Share
13,108 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 8796
clock Created with Sketch. 02/04/24
00:23
Share
Originally posted by dynofish
↑
I am commenting on an opinion basis, but I do have experience is bank credit risk management including of syndicated facilities during my working life. There have been a couple of important lead up issues...firstly, there's the extremely dramatic fall in the spot pricing that was the result of a flood of new low grade lithium ore being mined in China and/or direct shipping ore ie. not concentrate, being transported half way around the world to Chinese refiners....this followed on the heels of the extremely high pricing from late 2022 and first half of 2023. Even LTR imagined that we might be able to ship our "waste" ore sitting on the ROM pad to meet any finance needs we had. Secondly, this fall in pricing continued after LTR finalised its funding package in October 2023. That fall led to the lenders invoking a rarely used "material adverse change" clause in preliminary documentation (my assumption). As that was before a formal funding document had been executed and draw down of funds to repay Ford, we avoided the more serious consequence then of a breach of potential debt service covenants etc. Such a breach would have possibly restricted our ability to manage through the funding process. The existing financing through Ford remained in place. So, in the knowledge of a prevailing pricing regime that would make our economics marginal, management went to work to renegotiate. They were able to agree to revise their mine plan and other operating parameters based upon their belief and expectation that it could, and would be done to the satisfaction of the lenders. That is not a negative! LTR Management is in control of our own destiny. They know what is possible but need time to provide the necessary supporting material as part of their reviewed plans. We have even had the CEO saying that the new package from banks may never even be drawn down as it may be superseded by a separate long term funding package by end of June. I am certain that Tony Ottoviano and his CFO would not have effectively put their jobs on the line unless they were supremely confident of producing the goods to the banks that will deliver the working capital financing etc. Remember that we have more than enough funding to complete the project. So enough about some imaginary dire problem that we face...NO! To add massively to our confidence, we are seeing the very issues that were the cause of the finance being in question rapidly reducing in magnitude. Numerous "analysts" are revising their warnings about future lower prices. We are also seeing projects being put on hold and DSO shipping evaporating, so future supply is not growing at the previously forecast pace. On the demand side we are also seeing record EV sales out of China and global sales expected now to exceed previous bullish forecasts. We will likely not be able to see the long term price forecasts, but I'd be virtually certain that Woodmac even has again changed its long term price outlook in our favour to reflect the reality of the current market conditions. We also see the likes of MinRes powering ahead with its own long term consolidation plans and investing in its lithium division big time! So yes, we do have to provide our lending banks and Government lending agencies with evidence of our future solvency under a revised plan. Am I concerned about this? Let me say "I am not", because of all of the above reasons, and the fact that our management remains in control of our destiny. Regards
Expand
“the CEO saying that the new package from banks may never even be drawn down as it may be superseded by a separate long term funding package by end of June.”
Last edited by
vmp :
02/04/24
(20min delay)
