Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thank you 1manband, lmcat and Dunphy for your responses. Today they issued another PR saying in part.....
The required reporting is dictated by existing US law, embodied in SEC Industry Guide 7 and elsewhere.
Bepractical, others agree with you without ever having read your post. I mentioned the MOU announcement elsewhere and the subsequent claim that it was DOA and here's what some others had to say....
Well, a Bankable Feasibility Study is nothing at all like a business plan.
The required reporting is dictated by existing US law, embodied in SEC Industry Guide 7 and elsewhere.
Someone dropped by the RRHI board yesterday and posted that the MOU had fallen through because it was determined that mining the barite would be uneconomical. Unfortunately, the post was removed and the poster has not returned.
He suggested that I research the subject and find out for myself but I haven't found anything to prove or disprove what he said. The subject is the Dodge Mine near Shamva, Zimbabwe, Raptor Resources Holdings, Inc., RRHI and possibly BHI.
If anyone has seen anything or can offer any assisstance, it would be greatly appreciated.
It sounded as if perhaps a pre-scoping economic assessment was done and it came up lemons. At least, that's about all that could be accomplished in this time frame.
At any rate, we've seen no Bankable Feasibility Study showing the mine could be operated at a profit. Absent the study, it would be difficult to obtain the financing necessary to develop and operate a mine.
It would certainly explain the silence of the company.
As you said, time will tell.
I agree. If what he said is true, the show is just about over.
I have no concrete information in that regard myself.
Bepractical, the only answer I can give you is IDK.
I responded to the points addressed to me. When I posted my response it was no longer there.
I've tried to explain Bankable Feasiblilty Studies, what they are, why they are required prior to Development Stage (much less Production Stage) with no success.
I've tried to explain why this company is still an Exploration Stage mining company and that there is a considerable amount of time and money between Exploration Stage and Production Stage.
You said,
That seems like a likely scenario given the history of this company and its management. Shift the target farther out and issue another PR saying, "soon", "we intend", "we anticipate", etc.,etc., etc.
And, why not? They know they will not be held accountable. After all, they did not make any "promises", right? { 8^D
Mabwe Minerals ..... As of 3/31/2012
Total Assets = $ 0
Accounts payable and accrued expenses .................. 1,304,618
Detachable warrant liabilities ............................................ 82,190
Conversion option liabilities ........................................ 10,820,736
Senior convertible notes payable ................................ 11,012,854
Total current liabilities ............................................. 23,220,398
The filing shows Accounts payable and accrued expenses rising at a rate of about $260,000 per quarter.
RRHI owns 80% of this.
The question is, WHY????
I noticed the old phrases, "...our intent to start alluvial gold production", "...we anticipate the combined revenue".
According to past indications, that means Alf's statement is 100% MEANINGLESS!
We've seen no announcement of, "gravity mapping completed" nor have we seen any results. { 8^D
Broken out....Mabwe Minerals ..... As of 3/31/2012
Total Assets = $ 0
Accounts payable and accrued expenses .................. 1,304,618
Detachable warrant liabilities ............................................ 82,190
Conversion option liabilities ........................................ 10,820,736
Senior convertible notes payable ................................ 11,012,854
Total current liabilities ............................................. 23,220,398
The filing shows Accounts payable and accrued expenses rising at a rate of about $260,000 per quarter.
RRHI owns 80% of this.
The question is still, WHY????
Mabwe Minerals ..... As of 3/31/2012
Total Assets = $ 0
Total Liabilities = $ 23,220,398
RRHI owns 80% of this.
Now ask the question, WHY?
If they had a "good excuse", why did they keep issuing the PRs? What's their excuse for that?
Were they simply too stupid to stop talking about it?
It seems more likely they were intentionally misleading potential investors by keeping the story going. Like I said, I could understand one time, twice would give me cause for concern, over and over and over and over again for more than a year.....that's not a good pattern.
Although I did not write the post to which you refer, perhaps I can provide other references.
> On March 17, 2011, the Company issued a PR stating, "TAG will effectively move into economically viable mineral production in the very near term, the first mineral extraction being gold."
It is now 16 months later and NO gold production.
> On September 6, 2011, the Company issued a PR stating, "TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (TAG-Z), is preparing to utilize a novel, low-cost method for extracting gold nuggets from near surface deposits..."
It is now 10 months later and NO gold production.
> On November 17, 2011, the Company issued a PR stating, "Lantis Laser Inc. (OTCQB:LLSR), is pleased to announce today that its operating affiliate TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (TAG-Z) is set to commence our own alluvial surface gold mining operations. TAG-Z's first purchase order for a state-of-the-art HPC-30 Gold Recovery System is being delivered to Harare, Zimbabwe the week of November 28th with full-scale commencement of mining for alluvial surface gold scheduled for the beginning of January, 2012."
It is now 8 months later and NO gold production.
> On January 18, 2012, the Company issued a PR stating, "Other viable gold mining claims have recently been registered, pegged and staked for Lantis' operating affiliate TAG Minerals Zimbabwe (Private) Limited, which enables expansion of our organic alluvial surface gold mining operations as we enter into production this quarter."
The quarter came and went. It is now 6 months later and NO gold production.
Now some may wish to excuse them for all their "TAG INTENDS" statements and I could go along with one or two, but time after time after time after time...... More than 10 times in a little over a year!
I no longer see any "promises" being made by the company either. I only see empty hype.
By the way, if you hired someone to do some work for you and he said he intends to start first thing Monday, how many times would you allow him to blow of the job before you held him accountable?
Of course it was correct and included your "qualifier". I don't try to take what you say out of context in order to make your statements appear false.
My sourcs are several people on the Mining Company Research Board, the DD Support Board and Fraud Research Team, the SEC (various regs and Q&A), and numerous other sources.
I have had several conversations on those boards and others and privately via PM and email.
I can provide answers for most of your questions but you have already indicated you wouldn't believe them anyway so I won't waste our time. If you wish to pose your questions to the sources, I suggest you post them first on the Mining Company Research Board. 1manband is a very good source although it may take him a couple of days to answer you as he will take the time to give you a well researched and correct answer. I say "well researched" because I don't think he follows RRHI but does know about mining and mining companies in general, including the regulatory and reporting environment and he will take the time to make sure it's correct.
And don't worry about typos like the two number 7's or misspellings. Those things happen to everyone. Posts complaining or making a point of them will not last long here.
I don't recall all the specifics but I do believe that was to satisfy the convertible debt only and was based on a higher stock price. That's really not the major concern though. CCE paid pennies on the dollar and I'm sure they have already turned a profit.
What I think has been overlooked is the current Accounts Payable of over $1MM. I haven't seen any plan to satisify these obligations, have you?
I agree to an extent. The "income" presented was strictly a non-cash item attributable to the drop in the stock price. To mischaracterize it as Operating Income though is misleading as Operating Income is a whole different thing and is a measure of the ability of the company to make money.
Assets, Liabilities and Expenses are still meaningful however, as they are not just "paper" entries. Expenses add to Liabilities and the Liabilities must eventually be satisfied.
Now there was a plan in place to satisfy the debt to CCE through the issuance of shares of RRHI. Since that agreement, the shares of RRHI have dropped by about 70%. These agreements usually have clauses regarding the share price at the time of conversion.
Secondly, there is this entry.....
The stock has only lost about 70% of its value since that post back in January.
I said there is no mention of OPERATING INCOME in the filing and that is absolutely true.
Operating Income is the difference between operating revenues and operating expenses. Since there were no operating revenues, there is no Operating Income entered. Instead, it is entered as this.....
Here is a link to the filing
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=8630560
There is NO SUCH THING as an "Operating Income Statement" in the entire filing. There is also NO MENTION whatsoever of OPERATING INCOME.
No need, I edited my post to include the link to the SEC filing along with instructions on how to prove there is NO SUCH THING as the "Operating Income Statement" you claimed you "Quoted".
No, I am saying the information YOU presented is false. I presented the correct information from the 10Q.
You incorrectly claimed Operating Income when there clearly was NO Operating Income.
The following is quoted directly from the 10Q.....
I'm not "debating" anything. Your statement is false.....
Mabwe/RPTND/RPTN had NO Operating Income contrary to what you stated. That statement is a falsehood.
The company did show non-cash income of $1,279,254 from the "Change in fair value of conversion option and warrant liabilities". The fair values of the warrants and conversion options are based on Black-Scholes Option pricing.
I think it would be pointless to try to explain that other than to say that because the price of the stock went down, the fair value of the conversion and warrant liabilities went down. The simpified theorem is that as the stock price approaches zero, the value of the conversion and warrants also approaches zero.
That non-cash income was reduced by the ongoing interest expense of $262,688 reducing the final number to $1,016,369.
By the way, you should note that if the stock price were to return to pevious levels, a non-cash expense of the same amount would be added, increasing the Net Loss.
In the end it is only the Balance Sheet that matters since there are no operations. The latest Balance Sheet for Mabwe Minerals says.....
As of 3/31/2012
Total Assets = $ 0
Total Liabilities = $ 23,220,398
Better read that again..... Pay attention to the column headings this time. That's Cash as of December 31, 2011!
Cash as of March 31, 2012 = $ 0.00
It always comes as a surprise to me, the number of people who don't understand simple financial reports. I tend to take certain things for granted which I obviously shouldn't.
Hope that helps { 8^D
Sounds like you've got some sweet projects going and lined up. I'm a little envious of the stable you're assembling.
Reverse splits do not change Total Liabilities. Where did you get that idea? Splits don't "split" the Liabilities. { 8^D
The only thing the reverse split changes is the numver of shares I/O.
By the way, the numbers and the date come from the company's latest filing.
Yeah, one should always take what a company/IRP/CEO says with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially one that's been known to stretch the truth in the past. If they've done it before, the chances are good that they'll do it again.
Part of the difference between 'confidence' and 'foolishness' is gullibility and as you said, the other part is the ability to reassess and reevaluate unemotionally.
Mabwe Minerals ..... As of 3/31/2012
Total Assets = $ 0
Total Liabilities = $ 23,220,398
True to an extent, Bepractical. Although I think it's maybe more appropriate to say, "Some folks will hear only what they want to." I think many others have learned to recognize and overcome the "I can't be wrong" syndrome.
I do think that syndrome is present in most if not all investors to some extent. Without at least a little of it, we would probably not invest in anything riskier than CD's. In its best form, we call it 'confidence'. In its worst form, it is sheer foolishness.
Rumor mongering on RRHI?
Exactly! My advice is to always do your own DD and never, ever rely on "rumors" or the opinions of others.
Research is slightly different matter. Research can be checked on and verified if accompanied by references.
Early on I was a little lax in providing references because I thought it would be better and easy enough for readers to do the research themselves. My intention was just to point them in the right direction so they could see for themselves. That probably works well for most people but I can tell by some of the posts here that not everyone knows how to.
That is why I included references for the material contained in this post.....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77210674
Anyone who wishes to check the statements presented has the ability to do so easily.
On a side note, how's the bike coming along?
Rumor mongering on RRHI?
Good luck to you Bull Bet. Just remember that "rumors" are often started by someone who wants to fool some poor sap into buying the shares he bought on the previous rumors.
My advice is to always do your own DD and never, ever rely on "rumors".
The reason I didn't post a complete list is because I don't have all of the references bookmarked.
I have presented a substantial list with references already. Many have disputed the facts with, "Because I said so", logic but no one has refuted any of it.
Now, I'm off to fire up the BBQ. Have a nice day.