Thanks for the additional points there Pledge.
I'm aware that BAT has an Altas Iron club feel to it (DF, JS, TW). Despite that, DF and JS are very much different people with different skill sets. I don't know either of them personally (met DF once at a conference), but people on the inside at Atlas Iron have told me that JS was the guy behind the scenes keeping Atlas Iron afloat operationally when the creditors were circling a few years back. Pretty good operator I hear. Plant that ethos into BAT and the company will have a different feel to when DF was in day to day control. Granted DF is still Chair so has some influence, but for where the company is at, I think JS is a better fit. The challenge (one of many) is for JS to transfer his good operating skills into Africa (I don't think he has any experience there) and also the corporate environment (DF has much more of this experience).
I respectfully disagree on the funding skillset. Yes, it is the next biggest thing to do for the company, but the normal process is for a company to appoint a financial advisor to structure and source project debt (sometimes the company has the skills in-house though via the CFO or certain board members). In BAT's case, I don't think they have these skills, hence the appointment of the advisors. The financing period, depending on the project fundamentals, complexity and environment could be 6-12mths. The lead financing person is integral in this period, but ultimately they are feeding into the greater development of the company, which is being led by the MD/CEO. Once the financing job is done, the financial advisor goes and works on another project's needs. That's why you need the 'operators' there as the mainstay. For this type of company, it makes abundant sense for a resources professional to be running the show with a specialist project funding advisor to be feeding in on the side. There are many shops around that provide this type of service (Blackbird, Noah's Rule, etc).
The last advisors (Origin???) seem to have been a bit of a waste of time (not sure if they were paid money for failing to deliver much). This happened under DF's watch so while unfortunate, I don't think JS can be blamed for that one. I just hope these new advisors have been properly screened and their agreement with BAT is structured such that if they don't deliver, their remuneration reflective of that. I get the feeling that the new advisor is being paid to "find" money and not just "structure" the financing - a key distinction - and I don't really know why it is part of their mandate.
Cash burn - yes, always a problem for a capital consuming junior. Totally agree that there seems to have been largess in the past and I think it is crazy for some of the project to have been built before the full finance package was locked away. Again, this happened under DF's watch and not the new guy. I've got no doubt that JS would be reflective of this and would love to have the cash in the back that was ploughed into the site construction works (that are currently without purpose). Lesson learned. We just have to accept the fact that a capital raise will occur at some stage and hope that the dilution effect isn't too much. BAT mentioned that they had cut a fair chunk of costs - necessary. JS is getting paid circa $360k (plus super) - while maybe a touch high, this isn't too far off that type of role in these types of companies gets - get rid of JS and you just need to pay recruitment costs for another MD on the same pay (it's always a range...I can think of a few MD's in truly dead companies on a lot more....BAT isn't dead).
I really hope 2020 marks the onset of the EV change and graphite demand. Who really knows whether it is 2020 or 2025 when demand outstrips supply - these things are forecasts cooked up by analysts using the best available data, but it is never precise. I think we can both agree though that the longer term fundamentals are good. Even if it is 2025, you will see movement in the market before that - and BAT will be moving the project ahead anyway - so it isn't really the case of the current cash at bank needing to last until 2025. Totally agree that minimising cash burn is improtant - but you know the other important thing....that's getting the share price up from 0.8c/sh now (EV of A$11M) up to something that reflects the value of the asset so that when the capital raise does come around, we are raising money at 5-10c/sh rather than 0.5c/sh - so much less dilution.
Don't get me wrong, I think BAT hasn't been a good ride for a lot of people and certain people have accountability for some poor decisions made, but as a recent investor (who has still lost 60% of my money!!) I'm more interested in the way forward.
Expand
(20min delay)