Bought a few back when the price was 5p. Nowhere near as many as my original holding.
Can afford to lose a little bit, but am very wary of this Company now. |
They would only have a few days to announce any move below 1% barriers...if they followed FCA rules that is...but I'm not sure they seem the type to do that !Could they have created a synthetic short and then lend their stock ? Again shorts need to be reported..separately.Have they pledged the shares to support loans ($5m ??) themselves?? Seems likely looking at past use of debt and collateral Do NIU actually have any money ??They don't seem to have any committed capital under management and precious few investments that can be checked.Since they made a press release supporting their position perhaps they should up date on where they now stand as they have had a significant negative impact on the companies shareholders by not meeting their stated commitment.I did mail them some time ago ...no response.Near future..released end September.hTTps://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/market-news/niu-invest-se/16686541 |
Yeah I agree. V unlikely… but…
(Oh and he wouldn’t bother re the RNS) |
JB2 - Probably would have to RNS that.
And if they started selling, the share price would plummet so fast, it wouldn't be worth their while.
So 99.99% certain, that's not their game plan. |
Here's an interesting idea.
Has the company checked whether NIU have still got all their shares?
Top hilarity if they've sold them down and made more than $5m. If they have there is zero chance of getting any more of the bond money from them. They wouldn't hand over another 5m if they've sold down their influence.
Not sure the volume is quite large enough since they got them back in Jun but when you're swimming with fish with big pointy teeth... |
You’re still a holder???
And he’s still an “old buddy”???
Jeez. It’s hard to let go for some. I thought you said you had sold?
kj:
“I haven`t posted here for a while as I got rid of my shareholding after becoming disillusioned at the lack of credible information forthcoming over many months of delays.” |
It looks like my request for answers and more openness from the Company is falling on deaf ears once again.
Less of the bulls..t answers and more truths released to we share holders might allow us to sensibly decide whether to hold on to our shares or not.
It is not being negative that important questions are asked. The Board need to understand that.
Their reluctance to committ to dialogue just makes me think that they have got something to hide, and it is making me nervous as to what it is.
I wonder if Pants on Fire is still a shareholder here. Come on Pants. Give us your input old buddy. |
What was the BFS starting to show such that they didn’t want to finish it?
In July ‘21 a “definitive feasibility study” was expected by October.
It has never materialised. Yet Donald is sure that once the money is received a profitable mine will be open within months.
(A BFS would vastly increase the number of sources for borrowing money for a mine - it would no doubt enable mainstream lending at lower rates than they will achieve without a BFS)
Mining is more complicated than many investors grasp, (includes PR execs it seems). It’s not “push button”.
HUM is a salient lesson in how poor management can ruin a promising mine. Not that I’m suggesting PXC has a promising mine. It has a borderline mine IMO. |
Odds with PXC are at least 50:50 (IMO).
Probability of losing your lottery ticket cash is several different leagues more likely.
Not even comparable. |
“You could be getting 1000% return”
IMO you’d be better buying a lottery ticket |
There's definitely risk here with PXC.
And questions to be asked.
But the potential reward from this point is big.
If you topped up sub 4.5p, you could have a 10-bagger in the making (and that's just for starters).
You could be getting 1000% return on that investment...
Just need PXC and NIU to sort out what ever they are sorting out, which is still very much in the realms of the possible, if not the probable.
Could still be a 10-bagger from here too. |
well it takes one to know one.... i am a cheater. i was cheated.... so i recognize signs. and also - one never knows - what is really going on |
Lets wait to see if he responds. He must be as sick as we are about the current sp |
What answer are you expecting here?
You’ll either get no response, or a “yes of course I’m still here, I haven’t sold any, I still hold, everything will come good” type thing. The truth of the matter is nearly always given away on other measures. |
Whatever happened to Pants on Fire? Is he still around or has he deserted us |
Got to agree that a placing could be made shortly.
Funds will certainly be required and how far away is the bfs
If the money isn`t coming then to survive, at 5p per share, another 20m shares would only create £1m and even this amount won`t last long.
Sad days ahead unless the bond loan happens soon. Overall debt is continuing to rise and Konnex have spent all those millions , well enough said. |
Shall we cut to the chase,PXC is running on fumes,unless DP/Board can convince someone to put up 63million to fund a unpermitted mine without a bfs and another circa12 million to fund the plc whilst they do it a fundraise is coming here in short order.It makes no sense to keep spending at empire or paying exgen if the mine can not be funded in the short term.If PXC can get committed funding you could triple your money here,sadly i think its just as likely you could also lose the lot.GLA IMHO |
But isn`t the funding dependent on a bfs being produced and haven`t you already stated that the "lender is only offering its loan to PXC. In other words, exgen has to find its own lenderi
If PXC have had to make a 20% loan to exgen, then It tells me that the lender did not want to give exgen a loan to cover their 20% cost of the build.
In other words, they could have been too risky to lend to.
There may be other explanations of course.
PXC have had many mnay months to produce a bfs and if this had been completed earlier then exgen would have had to stump up the money.
I disagree with your notion that one has to take the agreement in total.
Surely, if one part is not completed then they have broken part of the agreement and the whole agreement is invalidated.
Without clause a,the rest of the agreement cannot be actioned so it is therefore the basis of the whole agreement. This is why it is clause a.
I also thought that RW had a vested interest in EXgen.
Am I wrong on this point as well. |
funding the “mine development”
That covers very broad range |
But kkj, I go back to the fundamental issue, which is that we don't have a BFS and it would take 6-12 months and $500k+ to get one.
The circumstances where PXC can compel ExGen to contribute and ExGen are unable to are extremely unlikely.
You are concerned about a risk that arises only if we produce a BFS, obtain funding, and then ExGen aren't able to obtain funding.
But if we had a BFS and could get funding for 100% of the mine based on the BFS, then ExGen would be able to go to the same lender and ask for the loan to be split 80/20 and the lender would almost certainly say yes.
We are focussed entirely on obtaining funding. We think that these changes improve the chances of obtaining funding without diluting the returns on the project. That's the logic. |
kkj: "Now I would have thought that clause 1 is the basis point for the whole of the agreement"
I assume you mean (a). But your assumption is wrong. The whole agreement needs to be read together. You can't list the clauses in order of importance, they all need to be followed or else it ends in a dispute.
As far as the boards are concerned, Jason is the only overlap between ExGen and PXC (hxxps://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/EXGEN-RESOURCES-INC-164292/company-governance/).
The loans to Konnex have been spent on funding the mine development but I will ask for confirmation on your other points. |
 DP, why did you mention exploration costs in answer to my questions?
I never wrote about exploration costs as I had believed that those costs were solely up to PXC to pay, not exgen
I appreciate that you would like to take the whole of the agreement as a single linked agreement. It is not.
Clause 1 of the agreement as written by your goodself states as follow:
(a) ExGen will hold 20 per cent. of the issued shares of Konnex on a carried basis until the completion of the delivery and receipt by the parties of a BFS following which Konnex may make a call on its shareholders to provide production funding (“Cash Call”). If ExGen does not provide its 20 per cent. of the amount of a Cash Call and the Company provides the amount not paid by ExGen, ExGen’s percentage shareholding of Konnex will decrease and the Company’s percentage shareholding in Konnex will increase, on a proportional basis;
Now I would have thought that clause 1 is the basis point for the whole of the agreement. Renege on this clause and one would therefore invalidate the rest of the agreement subject to a bfs being produced.
Surely PXC could have created this long awaited bfs and then proceeded to act on clause 1, require exgen to fund their 20% cost of manufacture or lose their shareholding in Konnex and then pursue the full 100% loan facility as the new full 100% owner of Konnex and thereafter full 100% ownership of PXC.
As exploration is winding down for the near future,minimal monetary amounts only would pass to exgen,and the bfs could have been produced from the savings accrued.
I am sorry, but I cannot see the logic in a 20% loan to exgen. It just doesn`t fit into my management head.
You have still not answered my questions concerning directorships and salaries in Konnex and exgen.
Apart from JR and RW, are there any further crossovers of directors within the three companies and what salaries are paid out. I know what the directors are paid within PXC, but as exgen and Konnex are partner linked, I believe that more openness should be highlighted here.
Finally, where and what has the massive loans to Konnex been spent on and what salaries have been paid to Konnex directors?
over to you DP |
:)
OK I guess that sounds fair enough. Thanks.
:)
We’ll go to my other concerns (not financing related) once you’ve solved the doddle that is the money. |
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?" |
Trying to understand whether this change to 'simplify' things is anything to do with NIU releasing funds or a result of fact there is little chance of that and the company are starting from scratch...one has to fear the latter.Will they ever surprise with a genuine positive ?? |
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
Hot Features
Premium
