What's the catch with the CAPEX?
I thought SS2 showed quick pay-back metrics.
Maybe: CAPEX is too high relative to the market cap, so a capital raise to fund a decent proportion is off the cards, and they even think a loan is unlikely?
Or maybe a smaller scale start-up is simply reducing risk all round (maybe large investors keep bringing this up). Eg. snow-road scenario could be unviable with a big start-up, but viable with a small start-up. In which case, a lower CAPEX scenario would help to cut out 1 risk (if the road didn't happen).
Maybe if the road happened, or the market cap rose, it would allow us to transition back to a higher CAPEX scenario.
Or maybe they are quite confident in the idea of agglomeration heap leach, and think it will boost certain metrics, while cutting CAPEX at the same time - making funding/construction more likely.
Us retailers seem quite focused on NPV. But might instos be more focused on probabilities, confidence and minimizing down-side risk? Cutting CAPEX may be a way of cutting down on risk (even if it reduced NPV, as long as it was increasing the odds of actually realising that NPV).
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- NVA
- Ann: Nova Progresses NASDAQ Dual Listing in the US
Ann: Nova Progresses NASDAQ Dual Listing in the US, page-47
Featured News
Add NVA (ASX) to my watchlist
|
|||||
Last
18.5¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $39.78M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | 0.0¢ | $0 | 0 |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
3 | 10144 | 18.5¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
18.0¢ | 10286 | 1 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 15719 | 0.185 |
5 | 102541 | 0.180 |
4 | 70000 | 0.175 |
4 | 129650 | 0.170 |
1 | 50000 | 0.165 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.180 | 10286 | 1 |
0.185 | 601 | 1 |
0.190 | 128562 | 3 |
0.200 | 5000 | 1 |
0.210 | 40216 | 4 |
Last trade - 09.54am 28/06/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
NVA (ASX) Chart |
Day chart unavailable