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.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that funding was close late in 2019, or are you just banking on MS statements?
Yes, quite a few things but this is probably the most egregious.
The company’s financial performance also suggests a positive outlook for NioCorp Developments Ltd. Common Stock. Despite the challenges posed by the global pandemic, the company has maintained a stable financial position, with steady revenue growth and a robust balance sheet. This financial resilience is a testament to the company’s strong management team and its strategic approach to navigating market uncertainties.
This is a bot article, from a bot site. It’s amazing how many NB followers still can’t recognize these.
I’m not sure your loss in NB compares to third degree burns on your genitals that require skin grafts, but carry on with the criticism of NB management.
It’s very important to read the footnotes on these filings. In many cases, the individuals listed don’t currently own the shares, but have a right to the shares via convertible debentures or other means.
In the case of Yorkville, it’s the convertible debentures. It’s unlikely they are holding actual shares as the price drops. That number represents how many shares they can ask for and flood the sell side with at any moment.
As far as Kehler (and Maselli but you didn’t mention him) these are almost all of the “vested shares” that they will get in March. The most interesting thing about this is that we can now have a pretty good idea of where those 4.8 million sponsor shares went and we know who will have to report sales (Kehler and Maselli) and who won’t.
You can probably answer your own question. All you have to do is ask, who wants to buy?
Did you ever stop to think that the share price may not have ever gotten as high as it did under a different management team? I contend that MS and team have been a success for many retail investors. Could anyone else have achieved the highs that they did?
If this was under B team management all along this may have never gotten over .20. They created a big run where no one else could.
If it’s all about purity we should try to find pricing for 99.9% Sc2O3 since that’s the only purity they’ve committed to.
The FS talks only of 99.9% scandium oxide. Do you think EXIM will base any decisions on possible scandium metal production?
If so, did you account for the fact that scandium oxide can at most be reduced to 65% scandium? So even if you want to assume they process it all into scandium metal, go ahead and cut that 100 tonnes down to 65.
But what did that process cost you? Keep in mind processing to scandium oxide is an intermediate step in producing scandium metal.
Your research shows a higher purity of scandium oxide at a much lower cost than the FS. The reduction of scandium oxide to scandium metal isn’t particularly complicated, but it does appear to be expensive.
Of course this also ignores that the largest use for scandium today is in solid oxide fuel cells, where they need (as the name implies) yttrium or scandium oxide.
In the end, nothing NB proposes is unique. Literally every potential scandium producer is talking the same story, but at much lower prices.
Common in Europe to use a comma for a decimal point, but I should’ve left everything in kilograms and mislabeled NB’s by not doing so.
~$684/kg Sc2O3
~$36/kg scandium aluminum alloy
Compared to NB using $3500/kg in the FS.
No, I stand by it. Government agencies are far smarter than some wingnuts in the US want you to think.
A better question is why did they send the EXIM application without the updated FS. It’s a requirement. Do they not anticipate the REE numbers to make a material change, or are they desperate to rush their scandium numbers through unchallenged?
From the EXIM project financing requirements overview page:
Information Required
Summary of all aspects of the project, as contained in an independently prepared feasibility study and/or a detailed information memorandum, prepared by a qualified party.
Product unit pricing and costs should reflect market based pricing.
Is EXIM going to believe the scandium numbers? Who will be the price expert on the next FS? They obviously shouldn’t be using Matheson any more given their new business agreement with Nanoscale.
Even USGS has been lowering scandium pricing. They now have “four nines”, which we know NB won’t be producing, at $2200/kg for just a 5kg purchase.
The EXIM application is dead on arrival.
https://www.exim.gov/solutions/project-and-structured-finance/our-approach-to-project-finance
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-scandium.pdf
The way this thing is going, the next FS may very well lead with corn production on the outlying surface areas. Seems like that might me the best opportunity at this point. At least there’d be revenue. As an extra bonus you’d have guaranteed government support!
How many hours have you spent on SEDAR and EDGAR? Have you spent anytime talking with regulators or those familiar with the various regulations and permitting processes? Spent anytime talking to industry professionals?
Kingdom’s filing should be available on Tuesday. Does anyone really think NB will show up as a holding?
There are three possibilities:
Kingdon is a long term investor and NB will be on the filing.
Kingdon took a long position and sold everything at a loss in a short period, in which case NB will not be on the filing. This would be a first for Niocorp if they actually got the best of an institutional investor.
Or as LCP suggests, Kingdon had a significant short position before ever discussing terms with Niocorp and didn’t hold their shares for any significant amount of time.
If NB shows up in the filing next week, you’ll be able to serve crow to many contrarians. If they don’t, we know it was for the second or third reason. Which one do you think is most likely?
Why not just look at the original PEA numbers instead of relying on posters back of the napkin calculations?
13.9% after tax rate of return. Net present value of $567MM.
When you account for development and operational risk, it’s never been economically viable, as everyone has clearly seen by the lack of investment. The viability hinges on convincing government they can’t get the resources anywhere else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/us/politics/biden-grand-canyon-arizona-national-monument.html
This seems like a good time to remind everyone that NioCorp has never received approval from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services to handle the uranium and thorium contained in the ore. The company has continually downplayed, or shall I say undermined, the significance of this approval. They frequently like to tout “construction permits” but don’t discuss operational permits. Nobody loans a billion dollars without operational permits.
They have mentioned many times about being in discussions with DHHS, but had zero written contact with the department during the 18 months following the 2019 FS. I can’t say if they’ve had discussions since then, but there’s no indication that they have. Guess it’s time for another FOIA request.
It has nothing to do with national security. Every written communication they have with government - federal, state, or local - is considered an open record and can be obtained through a freedom of information act request. You’d of course need to know which government departments they were communicating with before making such a request, so if you think they’re being secretive on whom they’re communicating with, then that could be a reason why.
This will be the annual report. They get more time for it. It’s not due until the end of September.
Have you ever considered the perspective of GXII? Perhaps it was them that jumped into bed with the serpents.
They left the majority of their investors with money market like returns.
For clarity, may I add that this doesn’t include the class B shares that were written into the original SPAC agreement?
If I’m understanding your assessment correctly, the warrants were the method of paying the underwriters.
The class B shares were the method of ensuring the sponsors had leverage in the business combination agreement to keep their overall investment risk free.
Thank you. Sounds like Cantor is the real winner here. Getting paid on the way in and the way out.
Most of the information that posters are asking about in regards to EXIM can be answered via a FOIA request. A lot of times you can get even more info than you would expect, as emails between the company and government agencies are almost always subject to open records acts.
I requested some information from EXIM a couple weeks ago, but have not received anything back yet. I’ve previously learned a lot through FOIA requests with federal and state agencies.
In regards to the 10k and info on Cantor, I’d expect that to come out close to the same time as last year. I think they still get more time to release the annual report than they do quarterlies, but haven’t checked on the specific requirements for a while.
Where did you find the part about 2% up front? I haven’t come across that yet or I read over it. I assume it’s in the S-4 somewhere.
I’ve been wondering why they agreed to reduce the amount by $5.5MM. It reads like that was already a binding agreement so it’s interesting that they would give that up. BTIG did something similar but for much smaller amounts all around.
Please, let’s hear your made up quotes.
Cantor was the underwriter for GX. They are receiving shares as deferred payment. These should be mentioned in the annual report soon.
There are many former investors that have quietly dumped the investment but didn’t want to disrupt the “community” for various reasons. I’m not surprised at all.
Could be for a variety of reasons, but first a comment.
I didn’t give the “backdoor” response you just mentioned. You’ve posted a nugget or two, but most of your posts are so ridiculously repetitive that I scroll past.
So,
1. They wanted the big boy board, but weren’t as ready as they thought.
2. Reverse splits tend to get a negative response regardless of the reasons behind it.
3. The lack of enthusiasm from GXII investors led others to question the investment.
4. There has been selling pressure from a few entities.
4a. Yorkville would come to mind first for many. These could have been presold similar to how many of us suspect the Kingdon deal worked, or they could be giving downward pressure. SEDAR is going through some changes and I haven’t been able to look at the details of the deal.
4b. I suspect this is a big part of it. The underwriter and advisor working on behalf of GX agreed to take shares in lieu of cash. This hasn’t been mentioned much if at all here. A few of the shares were issued last Q and reported, the rest would likely have been issued Q4 and haven’t been reported. There’s little doubt these shares as payment are being sold on the open market and causing downward pressure.
This worked out to $3.57MM in shares and was not included in the other transaction costs. 84,000 were issued to BTIG in Q3 and it looks like they are paid off, but Cantor would have still been due $3MM in new NB shares as of 3/31.
Which part of his post and the multiple other accusations thrown my way do you believe?
His claims of an “email” are either fiction or some doctoring of forwarded emails. Perhaps he fell for an inelaborate scheme by the same former shareholder that attempted to catfish me, TacoSupreme.
His last paragraph shows a complete lack of understanding of business ethics, and a large misunderstanding of the events, but because of it all I know he is not as close to NioCorp execs as some of the other contrarians believe. Certainly closer than any other individual investor and likely getting email responses faster than anyone, but there’s no funny business going on there.
More baseless accusations. I’m curious how much of this you made up and how much is based on others telling you things you wanted to hear to feed that ego. It sounds like mostly the former, as I know the full story.
PS We all know you are in too deep to sell. I can’t imagine anyone that’s followed this board would suggest you were going to.
PPS You were laughed at.
I very well may have posted this exact message at one point, and I still think you are entirely right, but you’d be surprised how committed some are in controlling the message from every nook and cranny.
I’ve got plenty of cyber stalkers already. Madilyn Butler? The LWLG “employee” that has been checking up on me weekly for quite sometime? You should have seen all my LinkedIn hits when you first accused T&T of being me. Niocorp, Elk Creek Resources, IBC, NEO, one of Sims lobbying companies and more odd ones. Not to mention a 402 area code phone number call that I didn’t recognize with an indecipherable message.
You all are weirdly obsessed with a schmuck without “C-level” or accounting experience that’s been following this deposit far longer than the Dutch investors knew what Niobium was.
Whatever happened to that sticky that was posted about Sims comments on me about detailed engineering? That was a good one. How’s that engineering progressed?
Attack the argument, not the debater.
Typical Walter. Instead of acknowledging your misinterpretation of the transaction fees you throw out more baseless accusations.
Most of the sponsors were not insiders. We don’t know exactly how those shares were divided.
That’s not my suggestion and not mine to defend. I can see how one may be suspicious of the high fees and question where they went (mostly to the underwriters and advisor that agreed to terms when the SPAC was formed), but you know full well I’ve made no assertion that the sponsors received any of the transaction fees, other than my one today that I think the $400k may have gone to them for promotional activity reimbursement.
I’ve asserted multiple times the sponsors have $8.5MM invested through their initial investment in GXII. They have 4.6 million shares (currently locked up) to show for it, plus the other contingent shares and warrants. I made a slight miscalculation this morning as I incorrectly remembered it being 4.9 instead of 4.6, but wouldn’t you consider the chance to acquire 4.6 million shares for $8.5MM pretty close to free of risk?
I’m also asserting, as of today, that you are misrepresenting the overall transaction costs. They were approximately $20.3MM cash. The earned shares and warrants as a non-cash portion of the deal have nothing to do with this and if they are never awarded/exercised will in no way affect that dollar value. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew this. I’m confident you understand that section of the 10Q. It’s unfortunate you choose to misrepresent it. Your own quote even acknowledges that GXII proceeds, net of costs they incurred, was $2.2MM. Please read, and explain if you care to, the first line in this snip from the top of page 16.
Now why does all of this ultimately matter? First, it’s unfortunate that you misrepresent the transaction to your followers, but mostly because you act as if the sponsors have something on the table other than a quick method to make money off of their $8.5MM initial investment in GXII when they were otherwise running out of options. Sure, your success is aligned with theirs in so far as they make more money off of a rising share price, but to come to any conclusion after reading through the S-4 that they had any other interests than making money off of their sponsor fees is quite dense. NB didn’t present the best long term opportunity for them. It presented the best opportunity to make money on the GXII investment.
Your conclusion that they lose their investment if NB is never financed fails as soon as you acknowledge that come next March they are free to start selling, likely at a decent profit, unless of course, and I know I’m repeating myself, you believe there is risk the share price drops under $2 at that point.
Your analysis of the transaction is incorrect. I know exactly what table you are referring to and assumed this was your angle. Either you do not understand the things you claim only an “experienced accountant” could, or you are attempting to mislead.
There were actually $15MM in non-cash costs mad up of the “earnout shares” and the warrrants. The earnout share are the roughly 3.5 million shares dependent on the price targets. These non-cash costs were NOT included in the $20.3MM figure mentioned in the press release.
You must have failed to notice that the GX proceeds were listed net of the transaction costs they incurred that were paid for out of those proceeds. Total proceeds were $15.7MM, but net of costs it was just $2.2MM, meaning GXII spent $13.5MM in the deal. Add in the $6.3MM NB spent and the $0.4M in liabilities assumed (likely reimbursements to the founders per the agreement) and you have $20.2MM, or the amount reported in the PR after allowing for rounding error.
If you want to include those non-cash items it goes up to $35MM. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve kept those non-cash items out my summary as they do not include the 5 million “vested shares” the sponsors received that will be tradeable next March.
So the summary remains. $20.3MM in cash expenses on $15.7MM received, and the GXII sponsors have 5 million shares to show for it guaranteed on their $8.5MM investment in GXII.
The funny thing is that this did not go unnoticed by either party. If you were to read the background of the transaction, you’d see that the handling of the sponsor shares was a major point of negotiation. It was obviously very important to the GXII team that they would have a risk free way to recoup their original investment, and likely make a decent chunk of money if we assume the share price stays above ~$1.70.
We can get into the agreements with the underwriters and GX advisors later if you’d like.
Please tell me where I said Niocorp was a “fantastic” project.
The company spent $20MM to get $15MM.
The founders spent $8.5MM to get 4.5 million shares (worth over $20MM today) tradeable in seven months in addition to 3.4 million shares if the price gets back to its highs, plus all of their warrants.
Can’t wait for the spin, but those are the basic facts. Risk free, unless you think sub $2 is a real possibility within 8 months.
They invested that $8.5MM in GXII warrants long before they were in discussions with NioCorp. Why do you keep conflating this with an investment in Niocorp?
If you’d like to look at it from that standpoint, would you mind putting together a consolidated transaction report showing the dollars GXII sponsors have invested in Niocorp by way of the agreement and everything they have received in return?
I’ll even give you the benefit of the doubt and just ignore the $20MM spac fee since we don’t know exactly how much of that went back to the sponsors.
I’ll give you a head start: the 4.65 million shares they will have next March covers more than the initial investment in GXII, assuming at least the stock doesn’t drop much below $2 by then, but I doubt that will happen.
Did you bother to ask yourself why every other GXII investor redeemed their shares except for the sponsors? Does anyone really think the sponsors stuck around because they believed in the project and not because they were taking advantage of a one sided deal from a purely financial standpoint?
Risk free for the counterparty, just like every other deal except for the sucker one Nordmin agreed with to advance ground freezing engineering. They won’t touch this with a ten foot ground rod now, but of course they ended up ok in the end and left shareholders holding that small bag too.
MS isn’t a world class negotiator. He’s a literal mark for the big boys and a grifter to the rest.
You might be surprised. Some of us apparently wield quite a bit of power.
If you sold shares to buy the warrants and lower your risk profile it may have made sense. If you simply did it to invest more in the company via warrants instead of outright shares you still increased your exposure to the company. So it’s dumb if you are actually looking at it from a risk standpoint. You didn’t decrease risk, you just took on less than you would have if you bought more shares directly.