Why account for dilution when I'm talking about bench marking % of NPV paid for acquisition of projects in recent scheme of arrangements for takeover.
In my view, once FEED is completed, the CAPEX is known and SMS provide their product guarantee, Mt. Peake = turnkey project = sitting duck. The project is de-risked at an operational level at that time. A potential suitor with deep pockets doesn't need Kfw financing and EIS is just a formality/process.
On the other scenario being production, dilution is definitely a risk as highlighted in my earlier post yesterday. In TNGs specific case, depends on BOOT and Kfw final figure as highlighted in the extract below: Plenty of other miners that have built on 100% debt so it’s not unheard of.
"If we can get the full ticket size of USD600m from Kfw (AUD880m), there is limited dilution as our primary CAPEX is fully funded (on what is known today). The risk on dilution is the BOOT model (currently pegged at AUD562m) however suspect a significant reduction on the back of improvements to the Titanium process and the shift from pig iron to 64% hematite. If the BOOT model is not feasible and needs to be funded, that is a large amount of mezz and/or equity”.
Why account for dilution when I'm talking about bench marking %...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 10 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
