Please don't try putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my position. I carefully explained the inconsistencies as I estimate them based on fundamental analysis. I will post the formulas with further explanation given the questions I raised, but you're carry on about "fraudulent 3x inflation in resource estimates by Hastings" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding in what I posted.
For clarity, again, my main concern is revenue way above what Gross US$112/kg NdPr could generate after expenses. Given the type of assumptions my spreadsheet required (eg dividing LOM figures by mine life to arrive at annual averages) the large quantum of error corrected to within significant figures when I substituted a typical Net NdPr payable price (eg 75% of pre-VAT, Fees, Margin etc) with the quoted Gross price.
The situation has nothing to do with resource estimates, and how or even if such an error occurred is not something I'll pursue with the company. I never held HAS (long or short), no harm no foul, only sharing my research with fellow HC holders who may find it useful and/or worth taking up with the company. I've had little joy or straight correspondence with management generally over a long investment history. Take what they say with a pinch of salt and DYOR is my advice, plenty of situations turn out different to what was described. I find mistakes all the time but so what, keep holding or move on if it's too much a red flag.
Here's a dirty little secret for free. When independent experts do a review for lenders, the catch phrase is "We're pleased to announcement the review was completed and no fatal flaws found". Well, fatal is fatal... but it's the way too low expenses, too optimistic capex, too fast ramp up, too high recoveries, or too low dilution or ore loss etc independent expert might report that never gets released for 'market consideration' is the problem. Errors, assumptions, extrapolations from old quotes, company provided costings... "it's only one person's opinion, and a conservative person at that" the company might say. It's a rabbit hole i only go down looking for very material errors or discrepancies. Too many variables and gilding the lily to sweat the small stuff.
Bottom line, way too many investors take what is fed them in releases without doing enough DD to consider whether the spin is a reasonable reflection of the situation. Wyloo's "Investment" into HAS a case in point.
Technically speaking, buying a bond or convertible note is an "investment'. I bought a huge amount of bonds last six months and my investment portfolio now resembles a traditional 60:40 for the first time in my life. Realistically, lending $150M for 3 years at 9% +BBSW (now about 13%pa), secured against third party share investments and the company's other assets, with an added equity call option (no requirement) at the lender's discretion, is not a "cornerstone investment" IMHO. Reads well in the headline, markets loved it for a week until they got whacked with a CR, call me cycnical, but con-notes way out of the money are not cornerstone investments. Looks to me more like rising damp...
Who knows what due diligence if any our water-walker made before lending one-fitty large to HAS for "a strategic stake in Neo and exposure to the global downstream processing of rare earth materials into magnets" (which I took to mean leverage over one of the few western companies who could lock in an off-take on Yangi MREC). I have enough respect to assume even Twig doesn;t punt $150M without his team doing some DD. I'ts all subjective speculation of course, and I like to speculate, but Wyloo clearly had the chance to help with the CR at $4 before they did the con-note given HAS was trading $4.25. Only a modest discount to bless the project with such a cornerstone investor, yes? Market must have misunderstood it seems, because they chased the price up to Twiggy's $5.50 investment conversion price, which as I explained is no sure investment at all. In fact, at $3.25 today, the chances of Twigg converting to shares is looking slim indeed, no?
From $6 in Feb 22 when the DFS was released until today it's been a joyless ride other than the Wyloo con-note pump (which I'm on record saying was CR of the year imo). I could be wrong about the revenue over-estimation, there may be a reasonable explanation, in which case something else must be scaring the horses. ARU has doubled since Nov'22, maybe because the Rheinharts actually invested risk-equity confidence into the project instead of smoke and mirror call options? I take no joy from this chart, other than trying to solve the puzzle why.
Speaking of puzzles, I'll never get around to posting the spreadsheet with formula's and better explanation if I keep up this banter. I've given you the time and respect of multiple reply's. I can explain it for you, I can't understand it for you. Don;t be offended if this is my last reply.
Good luck
HAS Price at posting:
$3.25 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)