Share
508 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 97
clock Created with Sketch.
30/03/23
12:18
Share
Originally posted by SweatEquity:
↑
I appreciate your attempt to sound knowledgeable, but attacking my character is not a valid argument. Let's stick to the facts, shall we? It is indeed common practice for credible lenders to require additional compensation from free cash flow as a condition of providing debt financing. This is because lenders assume a certain level of risk when they provide loans, and they need to ensure they receive a return on their investment that compensates them for this risk. Furthermore, lenders typically require some form of security or collateral to protect their investment in case of default. This is a normal part of the lending process, and it is not uncommon for lenders to require additional compensation from free cash flow as an added layer of protection. In fact, this type of requirement is often included in loan covenants, which are contractual agreements between lenders and borrowers that outline the terms and conditions of the loan. Loan covenants are designed to protect the lender's interests and ensure that the borrower meets its obligations under the loan agreement.Overall, requiring additional compensation from free cash flow is standard practice for credible lenders, and it is not necessarily a cause for concern. It is simply part of the lending process, and borrowers should be aware of this requirement when seeking financing. Secondly, it's premature to guess the exact interest rate without further information or analysis, and assuming that the risk-free rate of return has moved significantly north over the last 12 months is not necessarily accurate. As you've said, the devil will be in the details, and I look forward to seeing how this financing deal plays out. Here are some sources that support the notion that lenders may be entitled to additional funds from free cash flow as part of a debt agreement: "Lenders often include a financial covenant that allows them to be paid additional principal when a borrower generates excess cash flow."Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialcovenant.asp "Any amounts of Free Cash Flow in excess of the threshold amount shall be subject to mandatory prepayment, with the prepayment amount equal to 50% of such excess."Source: https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/mandatory-prepayments-of-loans-where-applicable/iiEVEzW6I8o "Lenders can impose cash sweep provisions to ensure that a company sets aside a portion of its free cash flow to repay the loan." https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/08/16/what-is-a-cash-sweep-and-how-does-it-impact-your-business-loan/?sh=49a2147f12cc
Expand
The sources you quoted are talking about extra principal repayments from free cashflow (i.e. extra debt repayment). The text in the release explicitly word it as a proportion of cashflow after tax and debt (i.e. royalty?). Other than the percentage, the other question is, will this be for the life of the mine or the debt? I don't think royalty incentives are as common as you say it is. The closest one I have seen in recent years is Sprott financing for GPR, where they worded it as "discounted" gold payment stream. That didn't quite work out at the end. Most funding terms I have seen only include offtake/hedging/cash balance requirements to make sure that you can pay them back. This one is definitely a bit more "predatory".