point of view and the simple fact that this company has been disaster for investors - others took a different view and we engaged in some rather heated debates which though entertaining became tedious after a while.

When you hear boths sides of an argument, unfortunately only one of those sides is going to be correct, and its up to the individual to make thier own assessment and take responsibilities for their own actions.

Only the company truely knows whats going and we can speculate as much as we want but ultimately the market will decide and despite the 'good news' yesterday the market has decided the share price should be what it currently is.

We are still significantly down on last week's price and humongously down on the float price(181p 3 years ago)

I try not to get emotionally involved with stocks/companies but it becomes difficult when rather than my opinion being called into question I am accused of balantant lying.

I read the news last week and based on over a decade of experiance in the stock market I came to a conclusion - I have seen the same RNS in one form or another (Bre-X Minerals springs to mind immediately) over the years put out by a number of (some very high) profile companies.

So something still smells fishy to me with this one - and I don't mean the contents of the custard pies served in their canteen!

[nathand] 09/9/2011 07:49

>Bye for now and very best of luck to the genuine honest posters.

Thank you.

PS - Are you still on the hook for 350K or did you top slice 250K for the 100K free shares as alluded to? Just want to gauge the breadth of your smug grin!

[the merlion] 08/9/2011 17:07

The Merlion - 8 Sep'11 - 16:22 - 353 of 357 edit

By the way, welcome back RT, BB, C&C and many more with another one of your multiple aliases here and on iii. Glad to see you are still part of the team.

Thanks for your posting--very misleading!

Obviously most will not know this due to limited availability of the original details but I do suggest you brush up with the facts. Try looking at 19.2 on page 144 first before you make your incorrect calculations and also read all details of today.

There is no 60/40 split, there is no 10.2p and they is no instalments but the certainly is a huge premium of 85% to the Sept 7th share price

The simple fact is the loan is paid off by issue of 61,750,000 shares at 19.5p, at 85% premium regardless of how much you try to deny it, in 2 tranches of 11m and 50.75m to make GBP12m or US$19.33m (US$19.5m in the RNS today) which takes into account the original loan terms stated in today's RNS as "any related unrealised and accrued profits" or clearly highlighted in the 2010 prospectus.

All the details are very clear if you understand them correctly have have no ulterior motive.

I neither have the time nor the effort to correct the blatant misleading bashing and I am done here guys. The bashers have ruined this BB and regardless of the facts they will always out number the honest. Be very wary of these very envious hyenas.

The proof of the pudding will be seen in the future and at such time I will return with a smug grin.

Bye for now and very best of luck to the genuine honest posters who actually hold and tough luck to the basher who sold at a loss with his wierd obsession of me and his misleading multi membered team mates ;-)