amazing, page-44

Hi Thorin. I know what your saying on the house sales in the UK. I sold one 5x myself and eventually down 20%.

Thanks for your post. You've probably noticed I find it very hard to figure out how anyone can be bullish about CCC. I perhaps don't read enough posts but this is the first one to me that outlines a rationale.

On Vanmag. I can see what your saying. I haven't emphasised Vanmag a lot myself. In fact after the general meeting I think I posted that I though it could really happen this time. Agreed tho at the very least not well communicated at times. Also. Have to put it in context. CCC have announced a lot of stuff has pushed the stock up at the time and then never happened. I have emphasised in the past finance announced of what, $180m or something with only a small amount drawn. Drawing the project finance facility does help that drawdown ratio a bit.

On defamation. Think nothing of it. I try and be careful about that myself. I don't think I crossed the line then but you may be right that I should have been more careful in my wording. I appreciate you pointing it out rather than reporting me to the mods. I must say I respect the fact that CCC don't get involved here moderating critical posts as managment do regulary on another stock I following. (I hope I haven't just given them an idea!).

On refinancing the note, I guess I ignore their significant progress comment due to my more negative view of management. I tend to think they make positive comments fairly easily. And even if they are close, its likely to be a dilutive financing not debt. Although the details provided will no doubt try and make it look at debt like as possible. Similar to the recent "standby" facility. I can see how you get some confidence from that though and you may be right. They didn't have to mention the convert at this stage.

I'll read the open briefing with interest when I have a second. Rushing now. I don't remember seeing that at the time.

On the Investec report, it would be good to see details. In my view without them its worthless. It does seem very flawed for the reasons I've given and more. It is definitely low quality. You really need to talk about the BEE structure etc to tell the story. Some of the worst analysts hide behind lack of details. It shields them from critism. To me here they have provided too much in fact from that point of view. Its obviously wrong. I know there are conservative aspects. From memory they gave Ferriera a negative value from memory. But still way wrong.

Anyway, out of time. Thanks for your post Thorin. It was a useful one for me.