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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phoenix Copper Limited | PXC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.75 | -13.64% | 4.75 | 08:00:09 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.75 | 4.75 | 4.75 | 5.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| MINING |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 10/3/2025 15:57 by trader465 I’m a fellow shareholder here now, I want answers…trader4657 Mar '25 - 14:08 - 12685 of 12746 hazl - We have to control our own risk individually. I picked up a few of this old dog on the 3rd of March at 3.39p, and the position is up 59.3% (avg 12.92% per day). The key thing for the less educated to understand is that the position is less than 2% of my account. Therefore, if PXC suspends or goes bust, a 100% loss in PXC would equate to just a 2% loss to my account, a 50% loss in PXC is just a 1% loss to me. |
Posted at 10/3/2025 15:43 by trader465 You’re correct, under IFRS accounting rules, stock options can create misleading financial statements that do not reflect real cash movements. Phoenix Copper Limited (PXC) recently experienced this when some of their underwater stock options expired or were written off, and IFRS rules resulted in a reported “profit” despite no real financial gain.Here’s why this happened and why it’s a ridiculous accounting outcome 1) Why Do Stock Options Normally Have No Cash Impact? Stock options are a non-cash expense. When stock options are granted, the company records a “share-based payment expense” over time. But this is just an accounting entry—no actual cash is spent. When stock options are exercised, the company gets cash. If an employee or director exercises options, they pay the strike price to buy shares. This is when the company actually receives cash. Reality: PXC’s stock price has fallen below the option strike prices (“underwater&# 2) So Why Did PXC Report a Profit When Options Were Written Off? Under IFRS 8, the stock option expense is booked when granted, not when exercised. This means that if PXC issued millions in stock options to executives, they recorded a cost on the income statement. If the stock price crashes and options expire worthless, IFRS 8 reverses the “cost”&# Since those options are no longer a liability, accounting rules reverse the expense previously booked. The company suddenly records a “profit” even though nothing actually changed financially. Reality: This is completely artificial—PXC didn’t suddenly make money, but IFRS accounting says they did! 3) Why This Is Totally Misleading for Investors No Real Money Was Earned This “profit” is just a paper adjustment—PXC didn’t generate revenue, didn’t improve cash flow, and didn’t make a real gain. This Masks PXC’s True Financial State Investors who don’t understand IFRS rules might think the company made money, when in reality, the business is still burning cash. It Highlights How Much Stock Compensation They Previously Gave Away If writing off options leads to a big accounting profit, it means they had issued a huge amount of stock-based compensation before. 4) Why Do These Absurd IFRS Rules Exist? Designed for Consistency, But Backfires in Reality IFRS 8 rules require stock-based compensation to be accounted for over time, even if no cash is involved. When options expire worthless, IFRS reverses the cost, making it look like a financial gain. This works well in theory but creates misleading “profits” Final Verdict: PXC’s Reported Profit Is Meaningless The “profit” is just an accounting trick—there This happened because PXC issued stock options that later became worthless. Investors should ignore this IFRS-based “profit” and focus on real cash flow, which is still negative. |
Posted at 10/3/2025 00:08 by trader465 PXC Funds Konnex with No Clear Oversight:• As of June 2024, PXC had loaned $31.2M to Konnex. • This has increased significantly from $27M just six months earlier. • The company claims that this money will be repaid from future mine revenues, but there is no guarantee of this happening. Directors Maintain Full Control Over Konnex’s Cash: • Since Konnex is private, PXC insiders can control spending without external audits. • No obligation to disclose detailed financials, salaries, or payments to related parties. Potential Misuse of Funds: • If PXC collapses, Konnex’s assets could be transferred or written off with little transparency. • Any funds funneled into Konnex could disappear without accountability. Why This Matters: Since Konnex is private, money can easily be moved, spent, or extracted by insiders without shareholders knowing. If PXC fails, there’s little recourse for investors to recover funds sent to Konnex |
Posted at 10/3/2025 00:02 by trader465 Top 10 Red Flags Suggesting Financial Mismanagement or Potential Fraud at Phoenix Copper (PXC)1. Sharp Increase in Payments to Private Subsidiaries Controlled by Insiders • Loans to Konnex Resources (Idaho subsidiary) jumped from $27.03M to $31.2M in just six months . • Loans to KPX Holdings Inc. skyrocketed from $2.6M to $6.27M . • Total money funneled into private entities now exceeds $37.47M—these subsidiaries have zero independent oversight. Why It’s a Red Flag: By moving cash to subsidiaries they control, directors can spend the funds as they see fit—with no requirement to disclose where it goes. ⸻ 2. Only $5M of the “Secured” • Bond financing was announced in May 2024, but only $5M was drawn in June. • NIU Invest is now “reviewingR • The company is now scrambling to find new bond investors. Why It’s a Red Flag: This suggests NIU Invest was never fully committed, or there are undisclosed problems preventing further funding. ⸻ 3. Continuous Share Issuance Despite Supposedly Secured Bond Financing • 60M shares were issued in early 2024, raising $8.9M. • Another 3M shares were issued post-period, raising $630K. • Dilution continues despite the company claiming it has secured bond financing. Why It’s a Red Flag: If PXC truly had access to $80M in bonds, why keep issuing shares? This looks like a last-minute attempt to extract more cash from shareholders. ⸻ 4. “Updated Project Economics” Excuse Used to Stall Further Bond Drawdowns • The company now claims that bond financing will be based on a “review of updated project economics”. • The Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) was published in September, yet NIU Invest is still delaying funding. Why It’s a Red Flag: This is a classic stalling tactic—delayin ⸻ 5. Directors Maintain Full Control Over Funds with No Oversight • The majority of company funds are held within private subsidiaries (Konnex & KPX). • These entities are not publicly audited, and spending is not disclosed. • Directors can move money, hire related parties, or extract fees—without scrutiny. Why It’s a Red Flag: This removes accountability and makes it easier to siphon money out before a collapse. ⸻ 6. Corporate Bonds Structured in a Way That Allows Further Cash Extraction • The bonds are secured against the Empire Mine—meaning bondholders get assets first if PXC collapses. • Bond interest payments are linked to copper prices, meaning payouts could be delayed or manipulated. • The company paid a “bond arrangement fee” by issuing 33.88M shares and 22.59M warrants. Why It’s a Red Flag: The bond structure favors insiders and early investors, while leaving retail shareholders exposed. ⸻ 7. No Clear Timeline for Revenue Generation • Despite $42.1M spent on Empire Mine, PXC still has zero revenue. • The company is now shifting focus to underground mining exploration, delaying production again. Why It’s a Red Flag: Endless delays suggest a strategy to keep raising money rather than delivering results. ⸻ 8. Excessive Capitalization of Expenses to Inflate Asset Values • $3.32M in share-based payments were recorded as “bond issue expenses”. • $720K in share-based payments were capitalized into mining property, hiding true costs. • $327K in loan fees and interest were capitalized into mining property. Why It’s a Red Flag: By capitalizing expenses instead of reporting them as losses, the company makes its financials look stronger than they are. ⸻ 9. Unjustified Rise in Administrative Expenses • Administrative expenses jumped to $1.1M in H1 2024, up from $617K in H1 2023. • The company claims it is in a “cost-cutting& Why It’s a Red Flag: Companies burning cash should reduce spending—not increase it. ⸻ 10. The “Permitting & Feasibility Study” Delay Strategy • The company has been working on Empire Mine for years, yet permits and funding are still “in progress”. • Now, PXC is shifting focus to deeper underground mining, delaying production again. Why It’s a Red Flag: This looks like a delay tactic to justify more fundraising while avoiding production. ⸻ Summary: High Risk of Financial Mismanagement or Fraud These 10 red flags suggest that PXC is not a legitimate mining operation—but a vehicle to extract cash before collapse. If bond financing fails, expect: • Further share dilution. • Management resignations before failure. • Possible insider selling before bad news drops. ⸻ What Should Investors Do? Investigate: • Where exactly has the $42.1M gone? • Who controls spending at Konnex & KPX? • Is NIU Invest a legitimate investor, or just a tool to stall collapse? Be prepared for a worst-case scenario where the company runs out of cash and insiders walk away. |
Posted at 07/3/2025 14:08 by trader465 hazl - We have to control our own risk individually. I picked up a few of this old dog on the 3rd of March at 3.39p, and the position is up 59.3% (avg 12.92% per day). The key thing for the less educated to understand is that the position is less than 2% of my account. Therefore, if PXC suspends or goes bust, a 100% loss in PXC would equate to just a 2% loss to my account, a 50% loss in PXC is just a 1% loss to me. |
Posted at 19/2/2025 08:45 by london07 Basically the project economics simply does not stack up, there is no return, and it's a non compliant pfs. So you may blame NIU, but the board are as much to blame. Would bot be surprised if this now gets suspended. Big holders will lose trust if they haven't already and will take out whatever they can, and this ultimately goes to zero.There biggest mistake was not raising when the price went to 70p. No1 rule in mining, if you can raise the money, doh it. It's the most important thing. Plenty of big investors out there, PXC is just not appealing. GGP raised $425m, one of the biggest mining raises in London, biggest it sits ona world class asset! PXC asset has been fudged with an artificially low discount rate to make it look economical, and even by doing this, it doesn't look great. NIU probs want to get out of the deal, but as PXC say they are legally obligated, so could well end up in the courts, again more money, and money PXC don't have, so more dilution |
Posted at 22/12/2024 14:50 by donald pond jb: "So PXC have given up their right to claim over 80% ownership of Empire/Konnex (if ExGen didn't come up with funds) in order to save 100k/yr direct payment to ExGen and to avoid 500k/yr spend on site."No, PXC have 80% of Konnex and ExGen have 20%. If PXC had jumped through the hoops then ExGen would have been required to put up 20% of the funding or be bought out. But in that event PXC would have to find 100% of the funding anyway. And the general belief was that if someone was willing to provide 100% to PXC, then when we went to ExGen with our 80% funding they would go to the same lender and ask for the remaining 20%. In other words, the risk that PXC would be able to fund 80%, and ExGen would be unable to get the final 20% was regarded as minimal. The challenge is getting the funding, not in how it is split between the parties. But it does make it easier to discuss the project with lenders if they only have to deal with a single counterparty. Trying to raise (say) $60m for a $75m project and saying that someone else has to find the other $15m but if they can't we will need another $15m leads to the question "so how much do you actually want to borrow?" |
Posted at 21/12/2024 15:09 by donald pond There is a lot of disinformation/total lies on this BB.ExGen originally owned 100% of Konnex. At IPO Phoenix acquired 80% of Konnex for a relatively low price, in return for guaranteeing a minimum annual payment of $100k to ExGen, a minimum annual spend of $500k on the Empire property, and some shares in PXC. It was, and remains, an arms length relationship. It is technically a related party transaction because ExGen has a single director, Jason Riley, on the board of PXC. But ExGen are an independent company with their own activities. This is relatively common in the mining world. X owns a site but for whatever reason isn't developing it, so partners up with Y, who promises to do so, and X gets cash, certain guarantees, and an interest in the property being developed, and may put a director on the board of the JV to keep an eye on progress. These are not the same people negotiating among themselves. It's simply wrong to suggest otherwise. As for PXC now funding the whole of the mine... Prior to this RNS, PXC were required to fund 80% of the mine, and if they produced a bankable feasibility study, accompanied by two offers of funding for the full 80% from banks, then ExGen would be required to fund 20%. The problem with that is that a BFS costs a lot and takes a lot of time, and anyone willing to fund 80% of a mine is almost certainly going to be willing to fund 100% of a mine. Or to put it another way, nobody will fund 80% without knowing where the other 20% will come from. So it is simply more practical for PXC to borrow the full 100% than require the BFS, 2 formal offers, and then either Exgen gets 20% or PXC has to find the other 20% anyway. So this is a very positive RNS that simplifies the obligations between PXC and ExGen and provides a clear foundation for funding. Whether funding can be obtained is the key challenge. Nobody disputes that. But recent posts on this thread have simply been factually incorrect, and those making them should ask themselves why they feel the need to go onto a bulletin board about a company they have no financial interest in to post lies. It's not a good look. |
Posted at 20/12/2024 10:48 by klondykejohn Greyingsurfer. I think you are missing the point here.Exgen cannot afford the 20% cost of production at this moment in time and will certainly not be able to afford the 20% of $80m dollars to complete the production. It is a private company owned by JR and RW and maybe some other players.(Are other PXC board members shareholders too in exgen? I do not know) There are no shares traded in this company which makes me think that they have been part of the stumbling block all along. Unable to get a sizeable loan at decent rates of interest and lenders prefer to lend to one party, not two anyway. PXC state that by lending them funds and creating a single loan source (bonds), this will make it easier to fund the proposed production. Agreed, this will make it easier, but what have exgen given in return. Absolutely nothing. As I have tried to state previously, what are they putting on the table for this deal? Seems to me that they are not giving up any of their 20% holding, and the risk is now entirely with PXC and its shareholders. Did PXC board require some form of guarantee from exgen to cover potential losses? I do not know, but PXC board should have insisted that exgen either help in funding or simply lose their stake in Empire. This is what running a business is all about. This agreement has meant that PXC shareholders have lost an additional 20% ownership which in itself might have sparked the market into some positivity. As I stated, RW and JR are big players in both exgen and PXC and may have had a big input in PXC not demanding that exgen stump up or lose their interest in the mine. Perhaps the PXC board can shed some light on this, as it seems to me that PXC shareholders are losing out. This is just my take and if you have read some of my previous threads, you will note that I have repeatedly asked about exgen, their ability to provide production cost funds and why on earth did PXC not buy them out, absorb them or just enact the clause that gives the exgen part of the mine to PXC. To date, I have never had a satisfactory reply on any threads and this bee in my bonnet has just been brushed under the table every time. Perhaps Marcus can offer some form of clarification over my issues. |
Posted at 14/11/2024 12:50 by london07 And then you have PXC Vice President of Investor Relations saying the following about PXC on AAZ board! Totally flabbergasted, speechless tbh, absolute shot show, just dont know what to say..""My view is that PXC owns a project that is likely to have very significant upside. The question is whether existing shareholders will benefit. That's the challenge. I have never pretended otherwise": donald pond10 Oct '24 - 10:46 - 69484 of 70703 0 2 1 Bumpa, You have made your position clear on PXC. But its the next step in your thinking that makes no sense. If I shared your view that PXC was worthless, how would I be saving investors by telling them that? It would just become worthless a little bit quicker, perhaps. I don't think it is worthless. I think the open pit is a decent, low-risk starter pit. The bigger asset is likely to be in the sulphides below, as has always been the case. The big questions are, as they have always been, can the company fund the starter pit, and how big is the sulphide deposit. We don't know the answer to the latter question, but we do know that it produced 20,000 tonnes of high grade copper in the past, and the copper sulphides stretch for over 5kms and are open at depth and barely explored. As for the funding, that's all out in the open. My view is that PXC owns a project that is likely to have very significant upside. The question is whether existing shareholders will benefit. That's the challenge. I have never pretended otherwise. My aim is to have better informed investors that can understand the project, the risk and the opportunity is better detail so they can make a more informed decision. |
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
